It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutional Admendment to Define Marriage is in the Senate.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I still want the truth, are gays are real product of genetics or not? If so what do we call them, normal or abnormal? What connotations go with each concept?

They deserve that in my opinion.




posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
In my opinion...it's a combination of all things...genetic, environment, nature....who knows exactly how the synopsis of the brain works?



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   


Again, how can it be fair to say that gays can marry, but a man and a boy can not.


Because one is underage and the other is two adults.

That is the same as saying that since a man and woman get married that you should be able to have sex with a 12 year old girl. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.

Sorry Jethro, your arguement does not hold water

As far as animals go I think its kinda stupid but I guess what a man and his sheep do in the privicy of there own home is none of my business, come here baaaaaaahhhby........LOL




posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Ok.,..so it is a religious issue? What about people who go to a justice of the peace? Are they married or just have civil unions? NO!!!!!!! They are considered married. How? When they didn't get married in a religion or even close to one. Explain that Jethro!!!! You are giving away your intelligence just by your name. If you don't know what I'm talking about....watch the beverly hillbillies!!!!!


Incedentally, my name is a joke because my last name is Tull. As is Jethro Tull. Just a joke.

Anyway, like i said, marriage is a religious institution that has taken on a governmental dynamic because they recognize religion.

The point is that while we can not overlook the minority, we also can not overlook the majority. This is not so much a religious arguement for me, but to not respect or at least respect the religious aspect to this, considering most Americans are religious, is not only stupid, but foolhardy (phew, long sentence). Read my reply to Amuk below.

Amuk, I was being facetious. What I was alluding to, was that we as a society have chosen 18 to be the defininh line between adult and child. Others have a different view, such as the Jews view it (or at least did) as being 13.

We make the choice on which institutions and definitions we want and do not want to embrace.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
I still want the truth, are gays are real product of genetics or not? If so what do we call them, normal or abnormal? What connotations go with each concept?

They deserve that in my opinion.


Being gay is not genetic. Being Gay is a choice. The media potrays gay in the light that they choose because it is more sexy rather than potraying the whole truth.

Proof:

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic." But in other twin studies for other genetic traits the number has been near 95% hmmmmm.

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:


While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.


The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:


... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.


More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:


"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."


But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:


...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.


Did that make you go duh? Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Choice or genitecs?


I do not have enough information to say its a fact one way or another but I can say that a gay friend of mine told me he knew as a child he was different, that he felt strange around boys before he even knew ANYTHING about sex. And was attracted to the as soon as puberty hit.

I can only say that if the shoe was on the other foot and homosexuality was "normal" and hetrosexuality was
"Queer" that it wouldnt matter to me I would still like women and would not give a # what others thought.

Would you be willing to have sex with men just because society said this was right and male/female sex was wrong?

What I am trying to say is if I would # who I want too and to hell with what society thought why should I not allow him the same privelage?

And by who I want I mean overage and willing



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Choice or genitecs?


I do not have enough information to say its a fact one way or another but I can say that a gay friend of mine told me he knew as a child he was different, that he felt strange around boys before he even knew ANYTHING about sex. And was attracted to the as soon as puberty hit.

I can only say that if the shoe was on the other foot and homosexuality was "normal" and hetrosexuality was
"Queer" that it wouldnt matter to me I would still like women and would not give a # what others thought.

Would you be willing to have sex with men just because society said this was right and male/female sex was wrong?

What I am trying to say is if I would # who I want too and to hell with what society thought why should I not allow him the same privelage?

And by who I want I mean overage and willing


**just to be clear about this, i am in no way disagreeing with you guys. i think this is a topic that shouldn't have any place in govt.**

i just wanted to point out that if homosexuality was normal in society, we would have no society, as the human race would have died out shortly after this trend started.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   


i just wanted to point out that if homosexuality was normal in society, we would have no society, as the human race would have died out shortly after this trend started


Tell it to the ancient Greeks.

Who was it that once said, " Bear your children with women, but pleasure yourself with men"

Deep



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Yeah, and they're all dead. Sorry, I couldn't tell if that was your point or not zero, it sounded like you could go either way.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
BlackJack,

being gay is a choice? wtf!

sorry dude that don't inspire me.

besides when gays get married it is not an innocent harmless act because the government gets involved and there are a lot of legal implications and potential societal costs too.

so there is a practical debate around this issue that is often ignored.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
A Greek Philosopher once stated that ( I forgot his name
).

Deep



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   
# the greeks. wait no! i didn't mean that. instead, let them go # themselves. just keep them away from me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join