Prop 8

[miguelkuk 109]

Originally posted by: sedimenjerry (Taken from page 490 of "Psychology 8th ed." by David G. Myers)

Quote by Simon leVay, "The Sexual Brain"

"Gay men simply don't have the brain cells to be attracted to women"

and on page 491 from a table

"One hypothalamic cell cluster is larger in straight males than in women and gay males."

"Anterior commissure is larger in gay men than in women or straight men."

"Gay men's hypothalamus reacts as does a woman's to the smell of sex-related hormones."

Just some food for thought.

Hope this clears some things up.quote>

 

And what about bisexuals?? Where do we fit in?

[threeswept 12]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: threeswept Though this topic keeps working around to the religious aspect, I should reiterate that we Californians were bombarded with the idea that not passing Prop 8 would allow teaching of homosexuality in schools. Children were used in commercials and in flyers to mislead the masses into something different than what the actual law was meant to do - ban gay marriage. In the end, the pro-8 side won...but, it was based on teaching homosexuality to 2nd graders, not based on religion. Out of the 13-15 flyers I received on my door in support of Prop 8, ZERO said anything about religion. ALL of them either had verbage about children or showed a picture of a child (exploitation of a minor) to sway the voter.quote>

Hmm I have a question there, what does "teaching of homosexuality in schools" mean there?quote>

 

Essentially, the ads promoted that schools would begin teaching children about homosexuality - whether that meant that 'they will teach them to become one or that it is acceptable to be one' was never really addressed. However, one such commercial that was shown quite often was of a little girl that brought home a book to show her mother - it was supposedly a book they were reading in class. The child shows her mother a book about a prince marrying a prince and how she can marry a princess. Completely irresponsible and unrealistic. It isn't as though I walk off a cliff and you follow. The commentator in this commerical - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHjezTplcyQ - states that gay marriage will be taught in school. Where's the proof? The rules are not written the same as they are in MA, which is the state they're trying to compare to CA.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis 

  Incest is illegal because of what health problems it causes in offspring.  Hence it should be illegal.  quote>

If a woman who is 48 or older has children, the chances of genetic disorders and health problems in the child are TWICE that of an incest made child (Incest=2% chance, 48+=4% chance).

Just saying.

[miguelkuk 109]

yeah but then where would you define where one ends and the others begin? Sounds too far from exact science

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: manticorefan"When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”quote>

Nordland and Nord-Tr

[sedimenjerry 1]

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

Originally posted by: sedimenjerry (Taken from page 490 of "Psychology 8th ed." by David G. Myers)

Quote by Simon leVay, "The Sexual Brain"

"Gay men simply don't have the brain cells to be attracted to women"

and on page 491 from a table

"One hypothalamic cell cluster is larger in straight males than in women and gay males."

"Anterior commissure is larger in gay men than in women or straight men."

"Gay men's hypothalamus reacts as does a woman's to the smell of sex-related hormones."

Just some food for thought.

Hope this clears some things up.quote>

 

And what about bisexuals?? Where do we fit in?

quote>

 

That's a good question. I'm no neurologist so I can only assume that bisexuals must have brain features that are midsized.

For example, a bisexual male's hypothalamic cell cluster might not be as large as straight men but not as small as women or gay men. There's no "one size fits all". Straight men don't all have the same brain size or structure. There are many different sizes and possibilities that can place people in different regions on a "straightness scale".

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: ZelgadisIs there something so wrong with that?

ISFquote>

Well-informed sources tell us about horrific scenes taking place in Canada.quote>

Heh.  True, no country is perfect.  Neither is Canada.  Toronto is a great place though.  Most people really don't care.  You don't bug them, they don't bug you.  Not every place is like that though.  Calgary, for example.

I haven't experienced one iota of discrimination here.  It's a nice place. 

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Maybe the sensible action to take for this whole discussion would be for marriage to be removed from government control altogether. Establish State-sanctioned civil unions and eliminate the term "marriage" from law. Then, if someone wants to get married, leave it up to their church to recognize it or not. Then anyone can be civilly united, but marriage would have no legal basis. We already have situations where the church does not recognize a divorce, but it does not prevent either party from re-marrying under the State. Big whoop.quote>

Yeah, um... I said exactly the same thing way back on the first page....

As for the issue of teaching homosexuality in schools... please. You don't need to teach it. Just like you don't need to teach kids profanity. They'll inevitably learn it from each other. I know I've heard the word "gay" thrown around as far back as first or second grade. Eventually I asked someone who said it what it meant. And that's where I learned what "being gay" was. Not from a teacher, not from my parents, or even from an adult - but rather from another kid my age in the schoolyard.

And I wasn't particularly traumatized or corrupted by the idea, either. I was more just like "Oh, really? There are people like that out there? Huh."

So, yeah, having teachers teach it wouldn't really change much anything. I'm sure at least a few of the kids in the class would already know.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

True, no country is perfect.  Neither is Canada.  Toronto is a great place though.  Most people really don't care.  You don't bug them, they don't bug you.  Not every place is like that though.  Calgary, for example.

I haven't experienced one iota of discrimination here.  It's a nice place. 

ISFquote>

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that you still have running water, no food or petrol rationing, no urban warfare to fear, despite the fact that two people of the same sex are allowed to share the same legal rights as two people of the opposite sex? And that it's the same case in Nordland, Norway?

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Maybe the sensible action to take for this whole discussion would be for marriage to be removed from government control altogether. quote>

Yeah, um... I said exactly the same thing way back on the first page....quote>

Though you'll still have to battle a lot of people who'd prefer having the state force its values upon everyone. However, the fact remains that laws do not regulate values (except from in states most people would have trouble identifying themselves with)—that's left to the individual and its churches, friends, family, community, etc. But marriage still gives access to a few perks it seems illogical reserving for one specific kind of couple. Why is it more natural that the state recognise a couple of one man and one woman where they may inherit each other, and a couple of two men may not?

[hamsterTK 93]

You know the whole "teaching homosexuality in schools, oh the humanity" is classic, I mean the old fake "think of the children" routine. No, kids are innocent and go with the flow, it's adults who are fearful and ignorant...

Sounds like those chain emails..."Eagle Scout arrested for carrying bible to school by evil secular liberal principal!!!"...cracks me up

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[simcity4fan12 13]

I don't really understand why gay marriage is such a problem now days. I think I heard some things somewhere that the bible said that "gay marriage is bad". Does the bible REALLY say this? Or is it just people against gays? I'm a christian and I don't think God would really say this since he created everything including our feelings for each other if same sex or opposite sex.

[hym 358]

Does the bible REALLY say this?quote>

Yes it does. "Abomination" is often how it's translated.

[fukuda 351]

And what about bisexuals?? Where do we fit in?quote>

Yeah, I wondered the same thing

As for the issue of teaching homosexuality in schools... please. You don't need to teach it. Just like you don't need to teach kids profanity. They'll inevitably learn it from each other. I know I've heard the word "gay" thrown around as far back as first or second grade. Eventually I asked someone who said it what it meant. And that's where I learned what "being gay" was. Not from a teacher, not from my parents, or even from an adult - but rather from another kid my age in the schoolyard.

And I wasn't particularly traumatized or corrupted by the idea, either. I was more just like "Oh, really? There are people like that out there? Huh."quote>

Homosexuality is "taught" here in the sex ed courses, to make sure that homosexual sex acts are safe (there are tons of myths about them)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Does the bible REALLY say this?quote>

Yes it does. "Abomination" is often how it's translated.quote>

 

It also says an eye for an eye and that your slaves' children become your property.

and people wonder why I have problems taking it literally.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

Does the bible REALLY say this?quote>

Yes it does. "Abomination" is often how it's translated.quote>

 

It also says an eye for an eye and that your slaves' children become your property.

and people wonder why I have problems taking it literally.quote>

As I've pointed out, when talking about things in the Bible, they need to be viewed from the proper exegesis, i.e. in consideration of the full weight of Scripture. Old Testament commandments need to be placed in the proper context, that is, keeping in mind Christ's words that He came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. Thus the Old Testament's 'eye for an eye' was no longer in effect, but was now the New Testament's 'love thy enemies'.

 The law could only condemn, Christ came to forgive. The condemnation of the law was satisfied by His sacrifice. That's why Christians need not sacrifice a lamb at the temple, and indeed why He predicted an end to the temple itself (fulfilled by Roman General Titus in 71 AD). Homosexuality ceased being a capital offense at the point of the Crucifixion, along with myriad other sins you could be executed for under Mosaic law. It didn't cease being wrong, or *gasp!* an 'abomination', but could be forgiven for the asking. Permanently, irrevocably forgiven.

Am I the only person in all of ST that understands any of this? No wonder so many of you guys have so much trouble with Christianity in general! Many people cherry-pick in another way; to choose a verse that pisses them off and never even try to get the rest of the story. It's really not that hard.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Am I the only person in all of ST that understands any of this? No wonder so many of you guys have so much trouble with Christianity in general! quote>

 

Actually, I do understand that.   I don't have trouble with "Christianity in general"; it's more that I have trouble with how Christianity is preached today.

Back when I was a kid in church, we sang a song that went "and they will know we are Christians by our love".   I'm not getting that from what "true Christians" say today.  Much of what I hear is just hateful.   I do not have enough hate in me to qualify as a "true Christian" today.   Now, that is just wrong. 

But what else could we expect from people who claim that they are the only true Christians and other people are just faking it?  (It's a lot like that "real America" thing.  Someone decides they are the only ones who have it right and are therefore better than the rest of us.)

All of that aside, I do hope that the results of your own struggle continue to work for you and your loved ones.    Your story reminded me of a co-worker (different guy than the one mentioned above) who went through a similar struggle.  He never could reconcile his homosexuality and his born-again Christian ideals.   He spent his short life bouncing between one and the other, never really finding any peace until shortly before his death. 

He was a really good guy.  When they started 401k plans, he refused to save, claiming he had other things to do.  We all tried to tell him he would need it when he retired.   He refused to discuss it.   I didn't find out until his funeral that he was using his money to send kids from his (lousy) neighbor to various training programs.  He was really living the word of helping those in need.  but he wasn't acceptable to his church because he was gay and, no matter what he did, he was still gay.

imho, condemning a guy like that is just wrong.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Am I the only person in all of ST that understands any of this? No wonder so many of you guys have so much trouble with Christianity in general! Many people cherry-pick in another way; to choose a verse that pisses them off and never even try to get the rest of the story. It's really not that hard.quote>

I have to say I agree.  I have no problem with Christians, if I did I wouldn't be one. Believe it or not, there are people who may consider themselves open-minded and tolerant, but in reality they can be just as bigoted as anyone else. Some people just always make blind assumptions about eachother.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Back when I was a kid in church, we sang a song that went "and they will know we are Christians by our love".   I'm not getting that from what "true Christians" say today.  Much of what I hear is just hateful.   I do not have enough hate in me to qualify as a "true Christian" today.   Now, that is just wrong. quote>

Well, the reality is that nobody who calls themself a "true Christian" is actually a true Christian.

Also I believe there is a passage where Jesus says that anyone who hates their brother is liable to the judgement of someone who murdered their brother. I think its in Mathew 5.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Well, the reality is that nobody who calls themself a "true Christian" is actually a true Christian.

quote>

 

I can believe that.   Which is why I wish they would leave the rest of us alone instead of trying to cram their warped doctrine down people's throats.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Well, the reality is that nobody who calls themself a "true Christian" is actually a true Christian.

quote>

Careful with that broad brush, panther!

Found this in my inbox:

New Study Find Children Who Live with Biological Parents and go to Church Fare Best Developmentally

WASHINGTON, December 17, 2008  - A new study from the Mapping America project, co-released by more than 30 state family policy councils, has found that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents and frequently attend religious services. 

Dr. Nicholas Zill, the founding president of Child Trends, and Dr. Philip Fletcher, a research psychologist at Westat, co-authored the new study, which analyzes data from the National Survey of Children's Health.

 

Among their remarkable findings: children in this group are five times less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to have behavior problems at home and school, and are more likely to be cooperative and understanding of others' feelings. Parents of these children report less stress, healthier parent-child relationships, and fewer concerns about their children's achievement. These differences hold up even after controlling for family income and poverty, low parent education levels, and race and ethnicity.

---

Just seemed to fit into parts of the discussion regarding the best family structure in which to raise a child..

[threeswept 12]

But what else could we expect from people who claim that they are the only true Christians and other people are just faking it?  (It's a lot like that "real America" thing.  Someone decides they are the only ones who have it right and are therefore better than the rest of us.)quote>

Exactly. And, this is why discriminatory laws end up as misleading ballot measures under the guise of 'protect the children' - who, by the way, generally end up knowing more than their parents - which eliminates rights and privileges that were already provided.

No matter. It will come to vote again in 2009. And, if gay marriage isn't approved then, it will come up for vote again in 2010, etc. It will be never ending as more and more people understand that discrimination cannot be written into law. However, the prospects of such approval passing in supposed conservative, Puritan states will take much longer.

From the Mapping America website - Mapping America's purpose is to demonstrate,through data from major surveys, mainly U.S. federal surveys, that the intact married family that worships weekly is the greatest generator of human goods and social benefits and is the core strength of the United States.

Hypocrisy much? If only an intact married family worshipped and followed scripture as it was written...if only...

And, in addition, from the same website - Among their remarkable findings: children in this group are five times less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to have behavior problems at home and school, and are more likely to be cooperative and understanding of others' feelings.

Highly suspect in a lot of respects. Aren't these the same people who grow up to try to enforce laws of bigotry like Prop 8? Aren't these the same people who took slaves in the 1800's and forced separate black and white entrances because they were good Christians? I'm afraid there that the dust of history covers up a great deal of crime done in the name of religion. I'd like to see where these 'finding's' were taken and by what parameters. Who are these 'more than 30 state policy councils'?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

New Study Find Children Who Live with Biological Parents and go to Church Fare Best Developmentally

quote>

 

I think my views on this are influenced by my own upbringing.  Yes, I grew up with my biological parents and, yes, we did attend church.  for a while, anyway.

My mom has always been convinced that her own religious upbringing ruined her childhood.  She has tried over the years to overcome it.    (She is still working at it.  She is 88 years old.)

Dad was raised Byzantine Catholic.  Mom was raised Roman Catholic.  We were being raised Roman Catholic, partly because there were no Byzantine parishes in the area.

That lasted until I was 12, at which point, they both left the church because of the back peddling on the Vatican II reforms.  (that's a whole nother story.)    We (my siblings and I) were told we could continue to attend church if we wanted to.  We all passed.

I have no doubt this has given me an odd view of organized religion.

---

Getting back to your article . . . it has also been found that kids to better in school, have fewer behavior problems, etc when they see their grandparents a couple of times a month.   Another study says the key having five adults involved in the child's life.

It seems to me that the key is having a network to nurture the child.

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

New Study Find Children Who Live with Biological Parents and go to Church Fare Best Developmentally quote>

The problem with studies like this is that they find correlations but don't establish causation. Do those children really fare better because they went to church, or is it that they fare better because the type of parents who are strict and force their kids to go to church when they don't want to are also the type of parents who are strict and are constantly on their kids' backs about their schoolwork and their behavior?

Still, it makes sense that a "good christian" would teach love and compassion and care properly for their children... but at the same time that only works if the kids go along with it.

Let's look at me as an example again. I've always been a rogue who abhorred letting anyone tell him what to do. When I gave up the church, I did so firmly and loudly. For a while after that, I absolutely refused to so much as go near a church and was constantly spouting hate at anything religious. Eventually my mother decided that this was an OCD aversion and the only way I would ever get over it would be to desensitize me to it... so she dragged me off to the local church one weekday afternoon and made me go inside, with the idea that I needed to "get over my fear".

Suffice to say, that didn't end well. More specifically, it ended with me spitting on a cross carved into the side of one of the pews and her having to whisk me out of there before I desecrated anything else. Sounds rash, but remember, I was maybe nine years old at the time. I got over that whole hate thing years ago now. Everyone has inherent hatred of that which they disagree with or are different from as a kid. I mean, if you talked to me when I was about 13 or 14 years old you would have had me ranting about how gays were "rejects off the product line" and deserved to simply be destroyed like any other defective product. But you know what? I grew up and got over it. The problem is that some people have trouble moving past that childish hatred and continue to harbor it long into adulthood.

Okay, I guess I was going for "forcing your kids to go to church if they don't want to is probably the opposite of productive" as a point there but I kinda ran off on a tangent about maturity...

Still, the point holds true for anyone, not just children. You can force someone to go to church, but you can't force them to believe or accept what they hear there. People will believe what they want to. You can do as many studies as you want and draw as many conclusions as you want about people who believe in god versus people who don't... but at the end of the day it's pointless since even if you can arrive at the objective conclusion that one is better than the other, it's not going to make anyone switch. The people on the side it supports will use it as a tool to try and forward an agenda. The people on the other side will refute it and say why it's wrong. People who will change sides: zero.

So even if you can objectively prove that being religious is better than being non-religious, my response will be "So what? I'm still an atheist. Either like it or deal with it."

Funny thing about belief systems: people stubbornly and thickheadedly dig their heels into them. Opinions are not swayed by such trivialites as "facts" and "truth". The facts get bent and interpreted to fit the existing opinion, rarely does it work the other way around. Backwards? Maybe, but it's just the way the human mind works.

[The_Hutt 11]

THE CLAIM: New Study Find Children Who Live with Biological Parents and go to Church Fare Best Developmentally

There's a reason why I never take such studies from non-neutral at face value. And sure enough, the claim is asinine and falls apart under critical examination of the evidence. Let me explain, using an extremely elementary analysis, why the conclusion of the report is exaggerated and/or states the obvious.

Download the report: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L48.pdf

OBSERVE MY MAGICAL POWERS OF ABSTRACT REASONING -

First, go to the graph on Page 8. You will see a depth-based graph with four cylinders.

The percentage of students who repeated a grade with intact families and attend religious services more than once a month - 6%.

The percentage of students who repeated a grade with intact families and attend religious services never or less than once a month - 8%

Considering the margin of error for ANY study is usually within the 2-5% range, it's very, very easy to conclude that there IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS TWO-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS.

What the conclusion fails to mention is that the 'intact household figure' includes ADOPTED PARENTS, LIKELY EVEN HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. This AUTOMATICALLY discounts the claim that "Biological parents" somehow fared better than their homosexual or adopted counterparts - that is an epic LIE.

It is extremely obvious that children with single-parent households fare worse. This has been known for decades. The study is only repeating the obvious - that stable households are better than unstable ones. End of survey.

NEXT, JUST BECAUSE I'M PISSED OFF - go to page 14. Look at the graph. You'll see that the column for "intact family and weekly/monthly religion" is nearly twice as high as the column for "intact family and less than monthly/no religion." Yet they've cheated - they start the scale at 46%. The real difference between the two columns is only 2% - well within the margin of error for any scientific study. THE AUTHORS DELIBERATELY ATTEMPT TO FRAME THE STATISTICS IN A MISLEADING LIGHT. That automatically means they're being borderline dishonest and leads me to suspect an agenda is at work.

You can note the same thing on other graphs - they deliberately attempt to make the gap seem much wider than it really is.

Conclusion - don't trust biased sources.

[Pinoy30 0]

Well u have educated and uneducated people  in America, so u can only say so much its up to them to interpret the bible literally or not.

[miguelkuk 109]

Originally posted by: hym

Does the bible REALLY say this?quote>

Yes it does. "Abomination" is often how it's translated.quote>

 

To answer this check this site.

 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

Originally posted by: hym

Does the bible REALLY say this?quote>

Yes it does. "Abomination" is often how it's translated.quote>

 

To answer this check this site.quote>

 

The question that I answered was whether the Bible said gay marriage was bad, which is does suggest.  Whether people are taking it out of context is another issue entirely, and one that I didn't attempt to answer as the answer to that question is not an objective yes or no answer.

[miguelkuk 109]

The question that I answered was whether the Bible said gay marriage was bad, which is does suggest.  Whether people are taking it out of context is another issue entirely, and one that I didn't attempt to answer as the answer to that question is not an objective yes or no answer.

quote>

 

Forgive my ignorance but I didn't know the bible mentioned gay marriage. Could you tell me what passage(s) please?

I'm no neurologist so I can only assume that bisexuals must have brain features that are midsized.

For example, a bisexual male's hypothalamic cell cluster might not be as large as straight men but not as small as women or gay men. There's no "one size fits all". Straight men don't all have the same brain size or structure. There are many different sizes and possibilities that can place people in different regions on a "straightness scale".quote>

 

This all sounds a bit unlikely to me, although I'm no neurologist either.

I think the whole issue is far more complex than the simple size of certain parts of the brain.

I've come to think that sexual orientation is nothing more than one of many variables that make for sexual attraction, in this case, gender.

I use the terms sexual attraction as opposed to sexual preference, because a preference does not indicate the whole, it indicates a part, the preferred part of a whole.

Different people are sexually attracted to different things/people/characteristics. These are all the variables that are needed for sexual attraction to occur in each person. And these vary from person to person.

One of these variables is gender, i.e. Mr. A is attracted to people of the male gender. But there are more variables in sexual attraction. Just because Mr. A is attracted to males doesn't mean he's attracted to all males. He might only find asian males attractive, or whatever.

Following this, why give more importance to one of the variables (gender) than all the others?

Some might argue that it's because there's one big majority against a small minority. But, and giving you another example, there are men who are only attracted by obese women while the vast majority of men are attracted by skinnier women, so isn't this also a big majority against a small minority? Should there be also a sexual orientation name to describe this kind of attraction?

Some others might say the difference lays on the fact that straight sex is intended for procriation and gay sex isn't. And to this I simply say bo**ocks!! The sexual drive might be primarily an instinct for procriation, but not the sexual attraction.

[fukuda 351]

This all sounds a bit unlikely to me, although I'm no neurologist either.

I think the whole issue is far more complex than the simple size of certain parts of the brain.quote>

Don't worry, most biologists think the same way, lol

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: sedimenjerry

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

And what about bisexuals?? Where do we fit in?

quote>

 

That's a good question. I'm no neurologist so I can only assume that bisexuals must have brain features that are midsized.

For example, a bisexual male's hypothalamic cell cluster might not be as large as straight men but not as small as women or gay men. There's no "one size fits all". Straight men don't all have the same brain size or structure. There are many different sizes and possibilities that can place people in different regions on a "straightness scale".quote>

The "straightness scale" is actually called the "Kinsey scale".  It has been around for 40 years.