Homosexual marriage

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is clear proof that women are every bit as intelligent as men. Womens' success in mind challenging work places proves this routinely. This is not the case with homosexuality . . .

I am gay and I have a PhD from a one of the most renowned US universities. What have you got?

More to the point, just look up the number of LGBT associations at top universities or top scientific professions and you will see that LGBT people are always represented

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Of those homosexuals I have come to know on anything more than the most passing acquaintance, and this amounts to three or four persons, there has always been some kind of sexually suggestive behavioral demonstration. Perhaps this is merely coincidence. However, I know a vast number more people who are heterosexual, and from none of them have I seen anything similar. To me, especially in view of the numbers I'm in contact with at college, that strong difference is impressive. Meanwhile, even among those homosexuals I do not know or have seen on a merely passing acquaintance, I still continue to see signs of sexual suggestivity that I do not see elsewhere- suggestive clothing and the like.

I suggest you deepen a bit your "passing acquaintance" with LGBT people and you might change your mind.
In the meanwhile I want to point out a few things:
1. Why are you so shocked by sexually suggestive behavior?
2. Are you sure this alleged sexual suggestive behavior on LGBT people's part is not your own misinterpretation?
3. There is likely endogenous selection in your sampling as you recognize LGBT people as such only when they manifest their orientation and not in the millions other occasions in which you meet them but don't recognize them
4. homosexual orientation is stigmatized and therefore a prime way in which homosexual people resist the stigmatization is by making their own sexual orientation visible to others

I am not even going to read the rest. Giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry is the right thing to do and it is what should be done.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And there it is! So here is my question to you then. Show me how you completely and perfectly splice out culture from nature so easily.

Hear hear!

Here are a few thoughts to consider:
Let's pretend liberals are more likely to get divorced than conservatives. Let's also pretend liberal gays are more likely to "come out of the closet" whereas conservative gays may just keep their homosexuality to themselves.
This would mean most same-sex marriages are between liberal gays. They (like every other marriage between liberals) statistically have a risk of ending in a divorce. If there was a study of how often gays divorce and new laws were written based on this study, these laws would NOT take into consideration the fact that you being liberal matters a lot. The law-makers would make the WRONG assumption that it all comes down to whether you prefer the same sex or not. They wouldn't take into account other important factors (in this imaginary case, the political views of the married couples)

Lief, when you suggest studies should be made so we can make new laws modified for homosexuals, you also suggest we incorporate discriminating speculations based on biased gatherings of data.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry is the right thing to do and it is what should be done.

And it is being done. As of tomorrow, gay couples in the UK will be able to officially enjoy the same legal rights as married straight couples.

My message to gay Americans: if this sort of stuff really frightens you, come and live somewhere where you are not discriminated against so publicy and unashamedly.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am gay and I have a PhD from a one of the most renowned US universities. What have you got?

An individual who is misunderstanding what I was saying . Michelangelo and Socrates also were homosexual. If you meet anyone who says homosexuals are mentally inferior to heterosexuals, do pull that piece of information out of your hat. My only argument regarding brains is that men and women have significantly different kinds.

There are, of course, challenges when constructing studies in deciding who is to make them. Also, what factors are taken into consideration in the studies is another issue. Obviously, I am in favor of as many factors as possible being taken into consideration. I am not convinced that it is impossible to sort between culture and biology. Once again, comparative studies to places which have different cultures, and analyzing nations where homosexual marriages are allowed, should be made. This kind of data, in some places, would help to cut away issues like the sharp liberal vs. conservative differences we have in the US.

As regards the roles of men and women in the US, Insidious Rex, I do suspect that indeed, sometimes it would be wise to take biology into account and discriminate between men and women. As regards Asians, I am very curious to see what evidence you have that they are biologically superior to us.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is clear proof that women are every bit as intelligent as men. Womens' success in mind challenging work places proves this routinely. This is not the case with homosexuality . . . large numbers of people do note significant differences from their experiences and from statistics from several groups.

All right, when I was talking about homosexuality here, I was saying that large numbers of people do note significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, based upon personal experience and statistics. I apologize for being so unclear.

As regards smoking, I meant that there is strong debate still as to whether or not it should be legal, because it is proven that smoking has a negative effect on the health of nonsmokers.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well what do you say now that Ive shown evidence that these groups should be treated differently according to your logic?

It might be appropriate to in some ways discriminate between men and women. I, for one, am not convinced that women should be allowed in the military, in certain capacities. Many times, they just aren't fitted for it. For example, feminists are trying to tear down the exacting tests to enter the SEALS because so many women just can't compete. It's clear that very, very few women are suited for some of those roles. In some of the more hand-to-hand areas, like Baghdad street fighting, I'm not sure that women should be involved. Of course, there are other areas in the military where they can function. But in others, their biology really works against them.

So I don't intend to argue with your 1000 examples. With some of them I might argue, because there is significant evidence that these are cultural issues rather than biological. Also, for some biological differences, while these differences exist and are worth noting, they aren't of a sort that really require a law being made about them. In other more extreme cases, it sometimes would be appropriate to create laws. Relationships like marriage automatically have laws surrounding them. It's not a matter of whether or not we're going to make a law . . . it's a matter of what kind of law we're going to make. Hence, taking into the biological factor would make sense in this context. It's quite possible, that said, that our society might be better off in some ways if there were a few more discriminatory laws between men and women, in certain areas where biological differences have an extreme effect.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

My message to gay Americans: if this sort of stuff really frightens you, come and live somewhere where you are not discriminated against so publicy and unashamedly.

A nice offer but I say to american gays stay here and fight for your rights in your country of birth. Make it give you what the constitution and the bill of rights says you should have. Equal rights for all.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am gay and I have a PhD from a one of the most renowned US universities. What have you got?

More to the point, just look up the number of LGBT associations at top universities or top scientific professions and you will see that LGBT people are always represented

Hey, on those grounds, I've got more chutzpah than you and should be heeded more, TWFM.

I've got a BS, and MS, and an MD - that's 15 years of post HS. Then add in the Board Certification and 17 years of CME........

I'm, like totally correct on everything with a mere 32 years of education!

Somehow, I don't think you'll keep that argument !

HANG IN THERE LIEF!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, on those grounds, I've got more chutzpah than you and should be heeded more, TWFM.

I've got a BS, and MS, and an MD - that's 15 years of post HS. Then add in the Board Certification and 17 years of CME........

I'm, like totally correct on everything with a mere 32 years of education!

Somehow, I don't think you'll keep that argument !

HANG IN THERE LIEF!

Thanks . He wasn't saying, "I am smarter than you," though. He was just saying, "homosexuals are smart," and he was saying that because one of my posts has been interpreted as saying that they weren't .

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, on those grounds, I've got more chutzpah than you and should be heeded more, TWFM.

I've got a BS, and MS, and an MD - that's 15 years of post HS. Then add in the Board Certification and 17 years of CME........

I'm, like totally correct on everything with a mere 32 years of education!

Somehow, I don't think you'll keep that argument !

HANG IN THERE LIEF!

Inked, if what you say is true, you have two years of education more than me, ok. But extra two years of education do not do any good if you approach the discussion in bad faith: my point is that an assertion that LGBT people are not demonstrably as intelligent as heterosexuals is absurd. You, Inked, just conveniently avoid to address that.

Given that I am fair, I am happy to recognize that I had not understood that Lief meant in his earlier post what he clarified that he meant in his subsequent post.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Inked, if what you say is true, you have two years of education more than me, ok. But extra two years of education do not do any good if you approach the discussion in bad faith: my point is that Lief's assertion that LGBT people are not demonstrably as intelligent as heterosexuals is absurd, you, Inked, just conveniently avoid to address that.

Wizard, you have misunderstood me, just as he misunderstood you. See #245.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

you happen to have misunderstood me, [...] See #245.

Yes, I noticed, I edited my own post #249

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All right, when I was talking about homosexuality here, I was saying that large numbers of people do note significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, based upon personal experience and statistics. I apologize for being so unclear.

Of course same-sex relationships are different from different-sex relationships: same-sex partners cannot get married!
There might or might not be different propensity to form marriage-based relationships within the LGBT group, but we will never know unless LGBT people are allowed to marry their partners. And even if it turned out that fewer LGBT people form marriage-based ralationships than heterosexual people. I don't see why all LGBT people should be deprived of that right

[Nurvingiel]

Lief's opinion is not less valid just because he doesn't have a degree (?).

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Of course same-sex relationships are different from different-sex relationships: same-sex partners cannot get married!
There might or might not be different propensity to form marriage-based relationships within the LGBT group, but we will never know unless LGBT people are allowed to marry their partners. And even if it turned out that fewer LGBT people form marriage-based ralationships than heterosexual people. I don't see why all LGBT people should be deprived of that right

I 100% agree, not because you're very well educated, but because your thoughtful statement stands up to scrutiny and logic.

edited to add:

You know, since men and women's brains are different, people should only be allowed to marry their same gender. Procreation will have to occur outside of marriage folks, sorry.
Yes, men and women are different. Every single person in the world is different from every one else. Individuality has nothing to do with marriage.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are, of course, challenges when constructing studies in deciding who is to make them. Also, what factors are taken into consideration in the studies is another issue. Obviously, I am in favor of as many factors as possible being taken into consideration. I am not convinced that it is impossible to sort between culture and biology. Once again, comparative studies to places which have different cultures, and analyzing nations where homosexual marriages are allowed, should be made. This kind of data, in some places, would help to cut away issues like the sharp liberal vs. conservative differences we have in the US.

If I understand your point here, you would want to to deisgn legal insitutions that are attuned to the specific biological makeup of people. There is some merit to that, and I am not going to dismiss this point. I am worried thought that while we wait for reliable studies, mean-spirited people will just deny basic rights to LGBT people (or any other minority). I say that in absence of scientifically reliable evidence, the right thing to do is to confer to all the same rights; I am then open to rediscuss it, if this evidence come around (in my lifetime)

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief's opinion is not less valid just because he doesn't have a degree

That is not at all what I meant. There was a misunderstanding on my part; see second paragraph of my post #251

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Nurv

You know, since men and women's brains are different, people should only be allowed to marry their same gender.

Sounds logical.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

If I understand your point here, you would want to to deisgn legal insitutions that are attuned to the specific biological makeup of people. There is some merit to that, and I am not going to dismiss this point. I am worried thought that while we wait for reliable studies, mean-spirited people will just deny basic rights to LGBT people (or any other minority). I say that in absence of scientifically reliable evidence, the right thing to do is to confer to all the same rights; I am then open to rediscuss it, if this evidence come around (in my lifetime)

And after you confer marriage rights, will you retract them again if it is found that there are significant biologically caused differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriages? I don't think so.

Thus, because of impatience to get these rights for homosexuals (rights that may be the WRONG RIGHTS for that kind of relationship), you may be playing a hand in damaging their future. The better way would be to examine closely the relationships, and their differences and similarities to heterosexual ones, and thus right from the start have laws that are the most practical for taking into account the different needs and expectations that might exist in the different kinds of relationships.

Homosexuals have been denied marriage rights for centuries. It would be very sad for them if just when there was more openness to their receiving rights, they made the mistake of choosing for themselves, through hastiness, laws that do not fit with the biological differences in the couples' make-up, and thus do not work effectively for many.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yes, men and women are different. Every single person in the world is different from every one else.

True. However, there are general trends of similarity between almost all men, and different trends of similarity between almost all women. Men and women are biologically different from one another, in brains as well as bodies. I see evidence for this all the time in my family and college. Most people agree that the differences between men and women are not merely society differences but also gender and biology differences.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You know, since men and women's brains are different, people should only be allowed to marry their same gender. Procreation will have to occur outside of marriage folks, sorry.

Where on earth did you get that idea? I COMPLETELY do not follow your reasoning . Everywhere you look in biology, you can see that differences=strength! Human couples that have healthy differences between them frequently have stronger relationships than do people who are extremely similar. Different strengths between the individuals that make up a pair form a stronger whole. If the pair has the same strengths and weaknesses, this will make for a weaker whole. My mother and father have very different skills. My mother is an arts person, while my father is a math person. My mother is very much a social person, one who developes strong relationships with many, while my father an extremely analytical individual. The differences make them all the closer to one another and all the stronger as a whole. I expect that the same is true for homosexual couples- diversity of personality between people of the same sex will probably contribute to a stronger relationship. However, homosexual relationships do have a weakness in that they are between members of the same sex, and thus cannot share in the splendid differences that members of the opposite sex can offer because of their biological distinctiveness.

Thus, since diversity in many ways is strength, I completely do not understand you.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And after you confer marriage rights, will you retract them again if it is found that there are significant biologically caused differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriages? I don't think so.

Thus, because of impatience to get these rights for homosexuals (rights that may be the WRONG RIGHTS for that kind of relationship), you may be playing a hand in damaging their future. The better way would be to examine closely the relationships, and their differences and similarities to heterosexual ones, and thus right from the start have laws that are the most practical for taking into account the different needs and expectations that might exist in the different kinds of relationships.

Homosexuals have been denied marriage rights for centuries. It would be very sad for them if just when there was more openness to their receiving rights, they made the mistake of choosing for themselves, through hastiness, laws that do not fit with the biological differences in the couples' make-up, and thus do not work effectively for many.

I hear what you say but:
1. with this line of reasoning no right should be given to anyone because you can always think that in the future you might find out something that make any right unsuitable to someone. It would be more productive to think whether there is any reasonable doubt based on the evidence that we have that marriage would be unsuitable for same-sex couples. I say we have no reasonable evidence for such doubt and I don't that there would ever be.
2. What difference could there be between same-sex couples and different-sex couples so that marriage (which is voluntarily entered and voluntarily terminated) is unsuitable for them?
3. The institution of marriage is constantly redefined. There are right now more than 1000 rights and obbligations just at federal level (you then have to add state provisions) and they keep on changing. Already today different provisions apply to different marriages according to the juridistion and according to the financial agreements and status of the spouses (and probably many other factors that I don't know)
4. While we wait for the perfect study, people fall sick and their partners are not admitted to the hospital; their partners fall sick and their health insurance does not cover them because they are unmarried' people die and their partners get nothig because their paperwork for the inheritance is much more onerous; people die and children are taken away from the other partner because only one person in an unmarried couple can adopt. And even those who live see their relationship dimished.

[Count Comfect]

Lief - when people marry, we don't have a questionnaire that asks if they're similar or different; we trust them to make the decision of who is best for them to marry (once they're legally competent). The state has no business telling two men or two women "you're too similar to each other, we can't have you marrying," any more than it could tell two science majors that. If you feel that the strongest marriages are between two people with dissimilar brains, marry someone whose brain differs from yours. That doesn't mean other people should have to. My parents are bloody similar, and last I checked their marriage worked just fine. My cousins in California are fairly different, and their attempted marriage is doing fine and has been as long as I've known them. I say attempted because the California Supreme Court held the marriage license San Fransisco granted them was invalid because they're two women. Who you marry is a personal choice. The greatest limitation that is contained in the state's interest is that it be between two legally competent persons. Their genders, ability to have children, intelligence, or anything else should have nothing to do with it.