Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 19, 2009 in Politics, Religion, Society | 38 comments

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Or How Rick Moran is Destroying America

Heresy.GIFIn a move sure to swell his already legendary popularity among the GOP’s Christian Conservative base, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse takes up his pen this weekend to make the case for why conservatives need to reject their opposition to gay marriage. A number of specific points are raised, which make the entire essay worth a read, but an interesting baseline is set with the following:

There is no delegitimizing love be it between a man and a woman or two members of the same sex. The same electro-chemical reactions in the brain that cause sparks to fly between a man and a woman also affect same sex couples. The same stages of love experienced by heterosexual couples are also felt by gay partners. Love is love in any context and only man in his ignorance defines the emotion felt by gay couples as “illegitimate.” Why that has been accepted by conservatives as a reason to oppose the idea that two members of the same sex who love each other should be legally kept apart is beyond me. You can disapprove of gays and gay marriage out of religious conviction or personal prejudice but it is decidedly unconservative to force the rest of us to agree with you by preventing the union of gay couples.

Rick focuses his argument on a few key points which include – if I may be so bold as to summarize – these:

1. It flies in the face of the core definition of conservative belief which states that government should stay out of the private business of citzens except for rigidly defined roles laid out in the constitution. There are few things more intrusive than dictating who we spend our lives with.

2. It’s a political albatross which provides an all too easy target for the media to paint the GOP as homophobic gay bashers, on top of already being seen as bigots, Islamophobes and Zionists.

3. It will eventually become a non-starter, since the tide is clearly running toward civil unions at a minimum, moving toward gay marriage sooner or later.

There is, however, one point which I think Rick misses out on, and it’s briefly noted in the following paragraph.

Is there a way to separate the idea that one can be tolerant of another’s lifestyle while opposing what I admit is a radical change in the concept of marriage? Not as long as it is politically convenient for the opposition to paint gay marriage opponents as anti-gay bigots.

This relates to one of the other chief talking points among opponents of gay marriage which has always stuck in my craw. It’s the tenet that things have “always been this way” going back to biblical times, and thus it is somehow the “traditional” definition of marriage and should defy tampering.

That definition, we are told, is that marriage is has always been a binding tie between “a man and a woman.” If I may be so bold, the definition has been in flux for as long as we’ve been recording history. Additional, “radical” changes to it now would be nothing new. I could turn this into a link festival, but I’ll leave you to do your own background reading on the following.

First of all, the use of the article “a” implies that there would be only one of each. Going straight back to Old Testament days, plural marriages were not only accepted, but often the norm. The idea of limiting these unions to two, monogamous individuals of the opposite gender is a fairly recent one and is still not embraced in many countries. But that’s not the only shifting “definition” which we have imposed.

It’s not just who you can marry which has been the subject of debate, but who you can’t as well. Here in the Unites States, three states still allow you to marry someone who is your first cousin. The rest of the states forbid it. So the “definition” of marriage must be that it’s between one man and one woman who are not too closely related. But how close?

Right up through the 1990s, when the last law fell, (please check my sources on that one) we had regulations on the books in many states which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman providing their skin was the same color. In Arizona, that “definition” of marriage changed while Bill Clinton was in office.

The fact is that we, as a society, have been tinkering with and redefining the concept of marriage for as long as the concept has existed. Going forward in an enlightened society, the question should be less of “how” we define marriage and more of “if” our government has the power and moral authority to define it at all.

EDIT: I should have noted that Dennis Sanders also did a good piece on this subject recently.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • VeteransAbroad

    Another angle that is NOT being discussed is that, when you focus on narrow issues like gay marriage, you tend to purposefully ignore bigger issues on marriage, eg that marriage is being destroyed by victim feminists (think Tahirih Justice Center) and their female fellow travelers in the Republican Party who don’t understand that smart men will only consider marriage when laws like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are finally overturned in their entirety for being unconstitutional even in its very name not to mention that violence that does not involve inter-state travel is not a federal issue.

    VAWA enables women to benefit financially and obtain US citizenship by falsely accusing US husbands of abuse (VAWA states that the man’s testimony, evidence and witnesses are not needed to determine whether abuse took place). A part of VAWA, IMBRA states that socalled “Marriage Brokers” are intrinsically evil and need to be regulated (by forcing US men -but not non-US men – to be background checked to say hello to foreign women online) while erotic dating sites go unregulated of course (men who seek quick sexual partners online are not seen by liberal feminists to be as awful as men who might want to marry a Russian woman).

    Male Republican politicians sit scared on the sidelines while victim feminists punish men via VAWA for having gotten married or for wanting to get married on a marriage-oriented website instead of a sex-oriented website. Female Republican politiicians probably just laugh at how they and their sisters have taken over both parties in the US. Witness Sarah Palin accepting an endorsement from the LA Chapter of the NOW at a rally in October.

    Another threat to marriage is Alimony: Why does the Republican Party sit idly by while men lose hundreds of $millions to liberal judges who think a woman deserves to be paid for the trauma of having to have been married to a male = jerk? The anti-male comments always fly when a woman wants to take a rich man to the cleaners just because he had a fling with his secretary or, in Mel Gibson’s case, with a Russian pop singer. Right wingers fall in line with left wing feminists to hate men on this subject. Why? Because old insecure women now control the Republican Party.

    So where sleeping with your secretary should not be the business of government (even if you are using your government office desk during lunch time), the government now considers itself to the avenger of all married women whose husbands cheated on them (heck, the above mentioned IMBRA law makes it illegal for a married man to meet a Russian woman online). The Republican Party went down the wrong rabbit hole with all that Monica Lewinsky nonsense – men hated Clinton for considering Monica his only constituent, not for cheating on his sham marriage.

    Then there is the idea that, if a poor woman uses a needle hole in a condom to trick a rich man into getting her pregnant…he needs to face “individual responsiblity for his actions” and pay excessive child support that is dependent on his income and ruinous for rich or upper middle class men. Republicans will be the first to hate the man for having exploited the poor woman sexually with no intent to marry and have children. Hatred for men who practice premarital sex is not going to get the Republican Party anywhere with the men of a new generation and it is a downright stupid argument in favor of marriage to say that men who play the field a bit first need to be punished for that. Never mind that Roe vs Wade gives women the right to deny motherhood in the first 3 months of a pregnancy (Roe vs Wade does not grant any rights after 3 months by the way, it was the Bolton case that the Right to Life crowd need to be yelling about – but they don’t want to ever lose their place in the limelight by ever solving the abortion problem). The best way to stop Roe vs Wade is to ask that it extend the right to deny fatherhood to males or be declared unconstitutional for being sexist.

    The federal government needs to stay out of marriage entirely except to stop the states from taking men’s rights away by pandering to feminists and older insecure women who want legal poison pills or laws like IMBRA to prevent their husbands from leaving them.

    Concentrating on gay marriage allows everyone to conveniently ignore the growing big government intrusiveness in heterosexual marriage. One might wonder if this is all on purpose…that both sides have agreed to loudly disagree on gay marriage for that reason.

  • adelinesdad

    I am on the fence when it comes to legalizing gay marriage, but I don’t fully agree with your point that we should not think much of changing the definition since it has changed before. I assert that changing the definition of marriage to include gay marriages is a more fundamental change than the ones you mention (whether that change is warranted I’ll leave for another debate):

    1) Polygamy is still essentially marriage between a man and woman, it’s just that the man is allowed to enter into multiple of such agreements. While there is a relationship between the “sister wives”, I don’t think it would be considered a binding contractual relationship like it is with the husband. So it is not really a change in what marriage is, just the rules under which they can be entered into. I realize that is a subtle distinction however.

    2) The rule against marrying close relatives is a technical rule that doesn’t change the fundamental definition. It’s similar to the rule requiring an age minimum. No one would argue that changes the fundamental definition.

    3) The issue of race is closer. But in my opinion, since race is for the most part superficial, there is not much real difference between a same-race couple and a mixed-race couple, other than superficial things. So the change to allow mixed-race marriages didn’t significantly change the fundamental definition either.

    In my opinion (and I admit it’s somewhat subjective), changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples would be a change to the *fundamental* definition of marriage, whereas the other three arguably were not. (Again, I’m not making any judgment here as to whether that fundamental change is justified)

  • CStanley

    Without getting into my specific opinion on gay unions, I just want to second adelinesdad’s opinion on the general argument that “We did it before ergo we can do it again.” I was having a similar discussion with Kathy in another thread recently.

    Sure, conservatives sometimes falsely argue their side as though a tradition or institution has never withstood change before. Call them out on that, fine.

    But when it’s then extended into another equally false argument, then the person on the progressive side needs to be called out on that as well.

    Can we agree that logically, the fact that something has been changed in the past neither affirms nor contradicts the idea that it should be further changed now?

  • Braindead

    I dont think its any of the federal governments bidness. They should stay out of it and pass it on to the states. Its a 10th amendment issue and not the multi headed hydras further insistence upon nanny stating us to death.

    The USA needs to actively reduce the role of the federal government to essentially the role the constitution laid out for them. Remember when the founding fathers came together each state was very independent and very concerned about keeping its own independence then we can see the founding fathers never dreamed of the US government that stands before us today.

    Gay marriage is a states right issue. If California wants to legalize it….so be it. If not well then the gay people will have to try harder. That being said the GOP could diffuse this situation so easily and include so many more people by deferring this hot button social issues to the states and saying……..not our job to regulate each states moral fabric.

    End of story. GOP….stay out of the bidness of legalizing or opposing gay marriage, abortion, Drugs.

    Hell if they adopted this attitude they would be in power in 2010 with an overwhelming majority because half of the democrats would join them too while THEY……the GOP did not give up any of their principals. They simply differred them to the state political bodies.

    See as a states righter I am incensed that California tells me or attempts to tell me what to do in the state that I live. By the same token I understand why the left is so angry with the fly over not needed Conservative midwest. Everyone seems to have their favorite target because everyone from every state believes that people from other states are trying to tell their state what to do with certain issues. Wyoming which is like 70 percent GOP/Conservative is not going to vote for Gay marriage, Abortion, legalizing drugs….fine….dont live there. If you want those things and they are so important to you then move to a state that supports them.

    End of story. Thats what our founding fathers visioned for this great country. Not what we are staring at now with our mouths open and protests signs over our heads. This is insane. This country has run amuck.

  • superdestroyer

    pro-gay marriage republicans are idiodts in that they are not demanding concessions for support of gay marriage. At the least, the right should demand the the civil rights act should never be applied to homosexuals, that the government should be forbidden by statutute from every asking anyone about their sexual preferences.

    In the rush to be hip and cool with Democrats, Republicans are, once again, willing to throw away their principles. The day after gay marriage is recognized, the homosexual activist groups will start the push to add sexual preference to the civil rights act. Universities, schools, and governments will start adding advocacy offices for homosexuals. Government contracts, college admissions, and government jobs will be reward to some homosexuals based upon their behavior.

    • When did the Civil Rights act not apply to homosexuals, heterosexuals, metrosexuals or asexuals?

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Would not Americans of any sexual persuasion already be “persons born or naturalized in the United States?”

  • GeorgeSorwell


    By the same token I understand why the left is so angry with the fly over not needed Conservative midwest.

    “Not needed”–??

    Who’s angry?

  • superdestroyer


    Thank you for confirming what many have suspected about militant homosexuals. this is not about privacy, choosing the one you love, or keeping the government out of the bedroom. This is about an organized, affluent, upper class group wanting government goodies such as social security, health insurance, government set asides, etc.

    I find it odd when someone on the left quotes from the civil rights act when those of the left have created dozens of “compelling interests” for not honoring the rule of law. I wonder what Jennifer Gratz did wrong that the University of Michigan denied her admssion. I wonder what the white firemen in New Haven did to have their promotions denied.
    When the left starts really respecting the civil rights of everyone and just not the choosen, they you can quote the civil rights act.

    • Dr J

      SD, you mean those same affluent people who are paying for government goodies like social security etc. actually want to benefit from them too? What a scandal.

      Of course gay marriage is not about privacy. Who ever said it was? Weddings are bits of theater conducted in public because marriage is a social institution.

      And of course government contracts and college entrance ought to be awarded based on people’s behavior, insofar as it’s relevant to their performance. That makes much more sense than doing it on the basis of skin color. Conservatives ought to be drawing the line further back, at the whole notion of “group rights”–metering individual rights so as to make certain averages come out pleasingly.

  • catransplant

    We are dangerously confusing two American rights. The 1st ammendment right to separation of religion and right of assembly, with an anti-disrimination right derived from the 10th Ammendment.

    We have the right to our beliefs. And we have the right to voice our beliefs. That is why Jew and Arab stand at opposite street corners spewing all kinds of vengence against each other, with police separating the two. Is it hate. Yes. Do I personnally like it? No. But I love living in a country that wholeheartedly supports the 1st ammendment. It is not a hate crime, unless there is violence one to another or overt intimidation by a majority against a minority.

    We have equal protection. In cases where we can discriminate (race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability etc) we are told not to. The American idea is an equal playing field so that one prospers according to ability and is not held down for an obvious trait.

    Also part of the American tradition is politics and lobbying. It is obvious in taxation and other areas that certain groups receive preferential treatment. Here is where the great comingling of principles happens.

    Maybe we need to back off. Lets respect the 1st and 10th ammendments for what they are without trying to include all in each. This inclusion is sure to exclude the fundamental rights of all. I ought to have the right to practice my religion and say that certain acts are unacceptable. Another can say that they are. Congress should not make a law supporting the views of one religion over another. This is not hate on either side. The constitution does not guarantee my viepoint is the national will, nor should it.

    I reject the states right arguement. Most of us do not have the freedom to go to any state when we feel like it. I suppose the blacks in 1900 living in Mississippi were ardent supporters of Jim Crow laws.

  • Lit3Bolt

    That argument might be fine if the Republicans bothered to frame it that way. But they don’t, clinging to the “bible tells me so” which is simply childish and possibly the most failed argument in American history.

    And obviously, I hate those militant homosexuals for lusting for “government goodies” such as…health insurance! Horrors!

    But work on that meritocracy argument a little bit more. I agree, the push for equal rights doesn’t need to go so far that suddenly the “tokens” outnumber the rest of the population. That’s why sexual orientation SHOULD have been included in the 2010 census. We need hard data and we’re lacking it.

  • Silhouette

    The left cannot bash or intimidate conservatives or moderates into accepting their agenda blindfolded. We have a right to debate all facets of this issue. All of them, without being called names or badgered or whipped back.

    That being said, the left prays that we utterly ignore the social-contagion factor of all human behavior. Gays are not born that way. The artificial insemination industry in agriculture has emperically and consistently found that sexuality is malleable in mammals, particularly at the onset of puberty and during adolescence of varying species. Since we are mammals we have no choice but to acknowledge their findings as plausible when applied to humman mammal sexual behavior.

    That also being said, we must then acknoweldge that sociologists and human behavioralist, in addition to anthropolgists are all in agreement that humans are the apex of social learners in the animal kingdom. Our young look to the elder members of the “troop” to mimic, to ape, to pattern their own behavior after.

    If we ignore the classical and social conditioning elements of deviant sexuality as acquired instead of innate, we ignore the origins of that which we are debating. If we look honestly at sexuality as acquired, the issue of “descrimination” becomes dimmed when it is seen that an acquired behavior does not a minority group make.

    However, in the case of deviant sexuality or any sexuality for that matter, once the orgasmic behavior has been imprinted as associated with a given set of stimuli, it no longer is a conscious choice of who or what one is attracted to sexually. So in that sense we must also extend compassion to deviant sexuals in that truly after a certain point, their sexuality is no longer a choice.

    Still though, even given that, we also must not ignore their ability to affect others (particularly preadolescents) with their social example they seek of “normalcy”. In other words society’s stamp of “marriage”. We cannot allow this and think at the same time that it will not result in an abnormal rise in the overall population of deviant-fixated sexuals in our human-community.

    So, de facto, whether or not deviants intend it this way…the gay marriage issue truly has a component of recruitment. We are looking at this factually, soberly and intently before we automaticaly give a rubber stamp to condoning the phenomenon as “normal”.

    • Dr J

      Silhouette: “The gay marriage issue truly has a component of recruitment.”

      Yes Sil, you and many others opposed to gay marriage are brazenly trying to create as many heterosexuals as possible. Everyone else either doesn’t agree recruitment is possible, or they allow that it might be possible in principle but no one knows how to do it, which is much the same thing.

      The question is why heterosexuals feel the need to recruit. Perhaps a 90+% majority isn’t enough for political comfort? Or maybe you lust for more potential partners for your “procreation” rituals to address the global population shortage and fill your lonely, childless lives?

  • Thank you for confirming what many have suspected about militant homosexuals.

    Militant homosexuals? I’m sure there have been isolated cases of violence by homosexuals against heterosexuals, but I think you’ll find the opposite is far more prevalent.

    Of course this is the usual rightwing tactic whereby simple logic is turned on its head. Sort of like how calling out racism against African Americans earns you rightwing condemnation as a racist against white People.

    this is not about privacy, choosing the one you love, or keeping the government out of the bedroom. This is about an organized, affluent, upper class group wanting government goodies such as social security, health insurance, government set asides, etc.

    You mean government “goodies” that are assured to everyone else? Then yes, that seems like a valid equal rights complaint. Would you have said before Brown vs. The Board that Blacks just wanted the government “goodie” of decent public schools?

  • superdestroyer

    For those of you who have forgotten, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws violated individuals right to privacy. The civil rights act has been used to justify minority set asides, affirmative action, race norming, quotas, and other forms of social engineering.

    If anyone believes that the homosexual-industrial complex is going to stop at gay marriage, then they are a fool. The next thing will be to push for social security benefits for homosexual partners. It is will a massive windfall for the arts crowd to be able to get social security benefits without ever really paying in. The next push wil be for collecting data on sexual preference as mentioned above and then the classic form of social engineering: disparate impact. The reason that homosexual activist has always insisted on the 10% number is that they will demand 10 % of college admission, government employees, government contradct for homosexuals.

    Since I believe that homosexual behavior is due to environment and not genetics (look at the difference is practicing homosexuals between college graduates and high school drop outs), there is no reason to use the current social engineering apparatus to give them government goodies.

    • StockBoySF

      superdestroyer, “Since I believe that homosexual behavior is due to environment and not genetics (look at the difference is practicing homosexuals between college graduates and high school drop outs)”

      First I don’t know any homosexuals who grew up in a homo households. I also went to a Catholic High School and while we were all taught by priests and nuns, I know zero people from my graduating class of roughly 300 who had any interest in becoming either a priest or a nun or even anyone who wanted to remain celibate. Certainly there were a lot of people who wanted to “save” themselves for marriage, but that’s different than remaining celibate.

      As to your comment about the difference of practicing homosexuals between high school drop-outs and college graduates…. I don’t have any idea of the numbers. Since you’re not clear in your comment I assume from the context of other comments you’ve made that you’re saying there are more high school drop outs who are heterosexual than homosexual.

      I would imagine that one reason there are more hetero high school drop outs is that they get pregnant. For instance Bristol Palin and Levi. She had the baby in December and last year Levi went to work to accept his responsibility. Though he is continuing his high school education online….

      Besides if sexual behavior were based on environment, then how do you explain all those kids who were taught that pre-marital sex was wrong, then went ahead and did it anyway? What about people who get married and had kids because they feel pressured to do so but later realized that they really were gay?

      So I am really interested to know why you think gays are a product of their environment.

  • StockBoySF

    Jazz, “It will eventually become a non-starter, since the tide is clearly running toward civil unions at a minimum, moving toward gay marriage sooner or later.”

    I agree with that statement. It is obviously not a tide with an easy flow and there will be rip currents for both the pro and anti-same sex marriage people.

    But the right does have legitimate concerns, some of which I think are unfounded being based on the religious right’s talking points, but other concerns are perfectly legitimate. I think if the right wants to have an adult conversation about this then they need to express their concerns. If the right can’t stand up and represent their concerns then no one else will do it for them.

    Instead the solution by the right is to outlaw same-sex in an attempt to make it a non-issue. Which is basically like sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes tightly shut and repeating over and over, “Make it go away! Make it go away!”

  • Wow SD. I’m starting to wonder if you’re one of those Ted Haggard/Larry Craig types.

  • pacatrue

    Love Dr_J’s latest snarky response.

  • StockBoySF

    Yeah, I like Dr_J’s response to Sil too.

    “Or maybe you lust for more potential partners for your “procreation” rituals to address the global population shortage and fill your lonely, childless lives?”

    Well I don’t think their lives are childless, so perhaps they are looking for that perfect child- the child who is not a brat and will do everything they are told to do. They sure like to tell other people what to do and if those other people don’t do it then by golly they’ll get mad and pass some laws. 🙂

  • Brownies girl

    SD writes above: “….I believe that homosexual behavior is due to environment and not genetics….”

    What environment? Can you describe it? I come from a completely heterosexual family (small town raised with no other overtly/obviously gay adults around that we knew about), two straight parents both church-goers, 7 children, 6 of whom are straight. One’s gay. All raised the same – nobody treated any differently from the others. How’d that happen you figure? Please expand on what you mean by “environment” ’cause I’m curious.

  • superdestroyer


    If you complied economic data from homosexuals, you would find that a higher percentage a higher precentage of college graduates (but not exactly STE types) than the population as a whole.

    As I have said before, if San Francisco or NYC has the same percentage of homosexuals as Omaha Nebraska, then the progressive upper class left would not be pushing so hard for gay marriage, homosexual rights, etc.

    I also find it odd that even after a state like California that is very blue voted down gay marriage for the second time, that everyone on the progressive left keep talking like 90% of Americans support gay marriage.

    • Dr J

      SD, liberal attitudes and college educations don’t cause homosexuality, if anything it’s the other way around. Homosexuals leave Omaha to avoid the hetero recruiting drives, they move to San Francisco, and they adopt more liberal attitudes.

  • All I know is that my entire world has changed. I have now read the phrase “the homosexual-industrial complex” here in comments and I can pretty much retire.

  • CStanley

    I don’t agree with SD but I think his critics are missing what is meant by ‘environmental influences.’ He’s quoted a study (not a well done one) that talked about classical conditioning in development of sexual orientation, on the basis of how it happens in animals. Of course one of the main weaknesses of the study was that it was comparing apples to oranges- animal sexuality is not a model for the psychology of human sexuality.

    But clearly what is being referred to there is the environmental influence of our first sexual experiences, not being taught to be homosexual by parents or college instructors. I assume that none of us would say that we are taught to assume a sexual identity in that manner, by having a parent or instructor bring us to orgasm (that was the basis for the conditioning argument in the study.)

    I think basically the idea that SD’s floating is that kids are being told it’s cool to experiment with homosexuality during their formative years, and that it then imprints on them. I don’t agree with that, although I definitely do feel that there’s some glorification of sexual expermentation, including trying out homosexual sex, in the popular culture and among teens. I don’t believe at all that this actually creates homosexuals, but it does create more homosexual sex acts and personally I think that the encouragement of that degree of promiscuous experimentation isn’t a great thing- from what I pick up from my daughter’s friends, it’s creating more confusion than anything.

    All of that is a separate issue from whether or not actual homosexuals exist who aren’t making a ‘choice’. The question is whether there are those individuals, plus others who are imitating them as a matter of choice.

    • Dr J

      CS, a good analysis of the applicability of animal studies, though the unwise-orgasm-turning-us-all-gay was Silhouette’s particular slippery slope.

      Superdestroyer’s slope slides toward never-ending government entitlements for gays–sort of the socialization of the homo-industrial complex, in a harmonic convergence of conservative nightmares.

  • The question is whether there are those individuals, plus others who are imitating them as a matter of choice.

    Even if they did, there’s nothing wrong with that, and it has nothing to do with marriage.

  • Silhouette

    There is a study I cited called “Conditioning And Sexual Behavior: A Review” that IS a good study. There are about as many pages of references as there are of study material. It’s a good read.

    In a nutshell it found that sexual preference is malleable and that social influences do seem to play a part in partner selection as well as the environmental cues present during the first few orgasms. It really is a case for classical conditioning.

    Gays inviting “bi-curious” [their words not mine] youth to parties and events sponsored by the GLBT community is their admission, also in a nutshell, that homosexuality is not innate, but adopted at some point instead..

    Here’s the link for “Conditioning And Sexual Behavior: A Review” again

    And of course, any scientific study that reflects that homosexuality is acquired instead of innate is a “bad” review done by “homophobes” and “quack researchers”… Just ask the AI industry. Chances are you are eating a meal today born from a direct result of their knowledge of how to get animals at puberty to graft onto objects or same-sexed animals as mount objects in order to collect semen to impregnate females who bear the offspring that you are putting ketchup on right now…providing you eat meat..or drinking the milk from..whatever..

    • Dr J

      Silhouette, you keep posting the link to that study, and it’s a shame you’re not paying more attention to people’s responses.

      It’s a fine study that concludes with lots of mays and mights about what influences sexual attraction. It stops well short of saying homosexuality is acquired, much less does it suggest social policies that would prevent people from acquiring it. It doesn’t attempt to account for the millions of homosexuals who report knowing they were gay well before puberty, who didn’t reinforce it by entertaining the “wrong” sexual fantasies, or those who tried and failed to become straight by entertaining the “right” ones.

      In short, no one really seems to be disagreeing with you on that part.

  • rdy122

    “Hate lite” is still hate.

  • rdy122

    I think we should be more afraid of “Superdestroyer” than gay marriage. Let’s start with the name…”Superdestroyer”—then there’s the masked face…hiding one’s face is a sure sign that one feels GUILTY about who/what they are (wretched, evil beings). I wouldn’t even consider a ski-masked marauder as worthy of holding a conversation with. And might I say it like Jesus did…”you did it” (Jesus said “you said it”…the point is SD chose his profile name and image).

  • rdy122

    By the way, scientists believe that approximately 90% of mammals are “straight” because that is a high enough ratio to ensure reproductive success for the species. As for the other 10%…aside from same-sex couples adopting, not every part of human culture needs to revolve around reproduction. So, throw around the “artsy” stereotype, but what you’re really saying is that there is a division-of-labor when it comes to reproducing our CULTURE, and that not having children affords some individuals more time to pursue that end.

    Finally, what’s irritating to me is that “states’s rights” advocates that make it sound like there are 50 separate nations, united only in a defensive alliance…shame on you for not understanding the idea of a UNITED States, and one that champions itself as the place where the rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are sacrosanct values.

  • Silhouette

    Well Dr J, I have been paying attention to most of the posts. But where they say “hate lite” is still hate….I just skip over the rest. See the militant left doesn’t allow for dissent in opinions once the whiniest of them decide on a course of action. It reminds me of the lyrical line from the song “California Uber-Alles” [german: “California over-all” ] by the Dead Kennedys. “Mellow out or you will PAY!”

    The thing is that article does conclude that sexuality is malleable. That’s the whole hub of my argument and my concerns about gay marriage becoming mainstream in a culture of animals (in this case homo sapiens) who are the apex of social-learners. It flatly supports the social-contagion component of the fears on the right. Now they are a paranoid bunch to be sure but often paranoids sense something at a gut level, don’t know how to put it to words and then just “hate” to get their feelings out about it. Those of us who use our minds instead and follow the breadcrumbs, have a moderate grasp of language and how to express ourselves tend to take a more balanced approach.

    As I said before, I agree with homosexuals in that once they are fixated, they are pretty much unchangeable. And the AI industry has found similar results in that once bulls are trained via their first few orgasms to release onto steers (castrated male cattle), they tend to ignore the cows from then on and become excited only in the presence (sight morphology, smells) of a steer. Same with dummy mounts, the animals learn to run to the dummy mounts when they are initially excited by the pheremones of an estrus female. They won’t even mount the female standing just next to the dummy for stimulation. And they only become erect for the dummy and will lose the erection if forced to mount the female, like “what the hell are you having me mount her for?”.

    With my stallion I made sure to have his first few experiences with a live mare. Then he was trained AI just shortly afterwards. So he will mount either a dummy or a mare. So he is… Wasn’t born that way though I can assure you..loved the mare the first time around.. But then another herd invited him over to their weird barn where the mistress there guided him to mount a stuffed dummy on poles and now he “swings both ways”…OK, I’m totally serious about this but having fun with it all the same..

    In any event even if you find ways to belittle the substance of the article, the AI industry is already leagues ahead of these guys in that mammals of several different species are already BANKED ON to have demonstrated malleable sexuality at the onset of puberty. So it’s a done deal. The link the article was to bridge over to human behavior; which is of course even more suggestable clear up into young adulthood than any species we know of to date…

    • Dr J

      Sil, no one’s arguing with the article. The question is how you justify your leap from “sexuality is malleable” to “we should continue to treat gays as second-class citizens so we’ll have fewer of them.”

      Even conceding the first point, the second is still speculation. Or rather, it might qualify as speculation if it hadn’t already been disproved. We’ve tried keeping gays second-class citizens, we even used to beat them regularly, which should over time have produced more heterosexuals, right? It didn’t. Now we’ve got millions of people who are not only gay but angry.

      I’m sorry people are accusing you of hateful intent. Given that you’re advocating continuing policies that have failed to meet your stated goals and left a lot of people miserable to boot, what conclusion are you hoping they’ll draw?

  • Silhouette

    You clearly aren’t getting the social-contagion part.

    It’s there. Science is backing it up. Human behavior is monkey-see monkey do. If you ever took a smidgen of logic in high school or college, you would be able to deduce that if you take a behavior that is proven to be passed on via the findings of the article, that social trends affect choice of sex partners, you’ll see that making deviant sexuality mainstream via granting them marriage rights, means you should expect an increase of deviant sexuals in a given population over time…over and above the numbers normally present in a population.

    This isn’t a worry when applied to most adults. By their tenth sexual [arbitrary number] experience they’re pretty much grounded in their sexuality. It is the young…those who look to adults and society in general who subconsciously pattern their behavior after “norms”. They are the ones we should be concerned about. And as each successive generation influences the next…we should expect deviant sexuality to expand quite a bit.

    If you are in favor of deviant sexuality then this is a good thing. If you are not, then it is a bad thing. If you want 1/2 of your great grandkids to be regularly engaging in homosexual contact instead of only 1 in 10 of them, then support gay marriage all the way. But if you want the numbers of homosexuals to stay the same over time, then speak up now or forever wish you did.

    It’s all a matter of what we as a majority want for our future generations. I think we should have a national vote on the issue and put it to bed. Civil unions were good enough, but no…they wanted to be normalized, mainstreamed…and this is something we must weigh against their potential influence over people who aren’t even born yet..

    • Dr J

      I get it, Sil, you’re saying if we let up the negative messages about homosexuality, it will catch on in a big way. The US will have 100, 150 million gays, maybe half the population. It’s only social disapproval that keeps it in check.

      That’s certainly a theory, just not one borne out by any evidence. Your articles didn’t document even a single epidemic of homosexuality among people or animals. Has one ever been recorded, anywhere, at any point in history, among any species?

      You’re claiming to be speaking facts, but this is simply unsubstantiated fear.

  • superdestroyer

    DR J,

    The difference in the prevelance of homosexual behavior between the upper classes and the poor support the idea of learned behavior. It there was some sort of genetic component, homosexual behavior would be independent of social class or even ethnic class. Also, if being homosexual was genetic it would not be associated so closely with certain behaviors such as fashion with men or sports with women.

    • Dr J

      Maybe, maybe not, SD. I’m unaware of the homosexuality/class correlation you’re describing, but if it has been observed there might be a bunch of explanations. Maybe some ethnic classes are more reluctant to admit it. Maybe gays are more likely to find their way into a higher social class. And who says men’s interest in sports isn’t genetic? If lesbians are disproportionately sports-minded too, that might indeed suggest a genetic effect.

      However, the nature/nurture debate is completely irrelevant, because no sensible policy decisions hinge on it. Heaping opprobrium on gays is a daft policy either way. You might as well claim asthma is caused by environmental factors early in life, and therefore we should teach kids about the wickedness of asthma and require asthmatics to sit in the backs of buses.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :