Thread: same sex marriages

Personally i believe that being a manc is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.(the only sensible one being euthanasia)

Weird that. I also think the same about scousers. Oh and mancs. And Southerners.

Up the Elland Rd!!!

Oh yes-no flaming. Cheers.

Originally posted by Clyde
....

Dick, you didn't leave any for anyone else!

1: Marriage is intended, traditionally, for a Male and Female. Not male and male, or female and female.

tradition isn't good grounds for that... at one point slavery was a tradition...

2: Why should gay or lesbian people care if their legal status was 'Married' or not? They can still wear a ring (if they desire), they can still live with eachother, they can still write agreements about property incase if they 'separate', and they can still celebrate a wedding together. They just wont get a certificate that says "You are married. blah blah" - big deal.

so why not ban marriage all together? why does anybody need to be married in real life?

3: IF gay's or lesbians start marrying eachother we'll probably end up with people who want to change their name from Mr. to Mrs. or vice versa. Which is completely retarded, and I don't care about what rights you think you have. If your male you're a Mr., If youre female you're a Mrs.

they already do that, actually, and in america you have that right

4: We'll end up with Gays / Lesbians telling their children: "I'm mommy and that's daddy! BTW, it's okay to screw around with the opposite sex cause it's natural!". For one, things like that warp childrens perspective. Horribly.

homosexuality is actually natural... it's seen in animals pretty often...

@fountain

Up the Elland Rd!!!

the only way you can go is up, with the exception of jody who may go down before leeds do.

sorry very off topic. won't do it again.

I have nothing more to say than that I agree with Xei on the belief that it is not "natural" to be homosexual.

And before one of you jumps me and says that it is, I want proof.

And explain this to me:

If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises? If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both? If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships? If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate? In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".

edit: removed because I lost my sense of control.

If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises? If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both? If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships? If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate? In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".

according to your logic, four leafed clovers and albinos and naturally sterile things do not exist because they are not 'natural' (read: 'normal') and cannot reproduce...

an example of natural homosexuality: my neighbor's dogs (both males) have sex... there it is.

and a more scientific approach: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...urnalcode=nejm here's a part of it:

Their book describes how Hamer and his colleagues searched for and found evidence of genetic linkage in male homosexuality. Their finding of a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in 64 percent of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers has created a stir in the scientific community. It has inflamed the nature-versus-nurture debate, caused both excitement and concern in the gay community...

have nothing more to say than that I agree with Xei on the belief that it is not "natural" to be homosexual.

...

And before one of you jumps me and says that it is, I want proof.

There are gay animals, that is proof.

And explain this to me:

If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises?

"natural" does not equate to "meant to".

If you want to know why we have two sexes I can give you an evolutionary explanation, but i fail to see the relevence to the current discussion.

If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both?

Because that's not how nature works.

If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships?

You presumeably do not consider blue eyes "unnatural" yet they are less common than brown eyes. Heck i have oyster eyes, they are very rare, yet most people would consider them "natural".

If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate?

It's "natural" because it happens in nature.

In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".

I don't believe anyone has argued that homosexual reproduction is "natural", merely that homosexuality is.

Furthermore natural != good, unnatural != bad. There are plenty of lifesaving drugs around that are synthetic rather than "natural" and there plenty of poisons that are "natural" rather than synthetic. In fact if we were all to follow what is "natural" we would have a 30 year (average) lifespan.

And maybe they are... what if that is true and there is a true genetic link? Well hey, then good for them for finding it. Personally, I need more proof.

Here's the abstract for one of the many studies around documenting homosexual behaviour in animals:

The relationship of male-male mounting to mate choice and sexual performance in male dairy goats

Edward O. Price and Valerie M. Smith1

Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A.

Accepted 13 January 1984. ; Available online 2 October 2003.




Abstract
Rearing of male farm animals in unisexual groups has been implicated as a factor contributing to the failure of many males to breed as adults. The present study examines the relationship of male-male mounting in yearling dairy goats to subsequent mate preferences and sexual performance.

Twenty-four sexually inexperienced male dairy goats, representing the Alpine, LaMancha, Saanen and Toggenburg breeds, were observed for male-male mounting in their home enclosure and then tested for mate choice and sexual performance when exposed to male and female (estrous and diestrous) stimulus animals. Their sexual behavior was compared with 7 adult goats with previous breeding experience.

In the mate choice-sexual performance tests, 4 sexually inexperienced goats (17%) were sexually inactive, 6 (25%) mounted both male and female stimulus animals and 14 (58%) mounted only the female stimuli. Mate choice and sexual performance of the 20 sexually active males was not related to the number of male-male mounts initiated or the number of different males mounted in their home enclosure. However, the goats that received the greatest number of mounts in their home pen tended to be bisexual (would mount both male and female stimulus animals) in the mate choice tests. Males that were sexually inactive in mate choice-sexual performance tests repeatedly mounted the same male during home pen observations. Except for ejaculation frequency, the sexual performance of the sexually naive and experienced goats was similar. Goats of the Saanen breed were favored recipients of mounts from other males. There was no relationship between the number of male-male mounts performed and received.

It was hypothesized that the reproductive failure of many male farm animals reared in all-male groups may be more closely related to the formation of specific sexual attachments to other males rather than the frequency with which they exhibit homosexual behaviors.

OH, and you can make an experiment say whatever you want. Who funded the lab that came up with those results? You don't know, neither do I. How can you assume that their findings are the truth?

And maybe they are... what if that is true and there is a true genetic link? Well hey, then good for them for finding it. Personally, I need more proof.

The link refers to a book which is based on this paper (by the same author):

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation, Science, Volume 261, Issue 5119, July 1993, Pages 321-327
Hamer, Dean H.; Hu, Stella; Magnuson, Victoria L.; Hu, Nan; et al

A quick scan of sciencedirect shows that it is cited by 34 papers in journals i'm subscribed to.

e.g.

Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning, Psychoneuroendocrinology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 18 November 2003,
Qazi Rahman, Glenn D. Wilson and Sharon Abrahams

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 34, Issue 8, June 2003, Pages 1337-1382
Qazi Rahman and Glenn D. Wilson

Sex differences in the hypothalamus in the different stages of human life*1, Neurobiology of Aging, Volume 24, Supplement 1, May-June 2003, Pages S1-S16
Dick F. Swaab, Wilson C. J. Chung, Frank P. M. Kruijver, Michel A. Hofman and Andon Hestiantoro

The Interstitial Nuclei of the Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation of Variation with Sex, Sexual Orientation, and HIV Status, Hormones and Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 86-92
William Byne, Stuart Tobet, Linda A. Mattiace, Mitchell S. Lasco, Eileen Kemether, Mark A. Edgar, Susan Morgello, Monte S. Buchsbaum and Liesl B. Jones

Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality, Hormones and Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 105-114
Ray Blanchard

Sexual Orientation and Handedness in Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis*1, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 126, Issue 4, July 2000, Pages 575-592
Martin L. Lalumière, Ray Blanchard and Kenneth J. Zucker

Taxometric Analyses of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity*1, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 78, Issue 6, June 2000, Pages 1109-1121
Steven W. Gangestad, J. Michael Bailey and Nicholas G. Martin

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample*1, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 78, Issue 3, March 2000, Pages 524-536
J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin

etc etc.

I've flipped through about 20 of these and of the papers that actually follow similar grounds and examine the likelyhood of a genetic basis, none of them disagree with it's findings.

Here are abstracts for two of the more relevent papers.

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation

Qazi Rahman, and Glenn D. Wilson

Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

Received 26 November 2001; revised 1 April 2002; accepted 27 April 2002. ; Available online 9 June 2002.

Abstract
Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexuality may represent biological variations. The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable. Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity. Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality.



Personality Processes and Individual Differences
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample*1

J. Michael Bailey, , a, Michael P. Dunneb and Nicholas G. Martinc, d

a Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, USA
b School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
c Epidemiology Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
d Joint Genetics Program, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Received 7 January 1998; revised 22 July 1999; accepted 30 July 1999. Available online 13 August 2002.

Abstract
We recruited twins systematically from the Australian Twin Registry and assessed their sexual orientation and 2 related traits: childhood gender nonconformity and continuous gender identity. Men and women differed in their distributions of sexual orientation, with women more likely to have slight-to-moderate degrees of homosexual attraction, and men more likely to have high degrees of homosexual attraction. Twin concordances for nonheterosexual orientation were lower than in prior studies. Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences. Only childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women. Multivariate analyses suggested that the causal architecture differed between men and women, and, for women, provided significant evidence for the importance of genetic factors to the traits' covariation.

I disagree, because it's unnatural. And now don't come and say that snails do eachother, they don't got any sexe. But heck, i don't hate gay people or stuff. It's just unnatural. Anyway, let the do what they want. But take the damn responsibility and don't cry if people say no, k?

I disagree, because it's unnatural

*Throws up hands*