"The Separation of Marriage and State"

[Michelle]

Darrell,

you said: "It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics."

Judging how fit an individual or couple is to adopt a child based upon arbitrary shared characteristics between the individual and other individuals (such as which gender they prefer to engage romantically) is antithetical to the concept of being concerned for the welfare of the child.

Consider how much more common divorce is among modern American heterosexuals, and consider how badly this can affect a child. Using your logic, why don't we say, then, that, based on the possibility of divorce, heterosexual married couples ought not to be allowed to adopt children?

Does this make people here uncomfortable?

If it does, stop and think for a second how this kind of thinking impacts homosexuals.

If a homosexual couple is unfit to provide adequate care for a child, then, by all means, don't allow them to adopt. But extend this standard to heterosexuals on a case-by-case basis too. There are definitely a lot of gay couples who are unfit to raise a child, but I can tell you that a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples aren't fit to raise children either.

[Michelle]

With adult adoption, anyone you adopt automatically becomes next of kin. With judicially imposed "gay marriage" businesses and private individuals will be forced to treat homosexual couples as the same as heterosexual couples. This is the leftist agenda, to force companies to provide benefits and so forth. The demands will not end there.

Romantic love needs no license. I would do away with any state regulation of marriage. The defacto state of common law marriage would exist - and its existence is solely for the protection of minor children and pregnant women.

A marriage contract would simply default to an adoption in the case that no children were conceived. The legal concept of marriage has always been about children, not about love. It is become a floating abstraction in modern society, that is why there is this mistaken idea that marriage is about the state blessing a romantic relationship. Study world wide history a man marries a woman to establish his claim to the child.

I explicitly said that the child's welfare comes first. reread everything I have written above. You keep making the same objections to stands I haven't taken, or based on the status quo when I have said I would make adult adoption the standard.

As for the a priori preferability of being raised by a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal, I stand by it. Keep in mind this is a side issue and a matter of research and debate. The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child. It's not like gay children are deaf and need deaf parents. The parents are not having sex with the children. I have never heard a gay man say he was traumatized because his father slept with a woman. I assume something like 99.99% of gay people have not been raised by gay couples.

Each case will differ and should be judged on the merits. I would have to trust experts and study the matter, but I think a homosexual couple that is adopting because they cannot have kids (surprise, surprise) would rank lower on the list than a heterosexual couple that has been married ten years and found that they cannot conceive at all. Since in most states singles can adopt, I see no reason to treat a single gay man as any less eligible to be a parent than a single straight man. The bottom line is that there is no right to adopt. Adoption is for the welfare of the child.

Private individuals can discriminate if they want, but I don't believe in state-imposed discrimination. If you're going to recognize statutory marriages and the resultant benefits for heterosexuals, logically you should do the same for homosexuals.

No, this is not 'leftist.' This is just you trying to use the 'guilt by association' tactic by associating this issue with leftism. It's dishonest.

Fine. Do away with statutory marriage, and I'll shut up about statutory gay marriage. Provided the common-law marriage system didn't allow for the kinds of benefits which are available now to people married through a legal contract enforced by the state. But it is immoral to allow it for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals. As it stands, statutory marriage laws aren't going anywhere. Thus, my support for same-sex marriage.

No, marriage has not been about children for quite a while in this country. Your conception of marriage is anti-individualistic, Ted. Why should we look at how other cultures are treating marriage? I tend to think America is a great country precisely because it does not subscribe to the kind of logic which states that marriage is about children.

Being for a position which favors the welfare of the child and stating that your position favors the welfare of the child are two different things, Ted.

No, Ted, the position that heterosexuals are more suitable in general to raise children than homosexuals is a priori. Just because you don't think gays could raise kids as well as heterosexuals does not make it a priori. It only makes it a personal bias of yours.

This issue, being both one of psychological development and sociological efficiency, is purely a posteriori and only answerable through scientific research. And the statement: "The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child" is blatantly false. How does the example of a worthless mother and father benefit the child?

My point is that it is not in the best interests of the child to say that a homosexual couple is any less suitable to raise a child than a heterosexual married couple without reviewing the two relationships as, no, having the example of a mother and a father in the household is not necessarily beneficial to the child.

Now, if the heterosexual marriage is clean and respectable, and one of the persons in the gay couple is a popper-using degenerate, then obviously the child should go to the heterosexual couple. But if the reverse is true, that the gay couple is able to provide a stable, loving home, and that one of the persons in the heterosexual marriage is an unstable degenerate, then the child would clearly be better off going to the homosexual couple.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

<A href="http://www.solopassion.com/node/1886#comment-23968">On Abortion</A>

<A href="http://solohq.solopassion.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1308_3.shtml#69">On Gay Marriage</A>

Thanks, Michelle.

<A href="http://www.objectivity-archive.com/about.html">Stephen</A>

Why are you thanking me?

[Selene]

Michelle - Ted - folks:

"'The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child' is blatantly false."

I am not sure about this statement being true.

In my profession, there is a great deal of dispute as to whether the "ideal" set of parents, by nature is best being male and female.

An objective study, not funded by an agenda organization/group would be valuable.

I have not seen one yet

Adam

[Michelle]

Michelle - Ted - folks:

"'The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child' is blatantly false."

I am not sure about this statement being true.

In my profession, there is a great deal of dispute as to whether the "ideal" set of parents, by nature is best being male and female.

An objective study, not funded by an agenda organization/group would be valuable.

I have not seen one yet

Adam

I am.

Although I think it is extremely dubious, there is a difference between saying "ideally, a caring and loving man and woman make for the best type of parents for a child" and "the example of both a male and a female in a household is beneficial for the child." The first is a statement of an ideal. The second statement basically says that it is always beneficial for the child to be in a household with a man and a woman. But this second statement is blatantly false. If the man or the woman (or, god forbid, both the man and the woman) is unloving or unstable, the child is not going to benefit from having them in the household. How exactly is it more beneficial for the child of a single mother if a crack-addicted lowlife moves in with her, if that crack-addicted lowlife happens to be male?

Considering how well-adjusted many children who come from single-parent households can turn out (hell, my mother and sister raised me, without my father, who took off), what makes you think children from homosexual households won't? My quality of life has not been harmed by the fact that my father was not around to help raise me.

The crucial element is how loving and stable the household is. This idea that children need opposite-sex parents to grow up well-adjusted is a myth.

[kiaer.ts]

Michelle - Ted - folks:

"'The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child' is blatantly false."

I am not sure about this statement being true.

In my profession, there is a great deal of dispute as to whether the "ideal" set of parents, by nature is best being male and female.

An objective study, not funded by an agenda organization/group would be valuable.

I have not seen one yet

Adam

I am.

Although I think it is extremely dubious, there is a difference between saying "ideally, a caring and loving man and woman make for the best type of parents for a child" and "the example of both a male and a female in a household is beneficial for the child." The first is a statement of an ideal. The second statement basically says that it is always beneficial for the child to be in a household with a man and a woman. But this second statement is blatantly false. If the man or the woman (or, god forbid, both the man and the woman) is unloving or unstable, the child is not going to benefit from having them in the household. How exactly is it more beneficial for the child of a single mother if a crack-addicted lowlife moves in with her, if that crack-addicted lowlife happens to be male?

Considering how well-adjusted many children who come from single-parent households can turn out (hell, my mother and sister raised me, without my father, who took off), what makes you think children from homosexual households won't? My quality of life has not been harmed by the fact that my father was not around to help raise me.

The crucial element is how loving and stable the household is. This idea that children need opposite-sex parents to grow up well-adjusted is a myth.

Which part of "the child's welfare comes first" "all other things being equal" and "each case will differ and be judged on the merits" don't you understand?

There is a huge amount of evidence that a two PARENT (not lover) household (all other things being equal - don't ignore this and throw in heterosexual addicts) is best for a child. Children are also better off being raised by their biological father rather than by a step-father. Certainly there will be plenty of single parents who will be better parents than a couple of junkies. And therefore, since some of those single parents might be gay, one would expect a stable professional gay couple might raise a child better than some homeless heterosexual heroin addicts.

What of it? None of that establishes a right of any couple to adopt children because they want to play house. What is best for the child is what matters, and that will vary case by case, and in some cases adoption by a gay individual may be best. Again, please read what I have said, and consider my own words, not these silly straw-men positions.

Also, you have not responded to the idea of adult adoption. Certainly it isn't your position that sodomy is an essential factor in the state recognizing a person's choice of next of kin.

[Selene]

Michelle:

The ability to be a "good " parent resides in the individual.

In my profession, I deal with soon to be or de facto are single parents. Male, female, hetero,bi, trans gender, etc.

My years of work in this area and my natural ability to assess reality objectively posits that over a large number of families, the following order of rank order with 1 being the most beneficial would hold up for the first 8 years of a child's life:

1) male and female parents in the same home;

2) two male or female parents in the same home;

3) one parent, male or female with an active extended family present;

4) one parent male or female;

5) a close relative preferably married;

6) the state and for as little time as possible.

Adam

If you do not mind answering, at what age were you when it became a single parent home?

[Michelle]

EDIT: ad hom. parking space

RESERVED for Ted and Michelle

Violators will be towed

Edited May 31, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Michelle:

The ability to be a "good " parent resides in the individual.

In my profession, I deal with soon to be or de facto are single parents. Male, female, hetero,bi, trans gender, etc.

My years of work in this area and my natural ability to assess reality objectively posits that over a large number of families, the following order of rank order with 1 being the most beneficial would hold up for the first 8 years of a child's life:

1) male and female parents in the same home;

2) two male or female parents in the same home;

3) one parent, male or female with an active extended family present;

4) one parent male or female;

5) a close relative preferably married;

6) the state and for as little time as possible.

Adam

If you do not mind answering, at what age were you when it became a single parent home?

Six or Seven. I forget exactly. Young, but not too young.

[Michelle]

I'll step off of the argument for awhile, Ted. Looking over the posts, we're both getting so heated that we're devolving into ad hominem, which is no way to debate.

[kiaer.ts]

I'll step off of the argument for awhile, Ted. Looking over the posts, we're both getting so heated that we're devolving into ad hominem, which is no way to debate.

Please don't accuse me of ad hominem, and then retreat. I don't even think either of us has used ad hominem. All I ask is that you address my actual positions if you want.

(As for my actual positions, I argued that having the mother and father (all other circumstances being the same) is a preferable thing. You responded: "The second statement basically says that it is always beneficial for the child to be in a household with a man and a woman." But I never said always. While I might say that "orange juice and peanuts are beneficial for kids," I would never say always. I repeat, "the child's welfare comes first" "all other things being equal" and "each case will differ and be judged on the merits." Nor did I ever say that children in a household without both a mother and father present can't grow up well adjusted. Nor did I say anywhere that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent or always a worse parent than a heterosexual, yet you attribute these beliefs to me.)

My bottom line, which is the point you should oppose if you want, is that I don't want a judicially imposed institution of "gay marriage" to make it legally impossible for adoption agents to take into account whether there will be both a (surrogate) mother and a (surrogate) father in the household. That being said I am happy to agree to disagree, or would welcome a break.

[kiaer.ts]

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

[Michelle]

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty reparté, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speach last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Cute.

Of course, such data is only useful in dealing with the people who claim that homosexuality is "unnatural."

[Michelle]

Let's keep to the issue.

My bottom line, which is the point you should oppose if you want, is that I don't want a judicially imposed institution of "gay marriage" to make it legally impossible for adoption agents to take into account whether there will be both a (surrogate) mother and a (surrogate) father in the household.

So, your fear is that, if same-sex marriage is allowed, adoption agents will not be able to favor heterosexual married couples over homosexual married couples?

Let me ask you: do you have any hard proof that, all things being equal, opposite sex parents will make a better home for a child than same-sex parents?

[kiaer.ts]

Let's keep to the issue.

My bottom line, which is the point you should oppose if you want, is that I don't want a judicially imposed institution of "gay marriage" to make it legally impossible for adoption agents to take into account whether there will be both a (surrogate) mother and a (surrogate) father in the household.

So, your fear is that, if same-sex marriage is allowed, adoption agents will not be able to favor heterosexual married couples over homosexual married couples?

Let me ask you: do you have any hard proof that, all things being equal, opposite sex parents will make a better home for a child than same-sex parents?

What do you mean, "let's keep to the issue"? I am the one who restarted the thread. I stated my objection in the clearest way possible so that you might dispute it. I think I deserve credit for clarity, not obfuscation.

If there is a differrence, between a mother and a father versus two fathers (Lesbians, god bless them, can get babies without adoption) then do you want the force of law to make it impossible for adoption agents to take it into consideration?

As far as I am concerned, there is no need to demonstrate that a biological mother and father pair is preferable, since nature does that for us. I am quite happy to take real world evidence into account. I who posted the story am not scared of homo penguins. (I wonder, however, what lesson we would learn from a Reuters story about two unwitting sparrows raising a cuckoo chick that murrders their own offspring.) It would be the courts, not I, who will outlaw taking evidence into account once gay marriage is established as the norm. I am happy to do whatever is in the best interests of the children, not the would-be homemakers.

I am not trying to reignite a flame war. I just thought the story below was humorous.

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

[Michelle]

Let's keep to the issue.

My bottom line, which is the point you should oppose if you want, is that I don't want a judicially imposed institution of "gay marriage" to make it legally impossible for adoption agents to take into account whether there will be both a (surrogate) mother and a (surrogate) father in the household.

So, your fear is that, if same-sex marriage is allowed, adoption agents will not be able to favor heterosexual married couples over homosexual married couples?

Let me ask you: do you have any hard proof that, all things being equal, opposite sex parents will make a better home for a child than same-sex parents?

What do you mean, "let's keep to the issue"? I am the one who restarted the thread. I stated my objection in the clearest way possible so that you might dispute it. I think I deserve credit for clarity, not obfuscation.

If there is a differrence, between a mother and a father versus two fathers (Lesbians, god bless them, can get babies without adoption) then do you want the force of law to make it impossible for adoption agents to take it into consideration?

As far as I am concerned, there is no need to demonstrate that a biological mother and father pair is preferable, since nature does that for us. I am quite happy to take real world evidence into account. I who posted the story am not scared of homo penguins. (I wonder, however, what lesson we would learn from a Reuters story about two unwitting sparrows raising a cuckoo chick that murrders their own offspring.) It would be the courts, not I, who will outlaw taking evidence into account once gay marriage is established as the norm. I am happy to do whatever is in the best interests of the children, not the would-be homemakers.

Pipe down. It was just my way of saying 'let's get back to it.' I'm not insulting you.

No, not a 'difference.' If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

[Michelle]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

[kiaer.ts]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

But you didn't say what it was that I said that you were objecting to. And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

[Michelle]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

Elaborate.

[kiaer.ts]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

Elaborate.

For example, I happen to prefer the tast of vanilla to chocolate, and I like fatty foods but not sweets. That's my particular nature, my make up. It's certainly not in any way my essence.

[Selene]

Would the Penguin's brains telemetry would change when they behaved as nesting versus hunting/protecting?

This study is a year old.

Brains of gay men show similarities to those of heterosexual women, study reports

The study, being published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 17, 2008

The brains of gay men resemble those of straight women, according to research being published Tuesday that provides more evidence of the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Using brain scanning equipment, researchers said they discovered similarities in the brain circuits that deal with language,

perhaps explaining why homosexual men tend to outperform straight men on verbal skills tests -- as do heterosexual women. [<<<<<<<<was not aware of this "finding" and

will be researching it]

The area of the brain that processes emotions also looked very much the same in gay men and straight women -- and both groups have higher rates of depressive disorders than heterosexual men, researchers said.

The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, found the brain similarities were not as close in the case of gay women and straight men.

Previous studies have found evidence that sexual orientation is hard-wired. More than a decade ago, neurobiologist Simon LeVay reported that a key area of the hypothalamus, a brain structure linked to sexual behavior, was smaller in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men.

[Ahh so size does matter! B) ]

The latest study, led by Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, was significant in that it looked at areas of the brain that have nothing to do with sexual behavior, suggesting there was a basic biological link between sexual orientation and a range of brain functions.

"The question is -- how far does it go?" said Dr. Eric Vilain, who studies human sexual development at UCLA and was not involved in the study. "In gay men, the brain is feminized. Is that limited to particular areas or is the entire brain female-like?"

Vilain said his hunch was the entire brain was not feminized because "gay men have a number of masculine traits that are not present in women."

Savic and colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain volumes of two groups, each divided evenly between men and women: 50 heterosexuals and 40 homosexuals. They knew going into the study that in men the right cerebral hemisphere is largest but in women the left and right hemispheres are of equal size.

The results showed that gay men had symmetrical brains like those of straight women, and homosexual women had slightly asymmetrical brains like those of heterosexual men. Language circuits are thought to be more symmetrical in straight women than in heterosexual men, the report said.

The differences were pronounced. For example, the right cerebral hemisphere in heterosexual men was 624 cubic centimeters -- 12 greater than their left side. In homosexual men, the right hemisphere was 608 cubic centimeters -- 1 cubic centimeter smaller than the left.

In heterosexual women, there was no volume difference between right and left hemispheres. But in homosexual women, their right hemisphere was 5 cubic centimeters larger than the left.

Next, researchers used positron emission topography to measure blood flow in the amygdala, a brain area involved in processing emotions. The wiring of the amygdala in gay men more closely resembled that of straight women than straight men, researchers said. The amygdala of gay women looked more like those of straight men, according to the report.

Savic said she believed the brain differences were forged in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors. She said she could not explain why the differences were more pronounced in homosexual men than in homosexual women.

Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist who studies sexual development at Michigan State University, said that in his studies with rats, changes in prenatal levels of testosterone caused the sort of brain alterations Savic observed in her study.

denise.gellene@latimes.com

Now this raises some really interesting questions if it is valid.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since it came up, why not go whole hog? Or whole duck, as the case may be? The following was first posted by George Cordero on the old SoloHQ back in 2005. (Such days of innocent expectations... )

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers

by Donald MacLeod

Guardian

8 March 2005

From the article:

The strange case of the homosexual necrophiliac duck pushed out the boundaries of knowledge in a rather improbable way when it was recorded by Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker.

. . .

"Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards," explains Mr Moeliker.

As he recounts in his seminal paper, The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard anas platyrhynchos, he was in his office in the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he was alerted by a bang to the fact a bird had crashed into the glass facade of the building. "I went downstairs immediately to see if the window was damaged, and saw a drake mallard (anas platyrhynchos) lying motionless on its belly in the sand, two metres outside the facade. The unfortunate duck apparently had hit the building in full flight at a height of about three metres from the ground. Next to the obviously dead duck, another male mallard (in full adult plumage without any visible traces of moult) was present. He forcibly picked into the back, the base of the bill and mostly into the back of the head of the dead mallard for about two minutes, then mounted the corpse and started to copulate, with great force, almost continuously picking the side of the head.

"Rather startled, I watched this scene from close quarters behind the window until 19.10 hours during which time (75 minutes) I made some photographs and the mallard almost continuously copulated his dead congener. He dismounted only twice, stayed near the dead duck and picked the neck and the side of the head before mounting again. The first break (at 18.29 hours) lasted three minutes and the second break (at 18.45 hours) lasted less than a minute. At 19.12 hours, I disturbed this cruel scene. The necrophilic mallard only reluctantly left his 'mate': when I had approached him to about five metres, he did not fly away but simply walked off a few metres, weakly uttering a series of two-note 'raeb-raeb' calls (the 'conversation-call' of Lorentz 1953). I secured the dead duck and left the museum at 19.25 hours. The mallard was still present at the site, calling 'raeb-raeb' and apparently looking for his victim (who, by then, was in the freezer)."

Mr Moeliker suggests the pair were engaged in a rape flight attempt. "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback - well, didn't get any feedback," he said.

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...

(God, the quips that are gushing through my mind! But I will be a good boy...)

Michael

[Michelle]

Since it came up, why not go whole hog? Or whole duck, as the case may be? The following was first posted by George Cordero on the old SoloHQ back in 2005. (Such days of innocent expectations... )

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers

by Donald MacLeod

Guardian

8 March 2005

From the article:

The strange case of the homosexual necrophiliac duck pushed out the boundaries of knowledge in a rather improbable way when it was recorded by Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker.

. . .

"Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards," explains Mr Moeliker.

As he recounts in his seminal paper, The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard anas platyrhynchos, he was in his office in the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he was alerted by a bang to the fact a bird had crashed into the glass facade of the building. "I went downstairs immediately to see if the window was damaged, and saw a drake mallard (anas platyrhynchos) lying motionless on its belly in the sand, two metres outside the facade. The unfortunate duck apparently had hit the building in full flight at a height of about three metres from the ground. Next to the obviously dead duck, another male mallard (in full adult plumage without any visible traces of moult) was present. He forcibly picked into the back, the base of the bill and mostly into the back of the head of the dead mallard for about two minutes, then mounted the corpse and started to copulate, with great force, almost continuously picking the side of the head.

"Rather startled, I watched this scene from close quarters behind the window until 19.10 hours during which time (75 minutes) I made some photographs and the mallard almost continuously copulated his dead congener. He dismounted only twice, stayed near the dead duck and picked the neck and the side of the head before mounting again. The first break (at 18.29 hours) lasted three minutes and the second break (at 18.45 hours) lasted less than a minute. At 19.12 hours, I disturbed this cruel scene. The necrophilic mallard only reluctantly left his 'mate': when I had approached him to about five metres, he did not fly away but simply walked off a few metres, weakly uttering a series of two-note 'raeb-raeb' calls (the 'conversation-call' of Lorentz 1953). I secured the dead duck and left the museum at 19.25 hours. The mallard was still present at the site, calling 'raeb-raeb' and apparently looking for his victim (who, by then, was in the freezer)."

Mr Moeliker suggests the pair were engaged in a rape flight attempt. "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback - well, didn't get any feedback," he said.

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...

(God, the quips that are gushing through my mind! But I will be a good boy...)

Michael

I REMEMBER THIS ARTICLE!

[Michelle]

If there is a clear drop in the quality of life for children being adopted by homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals, and, all things being equal, you can isolate the variable of homosexuality itself as the cause in the drop of quality of life, then they should feel free to discriminate all they like.

Well, so we agree that the evidence matters. But I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that a mother and a father in the house is preferable. (Excluding ho junkies.) I want the evidence, and not the desire of men for fashion accessories, to be the driving force in our eventually approving homosexual male couples routinely as if they were no different from heterosexual couples in marriage. And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe. I don't think we have more to debate on this.

Don't invoke nature. Arguments invoking nature are never clearly defined and almost always collapse under detailed examination. The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature.

But I invoke nature in all arguments about human nature. You have to be more specific in your objection.

Well I'm sure glad you don't feel threatened by homosexual penguins.

II don't think you read the entire quote very closely, did you?

Gay Penguins Raise Chick Together in German Zoo

Thursday, June 04, 2009

BERLIN — A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it. The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Noted for their fashion sense and witty repartee, Z and Vielpunkt are huge supporters of Barack Obama, and attended his speech last summer at Brandenberg Gate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its Web site Thursday that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

Michelle R Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

You said: "And you do grant that the legalization of "gay marriage" will lead to that by judicial activism, I believe."

It might. Slippery slopes don't make for good arguments, though.

There is a clear difference between using the word nature to mean 'the essential and defining qualities of something' (e.g when speaking of human nature) and using the same word to mean the physical and natural world around us (the only thing you could have meant by your comment, and what I objected to).

I think I was very clear in my objection, anyhow: "The only thing nature demonstrates is that certain natural processes are required for women to grow and deliver children. Anything else is just you projecting your biases onto nature."

You're right, I didn't read it very closely. Clever.

And I don't use the word nature in human nature to mean essence. I use it to mean typical or particular phenotype.

Elaborate.

For example, I happen to prefer the tast of vanilla to chocolate, and I like fatty foods but not sweets. That's my particular nature, my make up. It's certainly not in any way my essence.

Fine. But that is not the sense in which the phrase 'human nature' is used by others. Moreover, if you don't mean 'defining characteristics' by the word nature, and you clearly are not speaking of physical nature around you, why even use the word 'nature?'