putting on evolutionary biology cap In nature the gay monkeyman would probably play the role of helper to the breeders. In wolf packs the non-breeding members help feed and protect the little ones, which has obvious advantages to the group. The stereotypical nurturing nature of gay men would seem to indicate this role.

Sure it does. It's called genetic drift.

OK, but it seems genetic drift would be less likely to explain something that appears to be common through many cultures and through many histories?

I think that's Jung Collective Unconscious at work there ...

Not necessarily. It just depends on whether the natural selection is strong enough to overcome the random genetic drift. There are all kinds of mutations that are common throughout many cultures and histories that arose as a result of genetic drift.

I'm not saying homosexuality <i>isn't</i> a result of natural selection. I don't know. I'm just presenting alternative options.

Here's one idea of how this might coincide. If it seems far-fetched, then hey, it's just an idea. :)

There's some evidence in this this Nature article that suggests that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual. If this is true, then homosexuality genes, originally created through genetic drift, could still be passed on by heterosexual siblings.

It does sound pretty far-fetched, but is a neat idea!

That same article also says that you can tell whether or not someone is a lesbian by the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers. I know, it sounds like total BS, but apparently there's some evidence for it.

Hmmm, with hands like that you'd also be able to throw a softball pretty well.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So lesbians have a couple of longer fingers than straight women? There's a joke in this somewhere...

Wow. Tough room.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh yeah, untill someone can give me a solid reason to say gays shouldn't marry that isn't a religious or emotional thing, I say let 'em marry.

I thought it was funny.

I went to a debate between Ben Stein and Al Franken last night (get it? Franken-Stein! Get it? HAHAHAHAHA!)

Er, anyway, Al Franken was mocking the "Because marriage is between a man and a woman" argument. He said it wasn't a reason at all, just a restatement of what you believe.

Slang assures me that the mega post is on its way... we shall see.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yeah, and as much as I like slang, I think he may have trouble with this. This board is really tough on statistics for example. If they are leaning, it's going to be pointed out. And pretty much all stats are. Same goes for any studies he links. Still, if he's putting this much effort into it, it should be an interesting read. Assuming, of course, it's not all based off stuff Rush said... ;)

Don't think it will be ... I've seen some of the preliminary work.

Not so much power, but wicked sliders and splitters.

Now THAT'S comedy!

But to say that they should be married just so they can enjoy the benifits that marriage brings is bunk to me.

There are a lot of people that don't get those breaks. Whats to keep two brothers from becoming married then? Why stop at just gays? To me the fight is for the power of attorney and for the generous tax breaks. The government is not stopping them from having sex or being in love with somebody from the same sex are they? All I want to know is that if they are fighting for equality, fight for equality for all, don't just limit it to yet another group of people.

Lets do away with the some of the absurd tax credits married life brings and bring them to all people. Let parents give the home to their children if they desire instead of it going to pay for their nursing home stay. Let two brothers live together in a house and pass it to the other without getting it tangled up in probate/estate court.

There are many inequalities that the government imposes on people. Big suprise, not everybody is being treated fairly by the good ole USA. I see a ton of 'Indian' tags on vehicles here in Oklahoma. I understand why they do it. They levy a cheaper excise tax on the price of the vehicles. The problem is these people are more 'white' than I am and know nothing about their heritage, but they can prove they are 1/656th indian and hey cheaper tags, alrighty!!!!!!!

But yet I am banned from getting a farm tag on my vehicle because it is not a pickup, but a jeep. I haul wood, feed and hay in the back and use it repeatedly in the upkeep of my farm. But they were getting too many people that were putting farm tags on escalades that never saw dirt roads so they changed it to say that it must have a pickup box on it. So now there are brand new dual cab, dual transmission, dual mirrors, dual everything but gas mileage trucks out there with farm tags that still don't see a dirt road, but still get the tax break. Their tag is $35 dollars, and for my 12 year old jeep its $48. Not so fair in my books, but what can I do.

Want to make sure all people are treated fairly? Lets lobby the government to become smaller, not bigger.

If I were gay I don't think I'd even want to be legally married. They have enough information about me already without knowing I'm married to a member of the same sex.

I know I tend to ramble, but to me it's a much bigger problem than getting the government to issue a piece of paper that says what your doing is legal.

Hmm...I would think that what you said would be true if the overall treatment was on equal footing in the first place.

Why not? After all, they are being commanded to accomodate the heterosexual society's demands.

You're kidding right? Have you seen the tax difference between filling married and single? Grab a 10-40 booklet some time and look at it. Tax break? I think you're reading your numbers wrong.

But if you were straight it'd be ok for them to "have enough information on you" including "knowing I'm married to a member of the (opposite) sex"?

So you'd be more paranoid if you were gay, or what are you saying?

Quzah.

*cringing violently!* Dang those Puritans! :D



Interesting. Just curious: have you ever had your rights compromised in any way?




Interesting again. And who exactly is "we"? :confused:





I'll take a gamble and say that for *most* of "us", "we" don't mind either one...;)

I'm saying the the biological urge is to find a female and mate. If there is something that prevents this such as a shortage of females or an dominant Alpha Male, then being males they'll fuck anything they can. Warm, cold, living, dead, anything they think the guys at the bar won't find out about. :D

You know, part of this comes down to a First Amendment vs public policy issue. In theory, if a couple, gay or heterosexual, are married in a church by a member of the clergy, then by both the equal protection clause and the first amendment guarantee to freedom of religion, they should be married.

Of course it does not work this way, as the Mormons found out. The goverment has always reserved the right to restrict certain freedoms, which is why polygamy is outlawed in every US state. In theory, marriage is up to individual states with reciprocity in other states. After all, its not like carry laws in which you can just move your gun to the trunk at the state line to stay legal. It wouldn't make sense to dissolve a marriage and arrest a 20-year-old who married a 17-year-old in another state.

But Article four allows Congress some control over how this can happen. The 10th Amendment gives power to the states and the people if not claimed by Congress. The 9th amendment allows for the future by stating that just because they didn't think to put it into the Constitution does not mean that a right doesn't exist. This is why the 'right to privacy' can be inferred without being explicitly stated.

So, the ninth amendment means that a gay couple could marry since it is not prohibited in the constitution. But marriage is subject to the policies of individual states which by the 10th amendment have the power to decide for themselves. The fourth article seems to indicate that other states must recognize such marriages, but gives Congress the right to interfere and set conditions on the degree of reciprocity.


Bottom line, a 'Defense of Marriage' amendment is a political ploy and is not necessary. Article four already gives some leeway over how much 'faith and credit' needs to be given to gay unions in states that do not wish to do so. It might in practice create a hodgepodge of differing rules on inheritance, adoption, etc, but that is nothing new.

The United States already recognizes the laws of Louisiana, which are based on Napoleanic law and are slightly different from all of the other states. This is why on a lot of legal software you will see 'except Louisiana'.

Personally, I think trying to force this issue on the whole country at this time is a mistake, even though I believe that all adults should be able to commit to each other if they are mature enough to do so.

Maybe the more older brothers you have the more likely you'll get the balls beaten off you.;)
Could be the feeling of inability to compete with the larger dominant males or the desire to please those same males that causes them to become queer rather than genetics.
Same could happen with adopted children of gay male couples.

BTW- I don't buy the theory that *all* homosexuals were predetermined and they had no choice.

Ok here's another angle at this.

I want to open a discount cigarette store/casino here in OK.

Problem is they only allow Indians to do that here.

Why should they be given a special right by the government.

Aren't you trying to say that we all have the same rights to do whatever we want?

Lets fight for equality for ALL.

Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?

Personally, I don't care why; I just know what I like.

Quzah.

Go for it, dude. That's pretty lame that you can't open one. If you wanted to open one, or were driven to do so, you'd probably feel the same.

That's essentially what's being said about gay marriage: "Let's fight for equality for ALL." I agree.

Glad you've come around.

Yes - you often see homosexual relationships cropping up in situations where there are no women or where the women are not available or even not visible. I posted one like that about homosexuality in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Put on those burqas ladies...

And this is why I personally feel that growing up with a mother and not a father, promoted my heterosexual instincts if anything, because there was a female figure present. It's not an oedipus thing, it's just going with what you know.

On the other hand, every single gay person I have known - and I have known a TON of 'em - has said that they recognized instincts in themselves as early as the age of five. And I personally feel so hetero that I doubt I would turn to gayness in a population of just men. It's just the instinct...

But are they fighting for all Dave?

[quote]
Why We're Demanding Access to Civil Marriage
If the marriage penalty is eased, we will likely, through discrimination in marriage, pay an even greater portion of taxes. If couples are getting tax breaks, those who file as singles (us) will have to pay an even greater disproportionate share. Even by paying more taxes, married couples still benefit from access to civil marriage in a myriad of ways such as social security, family protection, etc., etc. These benefits and privileges significantly outweigh the tax burdens that accompany legalized marriage. Same-sex couples deserve the opportunity to have equal access to perks as well as penalties.

http://www.marriageequalityca.org/taxation.php
[\quote}

Sounds to me they are saying 'Include me into your little group so I can get some perks too damnit'

To me a fight for all would be 'Why is there so many biased tax laws for married couples.'

As it stands now gay couples have all the same 'human' rights as hetero people. The right to love whom they wish, the right to live with whom they wish, the right to grieve when that person leaves. The gubment is only denying them rights or 'rules' that they have made themselves. Instead of removing those rules and getting everybody, single or married, more equal they just want to be included.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. - Confucious

Got to start somewhere, might as well be here.

One of the proposed WTC memorials has a garden that can only be visited by family members of those lost for the first 20 years it's open.

Tell me how this is right for one of the many homosexual couples who won't be able to visit the site because they were not married.

As far as why they're not fighting for everything right now... would you fight a thousand front war? Or would you concentrate on one area?

There are civil rights arguements between life partners of any ilk that are pretty straight forward and hard to deny. Its the issue of gay families, parental rights- the state's interest in procreation- that's freaking everyone under the surface.

And yet, people like JeepNGeorge and blue58 will try to deny them.

Any perks the Native Americans get seem pretty fair given that most of them were killed off and their lands were taken away.

Those perks really only exist as a fig leaf of the sovereignty which they were promised. We should all have these rights but resenting nat-am's for barely clinging to theirs seems counter-productive.

Agreed. Besides, you all know you're gonna get perks when I open mine on the Delaware in a few years anyway.

(lights fuse of the bomb....runs away quickly)

They didnt own the land. What court gave them title to it? Did god give them the right to it? They didnt believe in the white man's god. If they had converted, they may have been able to own the land they had previously roamed on.

They were killed for tresspassing on the land that the settlers had claimed and had title to. God gave the white man the right to the land.

If you're upset, be so at God.

Ummm OK so what's to stop me from claiming the continent you American turkeys refer to as "North America" in its entirety. After all, I am the high priest of the Rite of Steve, and I claim the land in the name of the great god Steve. Now I realize that you heathen Christians don't worship or even acknowledge the existence of Steve, so you can just get the hell out. If any of you wish to convert, I'll be happy to consider granting you some property rights.

Slang.

I URGE you to go rent Eddie Izzard. He has a great piece regarding colonisation and flags...

*cough* Might = Right

Look, my peeps may be fat lazy alcoholic dopesmokers, but they weren't stupid enough to believe in some crackpot religious BS cooked up by Whitey.

Ok, so why is it that only Indians are allowed to open stores?

If it was just stores! Why can only Indians be cab drivers?! Thats what I want to know!

Because the Haitians and Senegalese would give them what for and what have you.

Yes how naive of me. Nobody in American would ever fight a multiple front war. turns off CNN.

To me fighting for the inclusion to a set of rules instead of the abolishment of the set of rules seems kinda silly.

Just as the so called perks of marriage.

Because Oklahoma has given indians the only right to legalized gambling. It started out as bingo halls, and has grown to include class III gaming, although some of the games are starting to be questioned. We can't even get a lottery here in Oklahoma, but feel free to visit the lovely Cherokee Casino as you leave to go to Arkansas or Kansasto get your tickets.

This is called "picking your battles". What do you think is more likely to happen - legalized gay marriage <b>or</b> the abolition of the marriage system?

Get real, dude. You're a homophobe, and that's okay. Just admit it and move on.

I knew it was getting close to the name calling time.

I prefer the term gubmentphobe, but call it as you wish.


We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.

This is not an excuse for not righting a wrong when you see it.

Hrm..couldn't this be considered "reparations"? (God I hope I didn't open a powder keg!). *IF* that is the case, then I'd say it's only fair.

And it's certainly not the "special groups" that we have to blame for that way of thinking.

After all, "majority rules", right?

It could be considered that, but if you take that stance, then couldn't marriage benefits be considered "reparations" for being married to a member of the opposite sex. Nobody is stopping them from loving each other, only taking advantage of the benefits.

It seems to me that Native Americans being allowed to run casinos and gays being allowed to marry are both remedies of injustice, just in different veins.

Only if one considers marriage benefits as "Something done or paid to compensate or make amends." *from dictionary.com*
And I'm thinking that this wouldn't be the case if same sex partners were equal in the eyes of society as hetero couples.

"Taking advantage"? So, if it were Syc and I fighting for the same rights, then it's ok, but if it's same sex couples then it's "taking advantage"? :confused:

This is another thing that pisses me off. It should probably be another thread, but since this has been high-jacked anyway...

The NA get money for the fact that whitey drove them off their lands. They say how horrible whitey was for coming over, "taking their lands" and then kicking their ass.

Well let's look at what happened before whitey came over:

NA wandered around dragging their tents behind them, kicking eachothers asses. End of story.

They didn't have wheels, they didn't have horses. They didn't even build anything permenant. (Yes, there is a small exception to this; a few of the eastern tribes actually built lodges.)

But all in all, the Apache, Comanche, etc etc all wandered around killing eachother.

It's fine for them to kill eachother. That's "heritage". But when whitey does it more effectively, it's evil.

So now whitey pays them money to live on their lands that whitey gave them.

Sure, don't get me wrong, lots of people died. But don't even act like the NA were some peaceful happy-go-lucky group of people that were all innocent and fun. They weren't. They slaughtered eachother. They raided eachothers tribes. They raped eachothers womens. They kidnapped eachothers young. They were not a friendly people en masse.

Yes, there were some friendly tribes. But as a whole, they were not. They were a war-like people. That's what they did. They killed eachother and stole "eachother's land".

Quzah.

Naturally. That's the way the world works. That's why it's called "natural selection". The strong survive.

It doesn't mean it's all sunsine and roses, far from it. It means whoever is the strongest makes the rules. If you don't like it, get a better weapon.

Quzah.

Normally, no.