jump to last post 1-27 of 27 discussions (218 posts)

The Supreme Court of USA has made gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

  1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
    Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago

    Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12498518_f248.jpg



    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12498519_f248.jpg

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
      wba108@yahoo.composted 17 months ago in reply to this

      I see it as a sign of a declining culture. If history is a judge of how nations fare who embrace the homosexual lifestyle, this nation is in serious trouble. Many major civilizations such as Rome and Greece were near their end and in decline after embracing this lifestyle.

      The court has disregarded all precedent of past rulings and run roughshod over the will of the people by overturning all state bans on same sex marriage. Not only is this an attack on marriage but dangerous seizure of power by the federal government.

      This may even be regarded as hate speech by the liberal PC police, chilling indeed!

    2. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Personally, I'm ok with it. My only problem is that now all the "Christian"-owned businesses that serve people looking to get married, (i.e. venues, bakeries, etc) are closing up shop so that they can't be sued. How dare you close up shop for gays when you would otherwise do things for people getting married for all kinds of reasons you're likely unaware of AND you don't know their personal lives (or closet "sins")... I also have a problem with people who would want to do business with bigoted people. If I was gay and I went to venue and wanted to get married there, and they told me they don't let gays get married there, I would say good riddance. I don't think I would go so far as to sue. But, at the end of the day, I'm not gay. I'm sure if there's nowhere nearby for a couple looking to get married, that would be inconvenient, but I'm always pro giving business to progressive thinkers. Even if it's out of your way, go somewhere where you know they'll do it.

      I guess at the end of the day, all those businesses closing up shop should be doing so, anyway...

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 17 months ago

    I'd have said another small step towards tolerance and acceptance - allowing others the freedom to live as they wish without undue and unnecessary controls by the majority.  We still have a long ways to go, but it was another step in the right direction.

    Although I DO understand how it is a great leap to those directly affected!

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. Akriti Mattu profile image85
      Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Yep

  3. Superkev profile image86
    Superkevposted 17 months ago

    “Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states” is not what happened.  What happened was that the Court ruled that it is illegal (unconstitutional, in fact) for any state not to recognize same-sex marriages.  That comparison matters a great deal when viewed from the perspective of constitutional law.

    1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
      Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Still good though.

    2. cam8510 profile image93
      cam8510posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      I agree, there is a big difference between the two understandings about what the court did.  The Supreme Court can't legalize anything since it is not a body that makes laws.  They interpret and apply existing law.  The Court determines what legislation is in agreement with or contrary to the Constitution.  The Justices have simply said that for any State to pass legislation which prohibits same sex marriage, is contrary to the Constitution.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        “The issue before the court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/su … .html?_r=0

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Here is another angle:
        SC has taken away state's rights. The states should have jurisdiction over their own laws and land.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Leaving it up to states has become a problem as it restricts where people can seek justice and move about. If a same sex couple moves to another state that prohibits their union for whatever reason, end of life, inheritance, divorce proceedings , etc. come into play as they do not have the same rights as hetero couples.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, I understand, but the homosexual couple(s) is (are) just fine with states giving up their rights of sovereignty/jurisdiction over their own affairs?  The situation is like a mouse commanding a lion what to do.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              As the Supreme Court just established states don't have that right under the constitution. No government should have the legal right to discriminate on the basis of sexuality just as they shouldn't on freedom of religion etc.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                State governments know whats best for their constituents and not the federal gov't. The issue should be left up to statewide voting.
                Same with legalizing pot.
                The federal gov't MUST stay out of it.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Nope state governments do not morally or legally have the right to legally discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Just like states don't get to decide whether they can have interracial marriage, basic rights like marrying who you want are not up to the states.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  I will have to agree with Josak on this one.  Who was it that said that the country could not continue to exist half slave and half free?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    "THE TRUTH ABOUT SEX

                    Sex is a natural function like eating food. If we didn't have food, we would think about nothing else.

                    Because of the gender confusion (caused by Feminism) many people are sex starved and are obsessed with it. As a result, society suffers from arrested development manifested as an obsessive adolescent preoccupation with bodily functions, genitals, pornography and homosexuality.

                    If we have plenty, we know that divorced from love, "sex is the biggest nothing in the world." (Andy Warhol)

                    Similarly, romantic love is mostly infatuation based on the expectation of some great advantage (usually sex or security.) I have seen businessmen generate the same kind of heat while making a lucrative deal. But, like AOL-Time Warner, romantic mergers often go sour.

                    A marriage based on sexual attraction is like a chair with one leg. True love is based on character, personality and trust, tested over a long period of time."


                    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20 … ersion.htm

                      You never know what is up in this crazy world.

  4. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 17 months ago

    Of course, it is a leap forward.  LGBT people are human beings and have human rights.  For too long, they have been oppressed and discriminated against.  They should be allowed full human rights which includes marriage.  Naturally, there are some pundits who proclaim that marriage is/should be between men and women but such is a societal construct.   The definition of marriage is changing to include two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation who respect, love, and care for each other.

    1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
      Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Absolutely

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Why just two adults?

      GA

      1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image86
        wba108@yahoo.composted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Good Point!

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Marriage is a legal contract recognized by society's institutions that grants certain privileges.  To deny marriage to a homosexual is discrimination based on sexual orientation.  To deny polygamy is not discrimination, because the law against it applies to everyone.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Be careful with that one: the laws against gay marriage also applied to everyone.  Nor do I think the SCOTUS decision mentioned sexual orientation at all: it was not used as a basis for their determination as far as I can see.

          Rather than "legalizing" marriage rights to homosexuals, the decision seems to be that you can marry whomever you wish, and I did not see a limitations on the number of spouses in that decision (although I did not read the entire comments from all the judges).

          We may find that the SCOTUS decision makes polygamy legal.  It has, in fact, already begun: a Montana man has applied for a license to marry his second wife and say's he'll sue if he doesn't get it.

          http://dailyheadlines.net/2015/07/it-ha … two-wives/

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            I didn't state that very well.  The laws against gay marriage discriminated against a particular group of people.  Straight people could marry; gay people could not.  Polygamy laws are applicable to everyone.  No one group is permitted to have a polygamous marriage while another is excluded.

            You might be right about the wording; I haven't delved deep enough to have an opinion on it.  I am only addressing the distinction between allowing gays to marry versus allowing polygamy.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              "No one group is permitted to have a polygamous marriage while another is excluded."  (Except the group that wanted it.)

              No one group was ever permitted to have a homosexual marriage while another was excluded.  (Except the group that wanted it.)

              I confess I don't see any significant difference.  It will be a very interesting time coming up as to whether or not the courts see any.  And I'm sure it will come before the courts within the next few years.  The great scare tactic of the nay-sayers, of child marriage or bestiality, won't - neither is between consenting adults.  But polygamy is.  Fun times ahead, I think, as the bible thumpers try to discredit the marriages of the OT without doing so.

            2. 61
              retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Wrong, everyone could marry. No one could marry someone of the same sex. It had nothing to do with heterosexual or homosexual - as many homosexuals who have married people of the opposite sex can attest.

              The decision declares marriage as a right. Not two people in a marriage a right, but marriage as a right. Polygamy may remained banned but only because the courts are no longer constrained by reason, language or law.

        2. 61
          retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          So you don't believe in all love, just the love you want everyone else to live by - how loving.

        3. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Technically the court's decision was not decided based on LGBT marriages. It was about the right to marry. It was a decision that addressed the right to marry as a Constitutional issue - not a sexual orientation issue.

          So my question is valid. "Why just two people?"

          Granted the reality of the decision really was about gay marriages, and the rights and benefits of marriage. But it appears that the decision has established a new "right" that was not delineated or defined by number of participants,  their sex, their sexual preferences, or their  genetic or biological relationships.

          It probably won't be too long before the "Be careful what you wish for" admonishment might appear to be insightful hindsight.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Not sure your interpretation is correct.  I guess we will have to wait and see.  I'm sure polygamists are eager to test it.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              I am also not sure my interpretation is correct. I am relying on what I have read and heard from folks that are represented as being qualified to speak about it.

              I don't have a problem with the benefit the decision affords LGBT folks, and I am not ringing the polygamist/bestiality/pedophile "slippery slope" alarm bell.

              But I do think the court was misguided in taking up this issue, and returned a decision that should not have been theirs to make. It seems to me this issue is more of a moral one, rather than a legal question. And I think moral issues should be left to the legislative branch, not the judicial.

              This reasoning is why I think the details of the court's decision, (as I think I understand them), are less than clear cut and will be subject to challenges from multiple directions, (this is where I think the "polygamist/bestiality/pedophile "slippery slope"" problem will show up), from both well-intentioned folks, and bigoted knotheads looking for headlines and high-fives from their like-minded brethren.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                I don't see either bestiality or pedophilia as a problem, or even a potential one.  Neither one is between consenting adults.

                But polygamy - a Montana man has already sued because he couldn't get a license for his second wife, who has been with him for some time now.  (Second wife being in addition to the first).

                But a moral issue rather than a legal one?  If so, racism is too, as is sexism and all the other discriminations that have been seen in the country.  Sadly, we have found that morality is insufficient to eliminate such evils; laws are not only appropriate but necessary.

                No, I think the next slippery slope is where religious freedom ends.  Does it include discrimination in the public, business world?  A bakery in Oregon has just been fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay marriage in 2013.  Oregon includes sexual orientation in the list of forbidden discriminations and that is where the decision came from.

                "Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society.  The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

                http://www.oregonlive.com/business/inde … resha.html

                Religious freedom is almost sacrosanct, but how far are we willing to let it go?  I predict we'll find out in the next few years.

                1. Superkev profile image86
                  Superkevposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  The bigger issue in the Oregon case, although the fine itself is completely outrageous, is that the Commissioner (Or should I call him Commissar?) issued a gag order to the bakery owners telling them not to even discuss the case in public, in complete contravention of their 1st amendment right.

                  Only a judge in a court of law can make such an order, yet this un-elected commissioner and his kangaroo court think they have the right to silence anyone whose opinion they do not wish to be heard. That is the bigger reason we cannot and must not allow this to stand, lest we soon find ourselves under the politically correct thumb of Canadian-style Human Rights Commissions. And being an Oregonian myself, I know the people there, at least the ones in power, would love nothing more than to have such a thing.   

                  If you want to see how bad that can potentially get, Google Ezra Levant + Canadian Human Rights Commission.

                  I will be dead before I will let such a thing exist in this country.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Negative.  The bakery can talk about the case, but they are banned from saying the bakery would discriminate in the future.

                    "The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published ... any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations ... will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,"

                    That is an entirely different thing, and should be quite legal.  Ordering them not to advertise that their business will illegally discriminate against any group seems quite reasonable.  Such notice would be tantamount to posting a sign on the window proclaiming "No blacks allowed", and we are hopefully long past that point.

                    http://www.hngn.com/articles/106427/201 … ce-gay.htm

      3. 61
        retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Why not 80? The Supreme Court has declared marriage a RIGHT. Rights are profound things not granted by law, because rights are unalienable - therefore part of our being. If marriage is a right, then  fathers must have the right to marry their daughters. If it is a right, how can anyone be bared from marrying anyone else. What happens if the formerly lunatic fringe of the Animal Rights movement gets their way and apes are declared people by the courts? Does that mean a man can marry an ape?

        It is no more absurd than the idea of same sex marriage was 50 years ago.

        http://www.livescience.com/50595-are-ch … ights.html

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          What makes you think that no rights are granted by a law, or that all of them are inalienable?  We only know of three - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

          And yes, if apes are declared people then you could marry one.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            Declaration of Independence

            That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

            Virginia Declaration of Rights

            political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"

            "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things"

            "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".

            John Locke

            Natural Rights transcend the state.
            http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

            “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

            James Madison

            The Supreme Court is out of step with the very foundation of the country.

            What rights conferred by law are either extensions of Natural Law or are invalid. Any law that contradicts Natural Law is by its existence cause for rebellion - Hence the whole Declaration and Revolutionary War thing.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but the right of the "pursuit of happiness" does not include "the means of acquiring and possessing property" or even "obtaining happiness and safety".  Those things were not mentioned, and neither was the successful completion of that pursuit.

              As a matter of reality, rather than Locke's philosophy, the only natural right given by nature or any god is the right to eat or be eaten.  Nothing else.

              As the constitution is the foundation of the United States, not a spiritual philosophy of the Christian religion, the Supreme Court is not out of line.  They have correctly interpreted that document regardless of any pretend "Natural Law" the religious might want to impose on their neighbors.

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                All that brain going to waste, I am sad for you.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  You used an awful lot of brain power on that little sentence.  Do you need a nap now?  lol

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Then reason is dead and so is America.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Why?  There is that one little word, "if", that carries an awful lot of weight in the matter.

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                IF is only a matter of time and effort.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          In response to an earlier post..

          Can you be compelled to provide wait staff for a nude, satanist,  same sex, orgy reception?

          Would you provide the same staff for a nude, satanist, heterosexual orgy reception?

          If no, to this than the first sentence must also be "no". If yes to the aforementioned question then it is 'yes' for the question that included the same sex couple scenario.

          The issue is not same sex couples or religion but nudity and orgies. I sell chocolate malteds, but I don't sell them with cherries for anyone, regardless or race, sexual orientation, etc. There are other issues involved in hiring staff to get involved with orgies and such, and defering to those is not necessarily discriminating.

          If you want to discriminate based on superficial factors, such as race, sexual orientation or religion, you need to remove yourself from the public square with your business. Remember, people used to have the same problem and issues with interracial couples not that long ago.  So what is the difference?

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            So you are plainly stating that homosexuality is the crucial measure and therefore a protected classification.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, it is. What do you care if a homosexual wants to buy a hamburger from your restaurant?  His status has got nothing to do with conducting your business.

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                My selling a hamburger to him requires I do not participate in or sanction things that I would find objectionable. Selling him a hamburger doesn't require I know anything about the objects of his sexual desires. Catering his same-sex wedding, does. Catering his orgy would. Catering an all male nude photo shoot would. Do I have a right to not sanction, participate in or have my reputation attached to any of these?

                1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
                  Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm sure you feel lucky that you were not born gay . Had u been one and people around you would be homophobic just like you are , you would have had such a hard time.

                  Read a tweet recently where the user stated that," instead of homosexuality , if only homophobia was criminalized.  Makes more sense."

                  I expected a better thought process from citizens like you , being a part of the nation that is a super power.

                  Disappointed !!

                  1. 61
                    retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Homophobic? Do we know each other? Have you ever observed my personal conduct with other people. This is a scurrilous accusation. If we are not free to inquire as to the validity of everything, then we are not free. You call names with little regard for truth. Names are employed to attack and silence opposition.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  There was a time where the very action of my being black and asking for a hamburger constituted an act that people would not sanction and found objectionable on its face. How is your acting on your caprice any different from what these people used to do within my lifetime?So you are being put upon and offended now, but they used your argument to claim they were offended then.

                  Seems to me that if you don't do nude and orgy for hetero, you are not required to accomodate homo for the same reasons. You can't deny people service that you provide heteros to same sex solely for the reason that you have a problem with someone's religion, race or sexual orientation. You simply provide the same service to these groups as you would to the 'chosen ones of your ideal', in the same manner.

                  Would you cater an all nude female orgy or a coed one? Would you have the same objections to this or is it just the same-sex thing that would have you recoil in disgust, while you are more than willing to get your people down to record a nude romp that involved heterosexual relationships?

                  I would question first why does your respectable company get involved with nude romps and orgies in the first place? Nobody requires that you participate.  Now that this involves same-sex unions, the orgies are no longer respectable and sullies your reputation?

                  As long as you either provide the service or don't provide it on an equal/universal standard that is the issue.

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Really, you sincerely believe that being homosexual is logically the same thing as being black? That position is unyielding to reason of any kind. Enjoy the rest of your day. Pretty sure that cinches it.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Ah, another one who thinks homosexuality is a choice!

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                I think there has been little serious and conclusive scientific investigation on the nature and origins of human sexual conduct to the point of defining homosexuality as a disposition into which one is born. I also believe that no serious inquiry will be possible so long as homosexuality is a political cause. I make no conclusions about the complex nature of human sexuality. I do have a question, however, is someone born with a fetish in which the only way they can achieve sexual satisfaction is by simulating sexual congress with a corpse? If the answer to that is no, why is everyone so certain that homosexuality is an inborn characteristic because it is frowned upon or difficult? Isn't necrophilia even more frowned upon, difficult and controversial and yet there are people who function everyday in society and cannot achieve sexual satisfaction in ordinary homosexuality.

                Do you see the problem here?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  I have a gay son who was miserable until he came out. Since he was a teenager, he had a difficult time relating to the opposite sex.  The Indians have a saying: "you should never judge anyone, until you have walk a mile in their moccassins."  Here is a link to a hub that I wrote about this subject:  http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/G … vil-Rights

                  1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
                    Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    smile

            2. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Science teaches us that these people are mostly born not made. Why would anyone subject themselves to the ire of society for being a homosexual just to play games? They may be no more capable of changing their sexual orientation any more than I can change my color. It is all quite reasonable and good here.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Let me guess:  "Science, you say?  Pshaw!  I only believe in science when it doesn't conflict with my deeply held personal and religious beliefs, which are never wrong or harmful."

                http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rRxMgUFnWJ0/UUSI4_4YbRI/AAAAAAAAAEY/u_GDGkGtjwM/s1600/393-The-good-thing-about-science-is-that-its-true-whether-or-not-you-believe-in-it-Neil-DeGrasse-Tyson-quotes-science-reality-truth.jpg

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I don't like bankers and lawyers either, why should I serve them? Perhaps we need another  protected class call it,  "OO" Ocupational Oreintation

              2. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Links to scientific articles about proof that homosexuality is congenital or genetic.

                Camille Paglia maintains that homosexuality is rebellion against the existing social order and not an inborn trait. It is an interesting idea. And she says that men and women are, GASP, qualitatively different.

                http://www.salon.com/topic/camille_paglia/

                http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000 … 2857012920

                Since we now have a class of citizen with extended rights called LGBTQ, Dr Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University Medical School says that transgenderism, another of those born that way conditions, is a mental disorder.
                http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael … sex-change

                The American Psychological Association maintains personality changes through out our life. Since sexuality is part of that personality, can it actually be considered an unchanging and unchangeable set of characteristics?
                http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 075924.htm

                1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
                  Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Since you're sharing links here, lets talk science and then at the end i'll also provide a scientific rebuttal for all the links you shared.

                  Homosexuality and biology

                  1. According to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal 'Psychological Medicine', which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8, the trait is genomic.  The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay. Knowing this, the researchers theorized that any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) consistently found among these men would have something to do with sexual orientation.
                  Interestingly, five uniquely presented SNPs did indeed stand out, expressed in two portions of the human genome.

                  http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles … idence.htm

                  2. According to the proceedings of 'The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects.

                  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/ … 5.abstract

                  3.  William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the 'University of California,' Santa Barbara; Sergey Gavrilets, a mathematician at the 'University of Tennessee'; and Urban Friberg, an evolutionary biologist at the' University of Uppsala.' have linked homosexuality , not to genetics but to epi-genetics . The model focuses on the role of epigenetics in shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, an important determinant of gonad development. The researchers suggest that androgens are also important factors in molding sexual orientation, and that various genes involved in mediating androgen signaling are regulated by epigenetic modifications.  These epigenetic marks, they argue, can be passed on between generations. As an example of how androgens shape sexuality, the researchers point to girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who produce very high levels of testosterone and often display masculinized genitalia and higher rates of same-sex attraction. But testosterone levels are sometimes the same in normally developing male and female fetuses—without masculinizing the females—suggesting that something else must be playing a role. The answer, they hypothesized, has to do with sensitivity to androgens. There are a variety of proteins that can modify androgen signaling, and the researchers hypothesize that differences in sensitivity to these signals between male and female fetuses help mediate their sexual differentiation.

                  http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. … exuality-/

                  4. There has been some data on twins reared apart -- including the Minnesota study in which a study of twins raised separately did find corresponding homosexuality among male twins, and other studies in which twins otherwise (in some form or another) developed sexuality separate and apart from one another to differing extents, and again the rates of corresponding twin homosexuality are notable and higher than in the general population.

                  http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/image … _Twins.pdf

                  5. Anthony R. D'Augelli Professor of Human Development Pennsylvania State University, Charlottesville Charlotte J. Patterson Professor of Psychology University of Virginia have written a book explaining how homosexuality is biological and not a matter of choice. Read it when you have the time -

                  https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en& … mp;pg=PA27

                  6. Research by Paul Vasey, a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, and his graduate student, Doug VanderLaan, provides preliminary support for evidence of homosexuality and genetics -

                  http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

                  NOW LET ME ADD ANOTHER AREA HERE -

                  Homophobia and Homosexuality

                  7. Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
                  University of Georgia have evidence to show that studies have been done that demonstrate that homophobic men get sexually aroused when viewing gay pornography -

                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u … _et_al.pdf

                  8. A series of studies recently published in the prestigious 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology' found higher levels of homophobia in individuals with unacknowledged attractions to the same sex, particularly when they grew up with authoritarian parents who also held homophobic attitudes.

                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th … cepting-it

                  9.Dr. Tyger Latham - a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in men's issues, trauma, and LGBT concerns states that , "When it comes to homosexuality, we have not always practiced what we preach.

                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th … homophobia

                  10.Richard M. Ryan,  a professor of psychology, psychiatry and education at the University of Rochester & William S. Ryan,  a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara had an article published in NYT. To state a few excerpts -

                  WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

                  In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.
                  One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opini … .html?_r=0


                  FINALLY, A REBUTTAL YOUR LINKS -

                  1. CAMILLE PAGALIA
                  is an American academic and social critic and NOT a scientist. What she stated in her personal capacity is her pov. There is no scientific evidence there.

                  2.  You quoted an article in WSJ by Camille Pagalia . So no relevance again.

                  3. Dr. Paul R. McHugh, made a statement about being transgender and NOT homosexuality. The two are different terms. Homosexuality is related to the "Gender Identity" and "Attracted to" axes.  If you are attracted to people that are the same gender as your gender identity, you're homosexual.

                  Transgender is related to the "Biological Sex" and "Gender Identity" axes.  If you identify as a gender opposite to the one designated as your biological sex, you are transgender.

                  What the man said was this - " transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible.” He did not make any comment on homosexuality.

                  4. Since u quoted a link from 'The American Psychological Association' you should read this 
                  https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf

                  It is also by the American Psychological Association.

                  P.S : Homosexuality as an innate biological condition is NOT restricted to human beings alone. It is found widely in animals, birds and even insects . To give u a few examples - Dolphins, Giraffes, Dragon Flies, Beetles, Albatrosses, Sea Gulls, Lions, penguins, Monkeys etc etc.

                  Everybody can have a point of view, even if its not rational. So i can give you that but to spread misinformation - No that is not cool.

                  1. 61
                    retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I was asking for links to the science of homosexuality as an inborn trait. Thank you for your research, I will be reading through it. The links I supplied, especially for Camille Paglia, were to show that there is legitimate opinion regarding the nature of homosexuality.

                  2. 61
                    retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Human beings are much more than just animals, there are great many other animal behaviors we would find very objectionable if permitted in human society. This is hardly a reasonable argument for homosexuality as a natural behavior.

                  3. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    IT won't do an iota of good of course but kudos for going to the effort of posting all that good info and sources.

                  4. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Very thorough, thanks for your research, this is the kind of evidence and support that 'knocks the ball out of the park'.

            3. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Black folks have had issues with the homosexual communities hijaking the civil rights agenda. But, as far as I am concerned if homosexuality is something one is born with and out of their immediate control, then their circumstance is not much different from mine and I have to support their right to fair and equal treatment in just the way I expect it.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

    All U.S. citizens should have equal rights under the law.  This is a step forward - but it is not the last step we need to take.  America is not finished yet.

    1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
      Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      ohh yes..there's way more to go.

  6. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 17 months ago

    I think it should tip marriage equity over into acceptable practice so that even those who do not support it will learn to live with it.

    1. Akriti Mattu profile image85
      Akriti Mattuposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      i feel the same.

  7. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 17 months ago

    It gives gay people the same legal rights as straight people under the law. Prior to this law gay people could live together but had no legal rights to each others property or estate. Prior to this law, if one person dies, that persons estate goes to his or her next of kin, not to the partner.The partner can end up homeless and on the street They could not even visit each other in the hospital, if the next of kin did not allow it.  Now that the law has been passed and they are able to get marriage licenses, they have the same legal rights as all married people.  Those that refuse to issue marriage licenses to the gay people are in violation of a federal law and can suffer the consequences of those decisions. The law was passed as a legal action, not as sexual accommodation.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    ...and of course, if they want to just live together thats okay too.
    Its not like they now are required to get married.
    That is probably a relief to many, as well.
    Meanwhile is "shacking-up" among heterosexuals still looked down on?
    Or is that viewpoint as out as casual sex is in?


    Confused and wondering.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      You are right they are not required to get married.  However, if they are going to transact any legal action that is require by the courts for all married people, then they will have to produce a marriage license.  As far as "shacking up or  casual sex" goes, they are only looked down-on by those who choose to look down upon them.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        … and they choose to look down on them… because...???

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I don't know.  Everybody has their own value and belief systems.  If you are tap dancing around, that it's sinful. I'm not playing that game. Some people believe in God and others don't.  That doesn't make either of them right or wrong.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Men and wonen cannot live like brothers and sisters. Sex is playing with fire, unless married, for very many reasons, both psychological and physical. Shacking up/unmarried sex is detrimental to society and to individuals.
            Individuals: Young girls who find themselves pregnant.
            Society: Un-wed mothers on welfare.

            With homosexuals, pregnancy is not an issue, but the spread of Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases is. Obviously bad for both individuals and society.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              So married mothers on welfare is fine!

              I must remember that.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Welfare mothers are detrimental to society in that they place an unwarranted burden on others.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  So no married mothers in the USA claim welfare!

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I am saying welfare mothers are often the result of unmarried, casual sex... Oft times in "shack-up" situations.

                    which is why (one reason) shacking up is looked down upon.
                    it is detrimental to society.

                    Would not agree?

                    You don't mind paying for Lady Madonna's children at her feet?
                    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lad … DABF876E13

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    moral laws are based on science, pure and simple. these laws are really based on common sense.
    ...we can't legislate everything for gosh sakes!

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Legal marriage recognizes unions and gives them power.
    I wonder if same sex couples need the same advantages given to a married couple in that they already have the advantage of not being able to have children...

    which we all know are draining to the bank account….

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    The Supreme Court of USA has taken power over congress and the people. Why has the Supreme Court taken jurisdiction that it does not have constitutionally?
    Why was this important issue not put to nation-wide vote?
    Because the minority would have lost. The majority was not given any regard what so ever.
    Gays already had civil union rights.
    Why did they have to have the option to marry?  I mean really????

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Lol, no polling shows pretty clearly who would have won a referendum.
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

      I know, I know, polls are all a conspiracy *eyeroll*.

      Point being the court exersized it's constitutional right to decide matters such as these without the expense or delay of a referendum.

      Edit: mind you I agree we should have referendums on all these sorts of things, things like how much the rich should be taxed etc. but as soon as you ask for that conservatives start wailing about "mob rule" because their hypocrisy is just unending, they only want referendums when it suits them.

      1. 61
        retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        The court contradicted its prior position regarding the jurisdiction of federal government regarding marriage. United States v. Windsor. This sets up a contradictory set of precedents and will precipitate further difficulties in the courts for decades to come. Kind of like Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sandford. Kennedy is likely to be seen by future historians a very bad Supreme Court Justice.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Courts are free to overturn their own precedent, indeed it's a fundamental part of their duties. I am willing to bet anything you like that history favors those who legalized same sex marriage as it has everywhere else which has taken the same step previously. History shall condemn those who sought to prevent it, hell it already does, the supreme court decision was very popular.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court did not vacate its decision in US v. Windsor. It didn't address that decision.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, from the perspective of the Right he is a horrible justice. He stepped outside of their box program. If the right is nervous then I have reason to somewhat sanguine about this.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            History judges and history isn't the next day's newspaper.

      2. 61
        retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        There has been no conservative call for a referendum on same-sex marriage. Conservatives have only asked that each state be free to decide how they will address the issue of marriage and that the federal courts have no jurisdiction regarding marriage. A conclusion born out by the decision in the United States v. Windsor.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Well actually there has been, there is a conservative just above you calling for a referendum on it. They are far from the first.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Really, what is the legal standing of one forum poster calling for a national referendum. The same status as the Speaker of the House? The Governor of Georgia? What is the equivalent of an internet posting? Is it a bill before the Indiana General Assembly? Internet blather is hardly significant support for a national referendum. The opposition in the states and among those in actual elected office, however, that is important.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              There is no legal standing for any call in this sense, every single conservative in America could publicly ask for a referendum and it would still have no legal standing, but the fact remains that plenty of conservatives have asked for one.

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                If every conservative in elective office demanded a change in the law, it would happen. It would result in an Amendment to the Constitution. Of the 38 states necessary to amend the Constitution, the Republicans have total control of the state legislatures in 31, the Democrats control only 11, leaving 8 to battle over (that number is likely to decline in both cases to favor the Republicans)

                So, you see, if every conservative was actively working against same-sex marriage, it would be taken out of the hands of an over reaching Judiciary.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Just like the GOP ill fated 'right to life amendment' this attempt to amend the constitution defining marriage in terms sastifactory to the political right, will never happen.Same sex marriage, from what I understand has been legal in many states prior to the SC ruling. The right lives in a world of illusion if they really think that they can win on this. Wasn't it them that said that  Mitt Romney would tromp Obama during the 2012 Presidential elections? You guys are consistently out of place and out of touch

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this
                  2. 61
                    retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I advocated no specific amendment. I was merely pointing out that the amendment process is possible and that conservatives are much closer to reforming government than are lefties. We shall see how that will change in 2016.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          That states rights stuff, where you have some states that will honor same-sex marriage relationships and some who don't. Like you had some states that allowed for slaves and some that did not. Or you had southern states that considered your marriage license from another state null and void, if the relationship is interracial.

          That has never worked in America.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    ~ ever since the days of free love, the lefties have had their way.
    Isn't it … ?
    There's no stopping them.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Love can wait, sex can't.

      That is why people need lessons in love.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        yep.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Is this to mean the liberal agenda has been the active ingredient in convincing a LGBT person to be who they are? Do you believe you could be converted to being a LGBT person when you feel differently?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I am convinced people very easily are swayed by illusion.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I can understand that completely. What illusion are they suffering when they love each other? Is it that there is a truer form they are missing? Or is that truer form something they have no belief in?

  13. 0
    The J Phronesisposted 17 months ago

    I see it as a problem. if our ancestors had afforded themselves such freedoms we probably wouldnt exist or many potentially beneficial genes would naturally have been deleted from the gene pool making us less fit than we are today. Also, everything in nature has a function, including heterosexual intercourse. How about if the ozone layer decided it wouldnt block harmful radioactive rays, or everything in nature rebelling from their preset places of usefulness? Get my point?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      yep

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      There have been gay people literally as long as there have been people, indeed all higher animals have percentages of their population that are gay. Humans aren't going to go extinct because of homosexuality.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        No, but the country could.



        ...and who cares about that?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Right because all these countries that legalized same sex marriage ages ago have all died out... Wait no that's not true at all.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            uh huh… and which countries are those?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc. etc.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    I wonder how many gay people would marry first before having sex?
    One could fall in love with his llama AFTER having "sex" with it.
    ...especially if the llama is the right height for such an action.
    And llamas do have such beautiful eyes and all …
    Don't worry, the Supreme Court will have a solution for them as well …
    Isn't it...?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Now we get to the crux of the issue. Is it your belief that the relationship between a gay couple is sexually based and therefore not authentic?

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kin … C20170BAD7
    It may turn out there is a link to homosexuality in mismanagement on the part of the mother in child hood.
       and then… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHrxx8Q7LIw

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      So you believe homosexuality is a learned behavior?

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    My my, you are patient!!!
    - if every person waited until after marrying to have sex, there would be less actual cases of homosexuality.
    I love gay people as individuals. I find them very creative and imaginative. I am not against any of them on a personal level.
    I think what the supreme court did encourages it and indoctrinates it.
    If I were gay, I would gladly have suppressed it for the sake of society.

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    The sex center and the love center are very close together in the brain.
    To have sex makes a person feel they are in love.
    Sex is like Love Potion No. 9.
    To legalize gay marriage is to basically encourage experimental sex with another of the same gender …
    and who knows what could happen after that!

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Not one single person on planet Earth went "the Supreme court legalized same sex marriage, well in that case I am going to sleep with someone of my gender" that is ridiculous.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        No, its not. You know how bored we all are.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Opening it up to the community, everyone were any of you even minutely tempted to "experiment" with the same sex for the first time because of the Supreme Court decision?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            I'm talking about very impressionable young children.
            Time will tell on this issue.
            It would be better to leave it in the closet for the sake of the rest of society. bUt NOOO!!!   

            BTW 
            "Churches Have a Mandatory Exception To Filing Tax Returns

            Not only is it completely unnecessary for any church to seek 501c3 status, to do so becomes a grant of jurisdiction to the IRS by any church that obtains that State favor. In the words of Steve Nestor, IRS Sr. Revenue Officer (ret.):'I am not the only IRS employee who’s wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempted from a tax they didn’t owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they’ve always had anyway. Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives. Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control.' "
            http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

            This is good to know! It looks like a lot of churches don't know this fact. So, apparently no worries there.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Well studies show the children of same sex parents are no more likely to be gay than those of opposite sex parents so your parents being gay has no impact at all but the Supreme Court decision is going to make everyone experiment... So utterly ridiculous.

              As for just keeping it in the closet you have no idea what you are asking from more than 5% of the population, the unbearable psychological cost of that which led to massive suicide rates among the same sex community not to mention persecution. There is no "just" about it you are condemning these people to lives of misery and secrecy (not to mention all the people around them who are harmed by that secrecy) for something that produces absolutely no benefit. There is zero evidence that exposure to same sex marriage leads to homosexuality.

              Also time has already told the fist generation of young children who were exposed to same sex marriage overseas are already adults and there has been no change so I am glad we have settled that.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Also I love how ridiculous this logic is, apparently people will be so bored they wild decide to have sex with someone of the same gender. I am beginning to think you understand how sexuality works at all.

          But again opening it up to the community, anyone here ever been so bored they decided to have sex with someone of the same gender?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Ive seen it. I knew a girl who claimed to be gay and would kiss her girlfriend in the halls of the Y where we worked. I sensed it was just to freak us out.
            I later saw her an at a club in Silver Lake hanging onto a guy.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              *Sigh* You are aware that bisexuality is a thing right? There is no contradiction there.

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            That is ridiculous, as a normal hetero, the thought has never entered my mind, matter of fact, it is quite repulsive.

            However, being the progressive that I am, "to each his own"

            This is my opinion but it is enough to say that for the most part these people are born not made. Why would anyone subject themselves to the society with this issue just to play a game with it having no more meaning than changing your socks?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Indeed.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      So what you are saying is that if a person has homosexual latencies they will overcome their distaste for sex with another homosexual if they fall in love with them?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I knew an apparently straight guy in high school who might have had tendencies since he was an artist an all… ( as someone in the video mentioned, maybe we all do yikes)…. but at a party he was raped by guys and turned totally homosexual after that. I was later invited to his (gay) wedding (in the late 70's!) He was a great artist and designer. I would see him on Good Morning America showing his inventive bed headboards and such. He eventually and way too soon died of AIDS.  All because of some (terrible) hanky-panky at a party.
        How many times have you heard lesbianism is mostly out of anger at men and that most gay women don't really do the sex thing? I've heard this a lot.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I have heard that more people are bisexual that straight. Do you think that's true?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            No, I do not believe you have heard that.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Good evening, ladies.

              In general, research does not support Janesix’s comparison between bisexual and straight people but data proves she would be correct when comparing bisexual and homosexual women!

              From among 56,032 women aged 18–44 years, more women (2.8%) reported they were sexually attracted to both sexes while only 0.8% said they were only attracted to other women. The same study included 55,556 men in the same age bracket and only 0.5% said they were attracted equally to both sexes and more (1.2%) said only to other men. {1}

              When answering questions about sexual identity, 3.5% of women identified themselves as bisexual compared to 1.1% that said they were gay. Among the men, however, 1.1% identified as being bisexual and 1.7% as gay. {2} 
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1}
              http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf Table 11.
              {2} Ibid. Tables 12 and 13.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Interesting.

                (Your link: scary.)

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          “Do you like what you see?”

          I don’t know how it makes any difference whether I like it or not. How am I to expect the gay people to change their feelings either way if I like it or not

          “The only thing that stopped that craziness in SF was the spread and threat of HIV.”

          What do you call the craziness? The homosexual behavior or the rampant spread of a disease we knew little about or how to treat it. They started to find reasons and treatments for the disease which has led to a decline in new cases. If what you say is true should we have stopped heterosexual relationships when there was no cure for gonorrhea or syphilis? Nothing has stopped in S.F. with regards to the homosexual element carrying on what it wishes.

          “I do not think the ruling will inspire marriage. only openness. Here, they are pretty much confined to West Hollywood/Silver Lake areas. I think it will become vastly more prevalent, widespread and influential.”

          Who cares what the ruling will inspire other than allowing people to carry on with whomever they wish to. That is freedom and what our Constitution stands for.

          “In the past, homosexuality was illegal in Britain. A certain poet, Oscar Wilde, was discovered, incarcerated and given two years hard labor. After he was released, he was no longer interested in his former male partner.”

          Do you know that the stigma was the reason? Maybe he was in an experimentation stage or grew apart from his partner or just no longer wanted to be emotionally or sexually active anymore.

          “I knew an apparently straight guy in high school who might have had tendencies since he was an artist an all… ( as someone in the video mentioned, maybe we all do yikes)…. but at a party he was raped by guys and turned totally homosexual after that. I was later invited to his (gay) wedding (in the late 70's!) He was a great artist and designer. I would see him on Good Morning America showing his inventive bed headboards and such. He eventually and way too soon died of AIDS.  All because of some (terrible) hanky-panky at a party.”

          You are making great assumptions with your anecdotal story here. If being raped was what “turned” this guy how do you know it was the sex? With such a thing as rape the act is about control and violence. If anything it should have turned the guy the other way unless at a later time he discovered he was homosexual. If he chose to be gay from that point on and failed to practice safe sex that is another subject entirely. The two are not necessarily connected.

          “How many times have you heard lesbianism is mostly out of anger at men and that most gay women don't really do the sex thing? I've heard this  a lot.”

          Now you are waxing a Freudian determination and I cannot comment to that. But I don’t know how “most” comes into play when they continue to carry on in their relationships. Over time as age can forget  do they forgive their anger towards men and become heterosexual again. Any Studies on this?

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Politically, what the Supreme Court did is produce the continuation of a downward spiral in America.
    501 C could be affected.
    Time will tell.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "a downward spiral in America."

      How do you see this as a reality?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Did you see the video?
        http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gay … 65330A30E0

        Do you like what you see?
        The only thing that stopped that craziness in SF was the spread and threat of HIV.
        I do not think the ruling will inspire marriage. only openness. Here, they are pretty much confined to West Hollywood/Silver Lake areas. I think it will become vastly more prevalent, widespread and influential.

        In the past, homosexuality was illegal in Britain. A certain poet, Oscar Wilde, was discovered, incarcerated and given two years hard labor. After he was released, he was no longer interested in his former male partner.

  19. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    501(c)(3) “tax exempt” corporations, only one church has lost its tax-exempt status for violating the IRS code.  Unfortunately, that statistic may be about to increase drastically due to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … z3fKLoExiI
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Completely false propaganda from a far right blog.

      As you should know corporations have been granted person-hood and corporations have had their right to claim religious protection under the constitution reaffirmed in two recent Supreme Court decisions. Repectively Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v … ores,_Inc.

      Why do you lie constantly?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        apparently it is actually a non-issue!
        " Churches Have a Mandatory Exception To Filing Tax Returns"
        see above.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      I'm going to sum this up really simply.  If you believe your religious beliefs trump the laws of the land, then you are headed for a theocracy, not a democracy. It's interesting, when you agree with the laws, then it's O.K.  If you don't, then you fall back on religious doctrine and refuse to obey the laws of the land. . In a theocracy, the religious doctrine is the law and it is practiced 24/7. As conservatives say, "It's a slippery slope."  Christians no more rule this land than do any other religion.  All your talk about "what ifs" is just a guise for what you think is sinful based  on your religious homophobic beliefs.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        "religious homophobic beliefs."
        as opposed to
        freely accepting/agreeing with the practice of sodomy.
        Well, on a gut level reaction it is "abominable" to me which is the word the bible uses.
        So, I agree with you completely.
        The spread of Aids would not have happened if this practice was not engaged in.

        I actually think that homosexuality is a case of extreme egoism.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          You are aware that the biblical definition of sodomy makes 90% of Americans sodomites right?
          https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c … +of+sodomy

          It's also worth noting that while same sex relations between men have a higher rate of STD transmission same sex relations between women have a very low rate of STD transmission, far lower than opposite sex couples so in terms of homosexuality it actually evens out.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image81
          A Thousand Wordsposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          What rock did you crawl out from under? Do you know how the majority of AIDs is spread in Africa? Heterosexual relations and quite frequently rape. Here's a fun fact. The evangelical view of homosexuality created a violent war against gays in Africa, so much so that's almost normal in some places for a lesbian woman to get raped so that she can be shown that she's "confused" and what it is to have a man and a penis. And a homosexual man is simply killed.

          And  extreme egoism exists no matter what your sexual orientation may be... Not every gay man dates gay male model types (or look like models themselves, for that matter)...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            maybe he just wants himself ??? ? (subconsciously)
            That idea came to me whilst helping out a gay man who struggled with Aids. I would often take him to doctor's appointments. His mother had a ferocious hold on him and he was in his seventies! She lived in Florida and he talked to her almost every day. 
            He was a dear sweet soul, an actor in the past...

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            well, Aids hit San Francisco really hard in the beginning… hmmm …  why was that do you suppose?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Because of prejudice like yours. Because gay people were so heavily marginalized they didn't go to the doctor when the disease started spreading for fear of being labelled gay, furthermore due to the persecution gay people met for covert and anonymous hookups which meant lots of different partners whose history they didn't know.

              Funnily eneough stable long term same sex relationships (like marriages) are exactly what you should want if you are concerned about the spread of HIV.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                lol to the first part.  (I think you made that up.)
                I agree with the second.
                Also and furthermore, I've always thought marriage should be a requirement for gay couples who wish to adopt children.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  So you oppose same sex marriage but think it should be a requirement for adoption, that's weird.

                  Did not make it up the WHO lists it as a major factor in the spread of HIV, educate yourself below. It's really messed up you would laugh at this by the way, the sane response is sadness and shame.

                  "In many countries, stigma and discrimination prevent LGBT people from accessing vital HIV prevention, testing, and treatment and care services. This means that many people are unknowlingly living with HIV, or being diagnosed late when HIV is harder to treat. 5

                  A global study of MSM showed that young MSM (YMSM) experience higher levels of homophobia than older MSM, obstructions to HIV services and compromises to their housing and employment security. 6 The loss of these forms of security often lead YMSM to adopt behaviour that puts them at risk of HIV (such as injecting drugs or exchanging sex for money). 7

                  The percentage of YMSM able to access cheap condoms, sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment and HIV education materials for example was extremely low. Nearly half of those living with HIV were not on antiretroviral treatment, compared to only 17 percent of older MSM"

                  - See more at: http://www.avert.org/homophobia-hiv-and … Lcu4h.dpuf

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Do you know anything first hand about San Francisco and the atmosphere of the gay scene there in the eighties?
                    "furthermore due to the persecution gay people met for covert and anonymous hookups which meant lots of different partners whose history they didn't know."

                    I imagine it was more like a free-for-all.

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Is it better for society for homosexuality to be open and accepted?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Absolutely.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Yep. I take if from your reply, that you believe  if homosexuality is accepted, it will ruin our society.  Nature never does anything in a straight line.  There is a continuum between femaleness and maleness.  Some females have male traits and some males have female traits and there is everything in between. If you want a super race where all men are absolute male and all females are absolute female, then I think you should move to another planet.

      My son is gay and I have known and worked with many gay people.  Here is a hub that I wrote about the issue.  I hope you read it.

      http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/G … vil-Rights

  21. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Anyway the left has won on this one. Maybe it will all work out in the end.
    I am sure it will. We are a very resilient and tolerant nation.
    Thanks all, for trying to straighten me out.
    It is so great to have boundaries of polite communication.
    Isn't it?

  22. Conic11 profile image88
    Conic11posted 17 months ago

    Not trying to join this discussion above me. My opinion is - That's a damn good thing same-sex marriage is now a thing. It should have been a thing years ago! People need to start living with the current generation. They also need to stop wielding their religious beliefs as a shillelagh. I personally say, let people do what they want in with their lives, no one else should have a right to try and control others.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      If married heterosexual married couples get a tax break why not homosexual married couples?

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Maybe someone out there knows what really was going on to instigate and perpetuate the spread of Aids to the extent that it was..
    I'll wait.
    On the other hand, I think the gay community cleaned up their act long ago. so forget it. They learned from the school of hard knocks and were forced to correct their ways.  It just stands to reason.

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    If they didn't have sex before marriage none of this would have happened.
    So, now they can get married. 

    Well, good!   I shall leave it at that.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Sorry to waste your time.

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    I came across this article. I have no idea if connecting the gay rights issue to socialism is accurate:

    "Even if legal gains are won these do not guarantee equal treatment and safety of gays and lesbians. The threat of dismissal and queer-bashing will always be present. LGBT rights can only be secured for good by the socialist transformation of society, ending prejudice, the power of the bosses and the scarcity that sets workers against each other.

    In many countries the battle for gay rights includes achieving the decriminalisation of gay sex and the right of free association with other LGBT people. As with other aspects of democratic rights only the organised working class can win this, where necessary in alliance with poor peasants. LGBT liberation is not completed unless it is international in scope, again linking it with the struggle for socialism.

    A socialist society, by raising living standards, would free relationships between people from the constraints imposed by capitalism and enable everyone to live life, not merely survive it. Its positive effects would transform both individual and family life. For example, good quality childcare facilities could be made available alongside options for lengthy maternity/paternity leave. With a general liberation of sexuality, labels such as ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ could become obsolete. They may both turn out to be limiting concepts that humanity no longer needs."

    http://www.socialismtoday.org/107/gays.html

  26. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Should marriage be only between a man and a woman?
    Is it a God-given right for males to marry males and females to marry females??????

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      The phrasing of your question reveals the basis of so much conflict around this issue.  We are not discussing what God wants or provides; we are discussing United States constitutional law.  You can have your beliefs, but our constitution says you cannot use them as justification to control others' behavior or as a basis to discriminate against an entire class of people.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "Is it a God-given right for males to marry males and females to marry females??????"

      I don't know if it is a right but it happens and now it is Constitutionally a right in this country. Should I apply my beliefs in God on you? Better yet should I get the Constitution to apply my beliefs in God on you?

      A problem many religious people have is that God is a conversion of the soul. It only works with those who believe in him. Legislating beliefs in God would be a typical failing of man to interpret and apply Gods will on others or for that matter unbelievers. If it be a Christian dogma applied in the US Constitution would it be alright for Mormons to practice polygamy?

    3. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Does God want you to obey the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights or does God want you to obey your interpretation of your religious doctrine and your interpretation of  scripture?  Sometimes gay people who are afraid to come out hide as homophobic.  Many politicians have done that.  Are you really gay?

  27. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago

    This should be good!

    http://media.giphy.com/media/1183qVpu4n4XCg/giphy.gif

 
working