Page 64 of 159 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674114 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #631
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    How about in exchange for two decades of legislated hate, we take away their guns for two decades and call it even?
    If you reject compromise we all lose.

  2. #632
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Though you may not like the birth defect reality of homosexuality, it remains the one single solid scientitifc presentation on the etiology of homosexuality.
    That some researchers have pointed to epigenetics--how genes are expressed--as a basis for homosexuality does not mean that those scientists are arguing that homosexuality is a "birth defect." Scientific research and theories should not be perverted beyond the scientific basis.

    In terms of practicality, normally-functioning people (people who can meet the "reasonable person" test under the law) should be afforded exactly the same protections under the law that are afforded to all other persons. Equal protection does not mean equal for some, but not others. By definition, that is unequal protection.

    As the cases that made it to the Supreme Court are legally sound, it is more likely than not that the Court's decision to be released tomorrow morning will take a step toward greater equality under the law with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being found to have violated the U.S. Constitution's protections. There is a smaller possibility that a somewhat broader ruling could be offered. Almost certainly, the parsed arguments by DOMA's backers that any person is free to marry--just of the opposite sex--won't be a relevant factor in the decision.

    In the wake of the decision, barriers for expanding the legal franchise of marriage will have been reduced. That reduction of barriers will not in any way harm my marriage or that of any other person who already enjoys the legal ability to marry in any way. In short, greater legal inclusiveness will benefit those who have not previously been included, while causing no harm to others' marriages. If some are psychologically unprepared to accept a step toward equality, that's not society's problem and it certainly is not sufficiently compelling to preclude the expansion of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

    P.S. One of the papers you cite to back your argument (Rice, Friberg, and Gavrilets, "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development," The Quarterly Review of Biology, December 2012, pp.343-368) and cite in another thread, does not use such terms as "abnormal," "defect," or "birth defect" in describing the authors' theory. Transposing such terminology does not reflect the paper nor science contained within it.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-25-13 at 10:56 PM.

  3. #633
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    The decisions will be read tomorrow. I don't think its just a coincidence that they have been sitting on it until the 10th anniversary of the Lawrence v. Texas decision or two days before the 44th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Waiting for confirmation..but I've been hearing that there are only three Justices left to read the decisions; Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy. Should be an interesting day.

  4. #634
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That some researchers have pointed to epigenetics--how genes are expressed--as a basis for homosexuality does not mean that those scientists are arguing that homosexuality is a "birth defect."
    True.

    The valid scientists in the matter employing the scientific method presented the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality, which, so far, after many months, has not met with any rational and scientific conjecture.

    Then, when it was crystal clear that what they are describing is the same situation that created other known birth defects only with a different set of epi-markers, the birth defect reality of homosexuality was obvious.

    The scientists did not need to speak the obvious, nor was it politically prudent at this time for them to do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Scientific research and theories should not be perverted beyond the scientific basis.
    But that's just what you are doing here.

    You're taking an obvious reality and denying it, perverting the correct conclusion based solely on your ideology.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In terms of practicality, normally-functioning people (people who can meet the "reasonable person" test under the law) should be afforded exactly the same protections under the law that are afforded to all other persons. Equal protection does not mean equal for some, but not others. By definition, that is unequal protection.
    Equal protection does not apply here.

    Would you give equal protection to a cat owner who insisted on entering his cat in a dog show?

    Of course not, as the matter isn't yet one of equality, because before the equality test can be applied, the definitive propriety of the terms must be scrutinized .. and when you do that, you find that the cat owner's request is invalid, as a cat is simply not a dog .. so the issue never rightly moves on to the equality test.

    Same is true here with respect to topical relevance. Before the equality test can be applied, the definitive propriety of the terms must be scrutinized .. and when you do that, you find that an SS couple's request for marriage is invalid, as a marriage is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" .. so the issue never rightly moves on to the equality test.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As the cases that made it to the Supreme Court are legally sound, it is more likely than not that the Court's decision to be released tomorrow morning will take a step toward greater equality under the law with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being found to have violated the U.S. Constitution's protections. There is a smaller possibility that a somewhat broader ruling could be offered. Almost certainly, the parsed arguments by DOMA's backers that any person is free to marry--just of the opposite sex--won't be a relevant factor in the decision.
    How a case is argued has no bearing on relevant realities.

    Homosexuality remains a birth defect no matter what the SCOTUS decides on DOMA .. and "marriage" remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it has for over 12,000 years since the agricultural revolution, isolated pocketed violations notwithstanding and, obviously, unjustifiable to redefine "marriage", no matter what the SCOTUS decides on DOMA.

    As you know, wrong decisions have been made under political and popular pressure.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In the wake of the decision, barriers for expanding the legal franchise of marriage will have been reduced. That reduction of barriers will not in any way harm my marriage or that of any other person who already enjoys the legal ability to marry in any way. In short, greater legal inclusiveness will benefit those who have not previously been included, while causing no harm to others' marriages. If some are psychologically unprepared to accept a step toward equality, that's not society's problem and it certainly is not sufficiently compelling to preclude the expansion of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
    Your supposition and premises as to why many are adverse to "marriage" of SS couples is somewhat erroneous and completely irrelevant.

    What matters is that "marriage" isn't and has never been anything other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Though SS couples are constitutionally entitled to equal protection in their domestic partner civil unions, they simply cannot rightly call those domestic partner civil unions "marriage".

    I would recommend the term "homarriage".


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    P.S. One of the papers you cite to back your argument (Rice, Friberg, and Gavrilets, "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development," The Quarterly Review of Biology, December 2012, pp.343-368) and cite in another thread, does not use such terms as "abnormal," "defect," or "birth defect" in describing the authors' theory. Transposing such terminology does not reflect the paper nor science contained within it.
    I, obviously, am doing no "transposing" of terminology.

    In the "Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect Thread", my posts near the end of that thread simply illustrated how adding up all the factors involved leads to the unmistakable consclusion that the epigenetically inculcated condition of homosexuality is most certainly a birth defect, about which no debater could rationally refute.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #635
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    In the "Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect Thread", my posts near the end of that thread simply illustrated how adding up all the factors involved leads to the unmistakable consclusion that the epigenetically inculcated condition of homosexuality is most certainly a birth defect, about which no debater could rationally refute.
    The scientists in the paper I referenced make no claims whatsoever that homosexuality is a birth defect. Therefore, one can't state that it is an "unmistakable conclusion" that an epigenetic basis (still a theory), is proof that homosexuality is a birth defect. That is not the researchers' claim.

  6. #636
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5
    A SS union can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. You see, in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, legislation has already been passed in those states to give unions all the rights and responsibilties of marriage. A union can adopt. A union can share each other's assets. Tax advantages would problably be a federal bill. Not at all impossible.

    There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.

    See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.

    Blacks could also quench their thirst by drinking out of drinking fountains that were "reserved" for them....they didn't have to drink out of "white only" drinking fountains.

    See how ridiculous your argument is?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #637
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The scientists in the paper I referenced make no claims whatsoever that homosexuality is a birth defect. Therefore, one can't state that it is an "unmistakable conclusion" that an epigenetic basis (still a theory), is proof that homosexuality is a birth defect. That is not the researchers' claim.
    That's patently illogical.

    That the scientists were silent on the matter of the obvious birth defect nature of homosexuality is not relevant to any "claims" for or against the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

    The scientists' silence on the obvious birth defect nature of homosexuality could be for a number of reasons, political, grant-protection, under management gag-order, etc.

    You cannot logically view their silence on the matter as meaning "their lack of a claim means homosexuality isn't a birth defect", obviously.

    Also, the epigenetic basis of birth defects has been proven, and, the epigenetic presentation of the etiology of homosexuality is not only scientifically solid but matches the same everythings as other epigenetically based birth defects, and, there has been no rational scientific conjecture on the matter, so the presentation is scientifically solid.

    And furthermore, it does not require a mathematical scientist to add the numbers 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 to get the obvious answer of 10. The birth defect nature of homosexuality is just as elementary in its realization, as follows: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...post1061845049
    ... I can understand where you all aren't likely to trust me. After all, I'm the one who presented in the OP the current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, and I know you find the current scientific thinking unsettling.

    But, it is the current scientific thinking, based on a very solid epigenetic model about which there is presently no rational scientific conjecture, lacking only further validation by additional scientific teams to be universally embraced and a proposed prevention a la that which, as the OP presented, drastically reduced the incidence of spina bifida, to begin having the same effect on drastically reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

    As to the applicability of the term "birth defect" to this epigenetic model's etiology of homosexuality, there are basically some questions that have to be asked and answered, and, if most or all of these questions are answered in the affimative, there's simply no reasonable doubt that this etiology describes a birth defect.

    Presented as applicable statements, these questions are as follows:

    As the OP's accurate science links presented:

    1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

    2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

    3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

    4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

    5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, reflected in physiological brain abnormalities, and creating an intrinsic misery.


    Because all five questions are, without any rational conjecture, accurately answered in the affirmative, from the perspective of this current epigenetic scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality can clearly, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

    It can't possibly be a "variant", as the term "variant" in this situation would be applicable to genetics, and this scientific model reflecting current thinking is epigenetically based, not genetically based.

    Really, there's simply no question that, if this epigenetic model continues to lack scientific refutation and continues to receive scientific validation, it will not only be the breakthrough it appears to be in finally pinpointing the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality will, without question, then be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

    Then, when the proposed preventions of this epigenetic malfunction are created, such as giving the pregnant woman specific vitamins/supplements/etc., and implementing these preventions begins to drastically reduce the incidence of homosexuality, that won't rationally be a "eugenics" controversy, and it won't be because simply preventing a birth defect does not a eugenics issue make.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  8. #638
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.
    Except in real life, civil unions do not have the same status as married couples. In real life, separate but equal does not work. It never ends up equal. Under the constitution, separate but equal is not grounds to infringe on anyone's rights.

    See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.
    No, there is no unfairness. There is no unfairness in you not being allowed to pass laws to control other people's behavior and rights according to your religion. You can feel however you want about same sex marriages. You can pray however you want about them. You, if you are a religious figure, and refuse to perform any of them. But you don't get to make the laws about them. The constitution does not protect your religion like that. You can practice however you like without curtailing the rights of others.

    And the constitution certainly does not protect your religion to the extent that it gives it a superior position over other religions that DON'T have a problem with same sex marriage. Why should your brand of Christianity make the rules and Reform Judaism not make the rules? Why should one religion get special treatment over others? The answer is that no religion gets special treatment. No religion gets to enforce its rules over others. That's how actual freedom works, not just freedom for you.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #639
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    That's patently illogical.

    That the scientists were silent on the matter of the obvious birth defect nature of homosexuality is not relevant to any "claims" for or against the birth defect nature of homosexuality.
    It's relevant strictly on the point that one cannot use their research to claim that their research demonstrates that homosexuality is a "birth defect." They don't make that claim. Arguments to that end that cite their paper are solely the personal interpretations of those making such arguments, not the scientists who conducted the research.

    The scientists' silence on the obvious birth defect nature of homosexuality could be for a number of reasons, political, grant-protection, under management gag-order, etc.
    Or it could be that they wish to focus strictly on the science, rather than taint their work with political or ideological arguments that have no scientific basis.

    You cannot logically view their silence on the matter as meaning "their lack of a claim means homosexuality isn't a birth defect", obviously.
    My point was that one cannot cite their work to claim that the research shows that homosexuality is a birth defect. Their work, if one reads the whole paper, does not make any such judgments.

    Also, the epigenetic basis of birth defects has been proven, and, the epigenetic presentation of the etiology of homosexuality is not only scientifically solid but matches the same everythings as other epigenetically based birth defects, and, there has been no rational scientific conjecture on the matter, so the presentation is scientifically solid.
    Not exactly. That there can be an epigenetic basis to birth defects does not mean that every outcome with an epigenetic basis is a birth defect. Such logic does not hold up. An analogy: If one takes a certain amount of a given medicine, one dies. If one then uses your logic, one would conclude that the medicine is harmful. In fact, a prescribed dose could be beneficial.

    Moreover, the epigenetic explanation is a theory and the authors of the paper make that clear. They have confidence that their theory would stand up to further testing, but they do not suggest that it is an established scientific fact.

  10. #640
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    It's relevant strictly on the point that one cannot use their research to claim that their research demonstrates that homosexuality is a "birth defect." They don't make that claim. Arguments to that end that cite their paper are solely the personal interpretations of those making such arguments, not the scientists who conducted the research. Or it could be that they wish to focus strictly on the science, rather than taint their work with political or ideological arguments that have no scientific basis. My point was that one cannot cite their work to claim that the research shows that homosexuality is a birth defect. Their work, if one reads the whole paper, does not make any such judgments.
    Here you're simply repeating yourself in other words, which still means your presentation is illogical.

    You simply cannot draw any conclusion about the birth defect nature of homosexuality from the scientists silence on the matter.

    You're simply leading on and on until you've convinced yourself that their siilence "means" something.

    It doesn't, obviously.

    The accurate conclusion that homosexuality is a birth defect comes from reviewing the scientists' paper, reaching the unmistakable conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Not exactly. That there can be an epigenetic basis to birth defects does not mean that every outcome with an epigenetic basis is a birth defect. Such logic does not hold up. An analogy: If one takes a certain amount of a given medicine, one dies. If one then uses your logic, one would conclude that the medicine is harmful. In fact, a prescribed dose could be beneficial. Moreover, the epigenetic explanation is a theory and the authors of the paper make that clear. They have confidence that their theory would stand up to further testing, but they do not suggest that it is an established scientific fact.
    Your "in theory it could be"s here are irrelevant.

    You are merely digressing into a divertive lecture, generalizing, somewhat erroneously, rather than face the specifics I presented that unquestionably reveal the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

    Thus you did not respond to the specific five points that together conclude the obvious reality that homosexuality is a birth defect.

    If you want to present a cogent rational debate against my presentation, then take the five points I presented and try to refute each one and take them all together and try to refute that they mean "birth defect".

    That would be to the point in the debate.

    Everthing else is merely dodging the "harsh" reality you're having difficulty accepting.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •