Gay Marriage

Now that you've all answered that question here's another couple that logically follow on.

1. Should a brother and sister be able to legally marry and adopt children?

2. Marriage in most cultures has been between 2 persons because there are 2 sexes.
Should 3 or more gay persons be able to legally marry if they wish to?

GOLD

To simplify: I have every right, it's a social institution; society defines it, and I am part of society.
I'm pro farm animal marriage, I don't see why chimeras can't vote

I think thats called an orgy

Careful Mark, that sort of carry on is frowned upon in mainland Australia...

sounds like a good old Redneck shindig goin on here

Interesting that you would claim to represent all of science. Your friends have misled you. There is absolutely no proof anywhere, and certainly no scientific consensus, on your claim that it's all utero in humans and that the case is closed. If it's the case, please tell us of the exact utero reproducible recipe that produces this particular characteristics. (Please don't bring the "the-mother-was-stressed thing you find in some studies - vague and directed towards a certain conclusion. Also none of the studies that show that hormones can be influenced in the foetus show that there is no genetic possible predisposition, so don't bring that one up either.)

Until then, you'll find that many believe it's a combination, some that it's purely environmental (or even beyond birth), some that it's 100% genetics for that particular individual. The usual twins studies show a slight correlation, but are some tainted it seems... I thought there was no debate on the pleiotropy of many traits vaguely related to masculinity - for all the good and bad that it brings, and sexual dimorphism. I do not know of a scientist that will claim that full dimorphism (differences between male and female: hormones, physical, etc.) is entirely due to vague utero stress things in humans. Would like to hear if there is such a school of thought...

That I know of, unlike just about any other human traits these days, there is just about no loci research on this question. I vaguely understand the ethical reasons why it should be so, but there is a counter-reaction "it's pure utero induced and I don't need to prove it" that goes too far in this field. I asked my neighbour's daughter to bring up this ethics question at her anthropology class, and she just about got attacked. (knew she would)

"Such couples would produce offspring as normal as anyone else's" And I thought you claimed to represent both science and stupidity... . Genetically acquired traits are not necessarily transmissible, nor transmitted.

Grades vary: I do not know that for science, but I'll take your word for it, sure, why not.
That grades may vary does not imply 100% utero and environmental factors.
For that statement to be true you would have to prove that all genetically-acquired traits are off-on - a tall order.

pierrec, so happy you discovered wikipedia. next step would be looking at studies of statistical correlations between incidences of second male offspring and homosexual development. once you find that and understand the implication, will be glad to debate further.

it is not genetic. non-selfish mutations do not survive. it should be obvious... and has nothing to do with transmissibility...

Tolerance just to look good whilst ignoring practicalities and implications, is dumb.

- Me

I actually had a school teacher that thought that this was how it worked!!! Told a class full of 10-11yr olds that evolution was when a bug wanted to eat a certain flower so it decided to become white for better camouflage. Was pretty hard to listen to anything else he had to say after he came out with that gem.

If these stats are even vaguely true there's an awful lot of them out there:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

Weasel words, Mark. You're hiding behind "practicalities". What "practicalities"????....Come on , just come out and say it. You're repulsed by homosexuality and any excuse will do to not have to deal with it. "implications"????of what .....equality?. Yeah, I know I can hear your sigh from here, and before you accuse me of "taking the moral high ground". I'm going to agree straight away.....yes, I am taking the "moral high ground". Anyway... how's the vote for women going Mark?, just think of the "implications", it could end in disaster!!!!

Typical Logman

"Oh Mark must be homophobic". Gather you didn't read my post before that one (back on p3) before you make assumptions.
I love gay people and have many gay friends who I also express my point of view to.
Typical leftie Loggie, as soon as I am against something you say I must be a redneck who HATES the people involved - which could not be farther from the truth.

So gay marriage has no implications? Nothing will change? Well why the hell are you fighting for it then?

Really???

I don't know a single homo apart from this fairy my Mrs invited to my birthday party... she said "Do you mind if I invite (whatever his name was), my gay friend?". I don't actually know him, but that's the closest.
BTW: he was better dressed than my friends.

You must be like my cousin who has ~1780 freaking friends on face book.

What would change Mark, they already have the same rights as married couples... So legally nothing.. All they want is to be equal in the eyes of the law, state and community and probably more than anything have a wedding ceremony for the same reason you did, cause they are in love with the person and want to stand up and declare that they wish to spend there life with that person..


Quick stat.

Approx 1500 species in nature practice homosexuality. Only one practices homophobia...

And nothing funnier than seeing the look on your mates face when his kelpie cattle cross mounts another male dog. Especially when it was a ****zu....

^
Adolf, That doesn't bother me, I'm not British. Gay couples have the same rights as any hetero couple in Australia. And most of our laws are written as such, so I don't get it. If you mean the bit about the church well sorry but I don't listen to people have allowed some of the biggest moral crimes you are ever likely to see go on under there noses for decades and not take responsibility..



And thanks for pointing out it sucks to be judged, that is the point, I don't care whether it is legal or not I just don't like that people judge others and not expect others to judge them.