scrappy

Question: If a church in Iowa refused to marry gay/lesbian people would it be vulnerable to law suits claiming denial of their constitutional rights?

“Support” is a tricky word. How ‘bout: “adhere to the principles”? Many of the same-sexers have invoked the separate-but-equal-drinking-fountain metaphor (involving racial differentiation) to support their argument for SSM. Well, I don’t believe very many people want to go back to the days of separate-but-equal drinking fountains. But I do think many people in this country—including many of those of Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, and California—differentiate SSM from OSM (opposite-sex marriage) with a lot more prejudice than they differentiate drinking fountains. Maybe they're backwards. But if liberation is a forward-looking movement then I'd like to see the first member of the LGBT community—say, Ellen Degeneres—come out flamin' for polygamy in the name of freedom, liberty and justice for all. Or do they just want theirs and that's all—forget about the rest of the minorities that want liberation, too?

If there are good folks in Iowa now who do not support "same-sex marriage"—per recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling—then they would be categorical bigots who are out to deny the same-sexers their constitutional rights. Therefore, they, those good folks in Iowa, are required by law to support SSM.

Human nature and ecological necessity. I'm not ready to agree that sexual orientation happens like limb development, but it's OK with me if you are. Limb development arises first from hox genes. Nobody knows yet how sexual orientation develops, but, like you, I suspect it has genetic origins, too. (The X chromosome is a good bet, but the exact location and/or epigenetic influences are elusive.) Just passing it off as "developmental" doesn't go far enough for me

What? The same-sexers will want to close the door on the polygamists for the same reason the dif-sexers wanted to close the door on the same-sexers. And it will be all about protecting the meaning of marriage. Why? Because nothing has changed; it will all play out on the shifting and ambiguous landscape of public opinion. Question: When was the last time you heard a gay person speak out for the marriage rights of other minority groups, too, like the polygamists?

As in earlier posts you're losing it again over this notion of bigotry. Anyone who disagrees with you and your opinions is a bigot, and all those who agree with you are saints, of course. I like your attitude; it's simple, convenient, and doesn't require much thinking.

For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." Yes, it probably would. But, in the name of fairness, civil liberties and whatever ya got, why should we care about adding to the legal mess? Why doesn't "gay marriage" add to the legal mess? ...and bisexual, too, because that means there will be twice as many people to love.

Once the same-sexers get their full marriage rights they won’t want to share it with the polygamists. They’ll claim they don’t want the polygamists degrading the meaning of their marriages. Where will it end? This business of marriage is a very fluffy affair. (But the traditional marriage institution is already so badly self-screwed that I’d say all arguable value systems are up for grabs.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, this matter of choice is asserted by the GLBT community, not by the heteros. They claim that nature made them gay, etc. I'm OK with that. I even suspect genetic origins to their sexual orientations. But I must point out that when gay-ness is completely understood there'll be remedies for reversing it, or switching it around any way you like, and that all sexuality, in the future, will be purely a matter of choice.

Mokele, before I go to the trouble of accessing and reading these articles, which I'm not so eager to do, can you assure me that they provide empirical proof that gay-ness is genetically predisposed?

If you are suggesting that gays are born "genetically" to be gay you would need some proof for that. For far, I know of no such proven genetic predisposition for gay-ness.

Is there a better reason for allowing two men to get married than there is for allowing one man and two women to get married?

possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage.possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage. Wait a minute; not so fast. If the homosexuals can pull it off then why not the polygamists? If two homosexuals can get married, just like two heterosexuals, then why can't three homosexuals marry each other? Or, for that matter, why can't three heterosexuals get married? It's only a matter of numbers, anyway. Why is two in a marriage any more sacred than three or four...? Could it have something to do with tradition?

This brings us one step closer to SPM (same-person marriage), wherein I will be allowed to marry myself...the only person I truly love. (Just kidding here, so don't pass a brain stone over it.) In less than a month the US has doubled its states' acceptance to SSM. Liberalization all over the place! Could the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and pot be just around the corner?

I don't think so. I'd be more inclined to say that space begins where matter ends, since space is a matter-less vacuum.

***deleted by poster***

ia, Like you, I carry two opposing attitudes about karma. On the one hand, I seriously doubt that nature employs a behavior cop who keeps score of my naughty and nice deeds. On the other hand, I seriously suspect that nice deeds tend to bring nice deeds in return—in human affairs, at least—and that naughty deeds breed bad consequences. My personal problem with karma is this: My naughty deeds have far outweighed my nice deeds, yet my good luck has far outweighed my bad luck. So, in my case, all my naughty deeds seemed to have paid off.

Well, I happen to be one of those "definition nazis." But I'm not as evil as Hitler. If enough people change their minds on the definition of "marriage," and if the supreme courts uphold those changes, then I'm on board like a smiling sailor who just got laid in town—AC or DC matters not to me. All I need to know is whether or not SSM is constitutional, and it seems like we're slowly finding out. (I probably deserve an award for being such a good American!) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes. Those Iowa family folks obviously do not understand what kind of government they live under.

It helps to remember that organisms do not evolve, only their populations. However, in the case of obesity, a child of two obese parents could be genetically predisposed to obesity...just like a cub of two white wolves. As Mokele has already pointed out, a lot depends on whether not the obesity allele (variation of a gene) or the white-fur allele is dominant or recessive.

”Same-sex marriage” comes to Iowa: Please bear in mind that Iowa is a heartland state, not a coastal state like California or Massachusetts. As such, the corny folks of I-O-Way must be wise to the rights of others besides the straights. Is this a sign of things to comes?

Just how "infernally stupid" would it be if your students drank beer out in the parking lot—stunk it up real bad, ya know—and then came into your lab and made mincemeat out of your assignments? (Jesus, if you can't get high or drunk for your chem lab then what's the point of it?). Question: Would it be better to do the fuminate lab experiment on pot or on beer? I did it once stone sober and nearly killed off my chem class. After that we took it outside.

Couldn't agree with this more. It's the one argument that gets lost in all the hysteria over legalizing weed.

Or, in other words, cumulative selection and random pressures on the wolf's genome, however they are interpreted, favored the propagation of the white-fur genotype.

It's good to see someone else call a knee-jerk reaction for what it really is.

I must have missed the part about YouTube being a pubic servant. Isn’t YouTube just another profiteering ad service on the Internet? Why should it be required to air or not air anything it doesn’t like, even if is obviously biased toward religion? Should the SFN forum be required to carry threads and posts it opposes? Don’t the mods & admin here take equivalent measures against threads and posters they don’t like? So what’s the big deal?

True enough. To expand a bit, I though I'd add this quote on mutation from Daniel L. Hartl and Elizabeth W. Jones (Essenial Genetic/A Genomics Perspective, 2002, p. 520): Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. It is an essential process in evolution, but it is a relatively weak force for changing allele frequency, primarily because typical mutation rates are so low. Moreover, most newly arising mutations are harmful to the organism. Although some mutations may be selectively neutral (in other words, they do not affect the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce), only a very few mutations are favorable for the organism and contribute to adaptation. That is why other non-selective agencies of evolution like random genetic drift and gene flow are also important players.