Maine rejects gay marriage Options

[Audeamus]

That's one theory about male homosexuality. It's that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the younger ones are gay.

Are there any studies into lesbians? Seems like most of the research is focused on male homosexuality.

(I'm a first/only son and my mom hit the mark the first time).

Our mothers hit the lottery it seems.

but if we accept everybody than who will we blame for the moral decay of our society?

Pedophiles, it's still okay to blame them, right?

This post has been edited by Audeamus: Nov 8 2009, 11:35 AM

[Lamuella]

I had precisely this response typed out a half hour ago.

Then I decided it was in bad taste.

possibly. It's actually a pro-jew comment disguised as an anti-jew one. I'm just recognizing their status in most of the world for the last couple of hundred years as your one stop blame shop

[Ethan Smith]

possibly. It's actually a pro-jew comment disguised as an anti-jew one. I'm just recognizing their status in most of the world for the last couple of hundred years as your one stop blame shop

I honestly find it darkly hilarious that we manage to blame Jews for EVERYTHING.

Fun facts-

-We blamed Jews for the black plague
-The pseudoscience based on forehead size = smartness was invented to show that Jews weren't smart
-There was a pogrom in Argentina.

[BaronUberstein]

Are there any studies into lesbians? Seems like most of the research is focused on male homosexuality.

The scientists studying the lesbians were too distracted to complete the studies.

[Ethan Smith]

Director of project--Damnit man, we've had NINE HUNDRED trials on whether sexual intercourse will change a woman's sexual preference!
Scientist--This is an important topic!

[Sargun]

Christianity changed the purpose and meaning of marriage from a business deal between families to the loving and equal partnership between a consenting man and a consenting woman.

The United States of America was not founded on the principles of Christianity. Citing a 2000 (?) year old book that only a portion of the Christian faithful actually follow in order to convince me that it was changed entirely doesn't work too well. Despite what the Bible attempted to change, it was still a business deal between families for the majority of history in Europe (you know, that place with all the Christians) that even continued into the 19th century. If you're saying it changed the purpose and meaning, I hope you include the 1500+ year delay.

@Ethan: Didn't the whole "force the Jews into eastern europe cause of the plague" really make the Holocaust worse because of the mass concentration of Jews? I don't really want to derail but my education on the topic was very, ah, lacking.

This post has been edited by Sargun: Nov 8 2009, 06:51 AM

[Sargun]

Are there any studies into lesbians? Seems like most of the research is focused on male homosexuality.

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.
2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.
3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).
4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.
5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.
6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

[Prince Imrahil]

Are there any studies into lesbians? Seems like most of the research is focused on male homosexuality.

I don't know of any, but then again, my knowledge of women in general is more limited than that of most men

but if we accept everybody than who will we blame for the moral decay of our society?

Ironically, I blame religious fanatics (regardless of their religion). Here in the States, it's mostly the Christian right that supports a culture that shames a lot of gay teens (and other people) into committing suicide, but I'm getting wide of the topic at hand.

This post has been edited by Prince Imrahil: Nov 8 2009, 09:44 AM

[Jakevy Jacob XXV...]

Logic cannot be denied based on the idea of the noble savage or a few genuine followers of a Jewish man by the name of Jesus. I see no flaw in my logic, but if you could find any I would be glad to be notified of them.



I said that liberty is incompatible with religion, not that liberty sprung up from secular society. The historical roots of the concept of liberty are in classical Greece, with its invention of philosophy, democracy, etc. The ancient Greeks, of course, were, in fact, religious, though interestingly enough their gods were not infallible, almighty beings, afaik.



A free society would be non-religious. There has never been a truly free society, with a scarce few near-exceptions.

Jesus's teachings of universal brotherhood/sisterhood and all that are not incompatible with liberty, either. However, the belief that Jesus was a prophet/extension of the divine is, because if we need God to come down here and tell us how to do things, that means that humans are inherently bad and incapable of self-governance, thus requiring the imposition of divine authority (through some political elite) on us.

I would say that the flaw in your argument is the assertion that the existence of something 'perfect' means necessarily defines everything else as absolutely worthless. Just because a god existed wouldn't make humanity incapable of self-governance, it would just mean we would probably not govern ourselves as well as the god might.

You can't raise a child that doesn't exist.

Okay.....she *was* in a relationship that resulted in a child.....what exactly is it that you're arguing? The relationship is special...when you leave it, you're no longer under its special status.

So what you're saying is that anyone mid-coitus should be entitled to a tax break? Brilliant!

Why because you can't argue using logic? Because you can't get from point A to point B? The child was produced because of the relationship between a man and a woman - nothing else. That's the ONLY way you can produce a child. The ONLY way you can have one. So that relationship is therefore SPECIAL! Everyone reading this now was the result of that special relationship. That you are too bigoted and have so much hatred inside of you for society and the status quo is completely irrelevent. I know its hard to be whooped on in an argument by one of those 'damn racist bigoted rightwingers' but it just happened.

Man + Man = Nothing
Woman + Woman = Nothing
Man + Woman = Child?

Only possible in one of the relationships - which one is not like the other, children? I'll help you along. It's the relationship between a man and a woman. That relationship is special - therefore people who wish to confirm their special relationship get to retain a special status.

Congradulations, you've just been schooled as to why the American people don't want gay "marriage" jammed down their throats.

By this logic, men should all have more than one wife, as with careful choosing you could get two women who are each at their most fertile during opposite ends of the month and so dramatically increase the chances that the grouping will have children. I trust you can be expected to lend your full weight to legislation permitting, nay, encouraging polygamy?

[Audeamus]

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.
2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.
3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).
4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.
5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.
6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

Sounds like we need more guys raised by lesbians.

Also, sauce?

This post has been edited by Audeamus: Nov 8 2009, 10:59 AM

[Prince Imrahil]

Only possible in one of the relationships - which one is not like the other, children? I'll help you along. It's the relationship between a man and a woman. That relationship is special - therefore people who wish to confirm their special relationship get to retain a special status.

So you're saying that man/woman relationships are special? Each and every one? Even the one's where one beats/abuses or cheats on the other? That's reprehensible.

Another thing you get wrong is thinking that straight couples wish to confirm their relationship on the sole basis that it's between a man and a woman. They wish to confirm their relationship because they love each other, just as same-sex couples do. It's the love that makes it special, not the gender make-up of the couple.

[ronaldmcdonald9]

Note the "wives, submit to your husbands" part. Also, note everything else you cited.

Note the

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [...] 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. [...] 33[...] each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

And since you mistake this

23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

to be a demonstration that Christianity is highly patriarchal, consider that this is what it means "to be the head of" someone in Christianity:

42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Judaism, and Christianity by extension, is highly patriarchal, with women being far below men on the social hierarchy.

Perhaps Judaism is highly patriarchal, but Christianity is not.

"Christian anarchists" are shunned by the Church. They naively believe in the divine and Jesus's teachings (Jesus being the ancient Jewish person I was referring to), but completely reject the idea of authority, realizing that it prohibits people from realizing Jesus's teachings of brotherly love and all that.

What "the Church" are you specifically referring to?

While that bit about Christianity being necessary for liberty makes no sense whatsoever, I must re-iterate that if we attribute all that is good to God, ANY authority necessarily is derived from God, as humans, being mortal, embody everything that God is not, particularly incompetence to rule themselves.

You haven't yet addressed the main flaw in your argument. How does the assertion that "ANY authority necessarily is derived from God" imply that "divine authority [must be imposed] through some political elite"?

The Greeks also didn't know about general relativity. That doesn't mean we can't credit them for inventing science. Yes, they were primitive, but the point is that they invented the ideas upon which modern liberty is based.

Science as we know it today was invented by Catholic clergy following the Counter-Reformation.

Yet again, if the divine exists, then liberty is impossible, as humans will be under the authority of God and incapable of self-determination. A necessary condition of a free society, therefore, is the non-existence of the divine.

God gave us free will and the freedom to choose to submit to God or to reject God. I don't see how much more freedom you can expect than that. I'd like to see how in your God-free worldview you can account for free will. If the universe is deterministic then free will cannot possibly exist. If everything in the universe is governed by microscopic random phenomena, I don't see how this can constitute free will either. I think you should also define precisely what you mean by "freedom" and "liberty" because I'm not sure what you mean anymore.

I will ignore your reference to Marx, given that I am far more opposed to his ideology than you are (on the basis that I have a far greater understanding of Marxist philosophy, and therefore its authoritarian character).

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that you have a far greater understanding of Marxist philosophy than I do.

This post has been edited by ronaldmcdonald9: Nov 8 2009, 04:53 PM

[Gustave5436]

That's one theory about male homosexuality. It's that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the younger ones are gay. But like I said, it's merely a theory (I'm a first/only son and my mom hit the mark the first time).

Specifically, a theoretical contributing factor, not a theoretical causative factor. Human sexuality is much too complex for such a simple explanation.

Sounds like we need more guys raised by lesbians.

This was, incidentally, what I was implying when I mentioned that same-sex couples (at least involving females, I forget the specifics of the statistic) were less likely to use corporal punishment (i.e. physical abuse) with their children.

The scientists studying the lesbians were too distracted to complete the studies.

The serious answer is that they never got the funding to start their studies because patriarchal society is androcentric.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: Nov 8 2009, 05:47 PM

[Prince Imrahil]

Specifically, a theoretical contributing factor, not a theoretical causative factor. Human sexuality is much too complex for such a simple explanation.

I know, it just wasn't really worth it to go into detail (and I'd have had to research to do so). Plus I offered myself as an example to the theory not being bulletproof.

Congratulations, you've just been schooled as to why the American people don't want gay "marriage" jammed down their throats.

The south (and some other places too) didn't want slavery abolition forced down their throats either. Does that mean emancipation was a bad thing? Of course not.