Gay Marriage

[stewiejp]

Just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing <sigh> and for the life of me, I cannot see how the whole Gay Marriage thing is an issue. Can't see how it affects anyone other than the couple getting married.

It seems people who are against it, are more against the use of the word "marriage" than against the relationship between the two people. Is it that big a deal? Do the people against gays' use of the "M" word protest when two companies "marry", or when a carpenter "married up" two pieces of wood to make a shelf? Surely all this protesting/arguments can't just be because of one word. If I decided to call myself a unicorn, would there be ramifications?

Marriage = making babies? So people (straight) over a certain age shouldn't marry? What about couples who are not interested in having kids?
Kids will get picked on? Of course they will. They will be picked on because of their height, weight, footy team, hair colour, ethnic background, religion, and yes - their parents. That's life, and a part of growing up in this country.

If two people are lucky enough to find each other, fall in love and decide they want to declare their love publicly - to their friends, family and whoever else they choose - who has the right to stop them? Good on em I say.

 

[Logique]

It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.

It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.

What about the human rights of the children that married gays in NZ will now be entitled to adopt. Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority.

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.

 

[Tink]

It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.

It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.

What about the human rights of the children that married gays in NZ will now be entitled to adopt. Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority.

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.

Excellent post Logique
The children are my concern, why dont they ask their opinion.
A mother and a father are both important.

 

[pavilion103]

Excellent post Logique
The children are my concern, why dont they ask their opinion.
A mother and a father are both important.

+1

Many won't see the implications of this until many years down the track.

 

[stewiejp]

As far as kids are concerned, yes they must take priority over anything or anyone else, including the parents' to be's wishes, and it opens up a whole new argument.

I would argue the hurdles of going through the adoption process for any couple (which can take years) should show how determined they are to do a good job parenting.
I fail to see how a child would be worse off than some single parent children, or children from less than ideal circumstances. Eg alcohol/drug taking parents, parents who can't afford to look after them, parents who don't know how to look after a child, abusive families... the list goes on. We can't legislate against "bad parenting" couples, and I think the usual checks which go with adoption could sort the good from the bad to some extent.

At times I work with some pretty disturbed kids, and more often than not they come from dysfunctional families, against a backdrop of alcohol, drugs and/or abuse. One would hope the adoption process aims to address this problem.

Having said that, a lot of single parents do an excellent job - my mother being one of them.

 

[Julia]

Just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing <sigh> and for the life of me, I cannot see how the whole Gay Marriage thing is an issue. Can't see how it affects anyone other than the couple getting married.

It seems people who are against it, are more against the use of the word "marriage" than against the relationship between the two people. Is it that big a deal? Do the people against gays' use of the "M" word protest when two companies "marry", or when a carpenter "married up" two pieces of wood to make a shelf? Surely all this protesting/arguments can't just be because of one word. If I decided to call myself a unicorn, would there be ramifications?

Marriage = making babies? So people (straight) over a certain age shouldn't marry? What about couples who are not interested in having kids?
Kids will get picked on? Of course they will. They will be picked on because of their height, weight, footy team, hair colour, ethnic background, religion, and yes - their parents. That's life, and a part of growing up in this country.

If two people are lucky enough to find each other, fall in love and decide they want to declare their love publicly - to their friends, family and whoever else they choose - who has the right to stop them? Good on em I say.

A couple of decades ago anyone suggesting homosexuals would marry would be laughed at. Never happen, it was declared. Now, at least in NZ, they can, on the basis that they are two people who love each other. It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another. Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?

If the loving one another is the basis for it - and there is no legal implication because homosexual couples already have full legal equality in their civil unions in most instances - then presumably relationships between multiple people should be legitimate.

I'm not surprised to learn that these married homosexuals in NZ now have full rights to adopt children.
Given the taxpayer has already been funding IVF for lesbians, adoption would seem inevitable.

Whenever there are discussions about voluntary euthanasia, people raise the notion of 'the slippery slope'.
Imo there's scope for that same principle to be considered here.

PS On Lateline last night, in the story about the passing of the marriage law in NZ, there was brief photo footage of a bunch of blokes cavorting around in long, white dresses. What a joke!

 

[Gringotts Bank]

When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father. "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say. That would be awkward.

On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause. Learned perhaps?

 

[banco]

It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.

It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.

What about the human rights of the children that married gays in NZ will now be entitled to adopt. Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority.

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.

The same argument was used about mixed race couples back in the day: "think about the children".

 

[stewiejp]

It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another. Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?

I wouldn't be surprised if happened eventually. I just hope the vicar/priest/celebrant/minister etc takes his or her legal obligation of not marrying anyone he or she feels is being coerced or an unwilling participant seriously.

Agree the blokes in wedding frocks looked ridiculous, but they weren't hurting anyone I guess.

 

[bellenuit]

I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause.

I have never heard heredity being mentioned as the cause, never mind being mentioned as even a factor in the cause of homosexuality. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's something I haven't heard mentioned.

IMO the swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal" in society and there is much less reason to hide in the closet, at least in western societies. It doesn't have the stigma attached to it as it previously had. .

 

[Macquack]

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.

They are obviously all lefties and greenies.

Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority.

What is your plan for single mothers and single fathers, put their children in the care of the state?

 

[Whiskers]

Imo there's scope for that same principle to be considered here.

Not just principle, but real understanding of the nature of homosexuality.

It's been represented as a human rights issue, but really it goes far beyond that. It's social engineering.

It's about our constitution, our family and societal values, privilege and and the creeping entitlement mentality.

What about the human rights of the children that married gays in NZ will now be entitled to adopt. Two same-sex parents is better than no parents, I'll concede that, but children are entitled to a mother and a father, and this should take priority.

When gay marriage advocates come clean on their full agenda, that's when I'll think about supporting them.

Logique, this is a very profound statement.

It's not all that unusual for three or more people to be involved in a consensual relationship where they all profess to love one another. Are we going to be equally sanguine about endorsing marriage for this?

If the loving one another is the basis for it - and there is no legal implication because homosexual couples already have full legal equality in their civil unions in most instances - then presumably relationships between multiple people should be legitimate.

...Whenever there are discussions about voluntary euthanasia, people raise the notion of 'the slippery slope'.

Key word here:

sanquine - no concern or embarrassment, ignoring the evidence about the nature of homosexuality
slippery slope - a course of action that leads to unintended consequences​

When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father. "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say. That would be awkward.

On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause. Learned perhaps?

I have never heard heredity being mentioned as the cause, never mind being mentioned as even a factor in the cause of homosexuality. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's something I haven't heard mentioned.

IMO the swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal" in society and there is much less reason to hide in the closet, at least in western societies. It doesn't have the stigma attached to it as it previously had. .

There is a heredity association. Follow the links from here for more detail: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

​

The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks ”” extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased ”” they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.

What is your plan for single mothers and single fathers, put their children in the care of the state?

The whole notion of marriage has evolved as a moral, ethical and legal basis for people to pool their resources, live together and raise children. It's a starting point designed to give the best social and legal basis for parents to raise children, not a transaction point that necessairly determines the care of children.

One should ask why there is a "big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality" without being 'sanquine' about it. Consider the how, when, where and why. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... the 'slippery slope' that ill-considered decisions lead to.

The "swing towards homosexuality is most likely due to it being now accepted as a form of "normal""... populism, claiming to represent the common people, the political philosophy supporting the rights and power of gays in their perceived struggle against the privileged elite. Populism is a play on basic human emotion to be accepted by others.

There is a biological reason why gay people are gay... learn it and understand the ramifications of it. It doesn't demean gays as humans, but to ignore it corrodes the notion of marriage... the social implications of moral, ethical and legal basis for people to pool their resources, live together and raise children.

Once corrosion gets to a critical point the structure breaks... the slippery slope begins.

The populus push for gay marriage is not about equal rights... it's just about being popular... vanity.

The term 'gay rights' is typically used as the populus wrench on emotions... BUT with rights there always comes responsibilities... the long term implications. Ignore them at your peril.

 

[bellenuit]

Whiskers,

I've read your referenced article about the suggested hereditary aspects of homosexuality, but it would appear to be far from conclusive. Kinsey came up with quite different conclusions.

"If all persons with any trace of homosexual history, or those who were predominantly homosexual, were eliminated from the population today, there is no reason for believing that the incidence of the homosexual in the next generation would be materially reduced. The homosexual has been a significant part of human sexual activity since the dawn of history, primarily because it is an expression of capacities that are basic in the human animal" (Kinsey et al., 1948:666).

http://www.queerbychoice.com/dubay_homosexuality.html

IMO, people who have a sexual orientation to be gay have as much rights as others with respect to marriage. I don't see a slippery slope other than a slipper slope away from bigotry and towards acceptance. Marriage is basically a civil institution and should be available to everyone irrespective of the opinions of church leaders who add their own meanings to what marriage is about. That is for them to do, but for civil marriage their views are of no more value than any other citizen.

Adoption of children by gay people, polygamy and group marriages are also worthy of consideration. I am not saying they should be allowed, but those who espouse such arrangements have a right to make their case. I think we cannot deny gays the right to marry purely because we think they have an agenda and this is just the first step in achieving that agenda. Some may have, but we as a society we must treat every issue on its own merits. If workers are working a 45 hour week, do we deny them the right to a 40 hour week, even if we think that is right, because we are afraid that a few years down the track they will demand a 35 hour week.

It must be pretty clear that gay marriages will be legal in every western country within perhaps the next 20 years or so. Let's stop wasting time opposing it and embrace the change. It won't make a damn difference to any heterosexual marriage that exists today or in the future. If it did, what on earth were those marriages about that they have been impacted detrimentally? It may very well impact our "family and societal values", but they are constantly changing anyway and IMO, for the better. One only need look at the "family and societal values" of the 1950s to 1980s to see how the children of poor unmarried mothers were treated in the UK and Ireland to realise such values are not sacrosanct and may need revision.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers,

I've read your referenced article about the suggested hereditary aspects of homosexuality, but it would appear to be far from conclusive. Kinsey came up with quite different conclusions.

Yes, Kinsey did... but that research was abt 60 years ago. Science and genetics have moved a long way since then to this recent project. But the science on this issue has lagged considerably in the face of the gay community insisting they are normal and populus seeking politicians using them as a political power tool and by default, no interest in supporting research that may prove them wrong.

​

Public release date: 11-Dec-2012
[ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: Catherine Crawley
ccrawley@nimbios.org
865-974-9350
National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS)

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality


KNOXVILLE – Epigenetics – how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks – appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out – when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carryover between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized – some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php

While there needs more research, it seems fairly clear that some of those old concepts are at best incomplete and worst, completely on the wrong track.

It may very well impact our "family and societal values", but they are constantly changing anyway and IMO, for the better.

I'm referring to more than just "family and societal values"... the legal standard and framework for the structure of civilized society.

As you go on to point out family and societal values fluctuate from time to time, culture to culture and political persuasion of gov... a lot of subjective, emotional and sometimes abusive control influences, even though the concept of and intent of marriage has remained constant.

As it look a long time to understand many aspects of human like we should not be rushed into anything until the science is exhausted.

What would have happened if the science of say Down syndrome or Leprosy hadn't progressed to where it is today?

I'd suggest the same rationale used toward equality for homosexuality could likely be used today, there also... well maybe not, because of obvious appearence and intellectual descrepencies.

If the science is indicating a genetic malfunction which can be addressed with 'medicine', should that not be fully explored first and secondly, wouldn't that by definition re-classify homosexuality as an epigenetic/medical disorder?

Then, what of the concept of marriage?

Remembering the whole pretense of the 'gay movement' re marriage is to be treated as normal, if it is found to be a 'curable' epigenetic/medical issue, whould the whole notion of gay marriage be by definition an ill-conceived nonsense... not normal?

 

[Tink]

+1

Many won't see the implications of this until many years down the track.

Very true pavilion, and it saddens me for our children and future children, that biological parents arent important anymore to raise their children.
The standard is wrong for all future generations regarding marraige. It should be a sacred union for families. Whether people choose to have children its up to them but its a man and women that has a family.
We have changes in Victoria now about adoption and pushing through about children trying to find their biological parents.
This whole thing is just selfish and this human rights issue is going too far, from this thread to the jail thread. Victims arent being heard.
No matter how bad a parent is, mother or father, a child will always love them and want to know them -- everyone wants to know their roots. Just making a mockery of these childrens lives.

My opinion...

 

[Izabarack]

No matter how bad a parent is, mother or father, a child will always love them and want to know them -- everyone wants to know their roots.

This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others. The only absolute I do subscribe to is the right of people to self-determine their outcomes. Gay marriage will have no more negative effects on children than are currently available to those who have "bad" hetro parents.

Iza

 

[banco]

When the kids of gay parents become adults, they might sue the government that permitted them to be raised without a mother or father. "How could they have permitted such an abuse on my rights!" they will say. That would be awkward.

On another tack, I have noticed a big swing in young people towards gayness and bisexuality. So big that one might be tempted to rule out heredity as the cause. Learned perhaps?

So you think you could learn to be gay?

 

[Calliope]

This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others.

Nasty. Tink is not forcing her opinions on anyone. Her opinions are valued on this forum.

 

[pavilion103]

It isn't natural biologically.

Sexual desires can certainly be a product of environment. An extreme case is that of a pedophile. I don't think someone is born with a gene were they are sexually attracted to children. It may start with pr0n and then regular pr0n doesn't become as exciting so then teen pr0n, then preteen pr0n and then child pr0n. They have no idea how they got there, they didn't intend to, they weren't born that way but through their choices and the environment they exposed them self to right from the start it developed. Their brain has now become wired in this way.

They weren't born with it.

From an evolutionary point of view it doesn't make sense. Children are born of a mother and father. They genetically crave biological needs from both.

This isn't an equality issue. If its about our rights and we should have the right to love as we want then why not permit many wives or husbands? If everyone is consenting then who is the government to tell us how to live and love? Then children will have multiple mother and father influences.......
Can you see where this is going?

 

[pavilion103]

This would have to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I do wish people would stop trying to push their opinions on to others. The only absolute I do subscribe to is the right of people to self-determine their outcomes. Gay marriage will have no more negative effects on children than are currently available to those who have "bad" hetro parents.

Iza

Yet you can force your view? You can't see the irony? Get real or get out mate!