By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12. Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month. But it did not happen. Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).
While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move. The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .” The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent. Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.
In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit. The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.
The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.
The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did. The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations. The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism. From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society. We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles. The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church. And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”
The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic. First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason. But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.
The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law. This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.
Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience. This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements. And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.
Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage. But they are also patient and vigilant. The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.
Apparently you don’t know what the word “person” means, Randy.
Loving does not rely upon a heterosexual only definition of marriage to reach its conclusions.
Your “argument” about theft and murder is not only absurd, but not based in reality. There are perfectly valid secular reasons for criminalizing theft and murder.
As for citing Loving, it’s a shame that a simple replacement edit shows that the logic of the case applies perfectly to homosexual couples as is did to interracial couples.
And again, that logic does not transfer to plural marriages no matter how many times you try to make that false equivalence.
BIgamy and polygamy are crimes under the legal traditions our law is based upon and have been since before we were a country. Murderers are people people too, but they don’t have an out under the 14th by claiming rights under the 1st it’s their right to commit human sacrifices as part of their religious practice. Religious belief and religious practice are not the same thing. You cannot force your religious definition of marriage on others via force of law without running afoul of both the 1st and (primarily) the 14th.
Your ignorance and bigotry harms you as much as anyone else. Equal rights for homosexuals is on the way whether you like it or not. If you don’t like “the homosexual lifestyle”? Don’t sleep with men or marry one. Problem solved. Nothing about recognizing their equal rights and protections harms you in any way. Every single person arguing against equal rights for homosexuals has failed to answer the question repeatedly asked here: can you name a specific harm to you or anyone else by allowing same sex couples the same rights, privileges and obligations heterosexual couples enjoy? You can’t for the same reason they couldn’t. Because there is no harm done. You would need a harm to others sufficient enough to merit restricting their right to marry under a strict scrutiny analysis. None exists.
Unless you come to terms with that fact, you are doomed to live in disappointment.
Welcome to reality.
Or not.
Your choice.
Of course Gene H you can make ANY decision read the way you want when you edit it to suit your views. My point on polygamy is simply that you can make the same argument with it when as you say, you edit it to reflect that point of view. So I will agree that Loving will indeed apply to gay marriage when you redefine the word marriage to suit your needs. Hell why bother even writing decisions down at all when you can simply change the meaning of the words to suit your needs? It reminds me of a discussion I had with a secesionist who stated that the words Perpetual union in the Articles of Confederation meant that states could leave the union any time they wished. Rather hard to argue with that one since it defies the plain meaning of words.
As for your childish means of calling those who disagree with you names, you can say the same thing for any view you disagree with. In fact, some folks will call you a bigot and a racist if you are against reparations for slavery. I imagine not too far down the road we will hear that thrown around too, and I think that you will be in the lead denouncing such folks who oppose reparations as racists too.
Gene H wrote: “Every single person arguing against equal rights for homosexuals has failed to answer the question repeatedly asked here: can you name a specific harm to you or anyone else by allowing same sex couples the same rights, privileges and obligations heterosexual couples enjoy? You can’t for the same reason they couldn’t. Because there is no harm done. You would need a harm to others sufficient enough to merit restricting their right to marry under a strict scrutiny analysis. None exists.”
Your question has been answered many times but you just don’t like the answer. The answer was that no harm happens to me directly. The harm is to society by failing to define marriage rightly according to natural law. The next generation loses an understanding of marriage being a tool for responsible reproduction and the creation of a family. Now they will see it to be about tax benefits and committed sex or a romantic experience, a very poor foundation for any marriage. The harm is in crafting laws that will ultimately lead to prosecution against individuals for their religious perspective about what constitutes proper marriage according to natural law. This is what happened in the case of the Florist who was prosecuted for asking a homosexual couple to use a different florist for their wedding. There are numerous harms that we will not realize until society blindly walks down this path. The harm in polygamy was not seen until it was practiced, and even then, many societies still embrace the practice, some of them experience the worst AIDS epidemic of any societies on earth.
It is one thing for you to have a different perspective, but it is disingenuous for you to claim that nobody has answered your question. It is also suspicious that you continue to frame this issue as being me or Randy being “against equal rights for homosexuals” when I have explained ad nauseum that the rights for same sex unions are adequately addressed through domestic partnerships like California has done, and Randy has said he supports civil unions. Nobody here is against their rights or the outline of their duties and obligations to each other in a same sex union. I am against the chaos and the harm caused to society by considering this an “equal rights issue” and making the definition of marriage so broad that it basically just becomes nothing more than a contract between two people. Randy is against it only because he rightly believes it to be the role of the State legislature to define marriage. He also rightly sees the holes in your logic by trying to apply Loving v. Virginia to this issue.
Randy wrote:
“… please, just don’t pretend that only your definition of marriage is the “right” one just because that is what you say.”
…
“That the state cannot prohibit or limit marriage between opposite sex partners was addressed in the Loving decision as being correctly incompatible with the 14th amendment. To then expand that decision to same sex marriage is simply delusional since same sex marriage had not even been thought of at the time, and in fact, anti-homosexual laws were found to be legal and not violating the 14th amendment. by the same court! So how one can somehow say with a straight face that there is a “logic” to that decision which flies in the face of their decisions against homosexuals is beyond rational thought.”
Randy,
We have far more in common than differences, but this is one of the differences. Multiple spouses in various settings, bigamy and other such arrangements are illegal, and would remain so even when same-gender marriage is legal, which is inevitable as things are going now. Those are red herring arguments.
Those are red herring arguments. The part about procreation is just flat wrong. The purpose of marriage is not procreation, but a legal companionship. The married partners have certain rights and responsibilities that unmarried people do not. Unmarried people reproduce all the time. Married people often don’t or even can’t reproduce. As I wrote above, what about those instances where one of the partners is dying and the newly-legal marriage ceremony takes place in Hospice? Is that about sex? I don’t think so.
As for gays with kids, that has happened as well. Mary Cheney, daughter of Dick & Lynne Cheney, is now a mother with two children, via a sperm donor. If marriage is for the purpose of reproduction, then people in the retirement village who want to get married are out of luck.
Randy: Given the fact that marriage contracts until recently have only been allowed in the US for one man/one woman legal uinons, it is evident that there is no legal basis for allowing same sex marriage under our Constitution and is not discrimination since gays are perfectly free and do marry persons of the other sex.
Don’t you realize that precisely the same argument was made for prohibiting inter-racial marriage? That blacks could marry blacks just like whites could marry whites, so prohibiting a mixed race marriage did not deny those people the right to marry? (Just not each other).
Do you believe the government should be allowed to prohibit inter-racial marriage?
Tony,
Actually, in the instance of polygamy, the matter is a perfect example of me being “of two minds” on the subject. I have no issue with bigamy being a crime and never did. It has been a part of English common law since before we were a country and civilian law since before England was a country. The argument that polygamy is a tradition is equally balanced by the proposition that it is traditionally recognized as a crime in the West. Much like you, my original non-adverse stand on polygamy was based in contract and free exercise. In fact, much of my views on the matter were shaped culturally by Robert Heinlein’s use of plural marriages in several of his works. I saw no downside to the practice even though I personally thought it was a bad idea just because of the inherent complications possible in a monogamous marriage could only be amplified by adding more parties. And much like you, I was not adverse to letting people make bad decisions. Polygamy is not anything I’d ever choose for myself, but I saw no harm in others making that choice. However, bigamy was not, as I had previously supposed, a victimless crime.
I saw the research Elaine provided and it was pretty clear that the negative effects of polygamy are not only serious, but they extend outside of the direct parties involved. I wish I could recall the thread that discussion was on so you could see for yourself, but I don’t. Maybe if Elaine reads this and still has the links, she’ll be able to provide them. Polygamy can not only adversely affect any children involved psychologically, it has negative repercussions sociologically by marginalizing young men with few(er) resources by restricting and unbalancing mating choice as it removes otherwise available partners from “the dating pool”. This leads a variety of socially undesirable or destabilizing effects. Polygamy is not just a bad idea “because it’s messy”. It’s a bad idea that can harm others not willingly participating in the transaction proper. That’s what changed my mind about polygamy. Hurting yourself by choice is one thing. Harming children or others in society not party to your choices is quite another.
This is in stark contrast to homosexual marriage which doesn’t harm anyone outside the union any more than a heterosexual marriage does. It’s two consenting adults shacking up and playing house and their sex life is not anybody’s business but theirs.
Randy: All you show by this statement is your bigotry towards polygamy.
That isn’t true; I have no bigotry toward polygamy, in the technical sense. Unlike Gene (and I presume Elaine) would not prohibit it by law, on the same grounds I would not prohibit religion or prostitution by law. (Although I do believe in the separation of church and state, and FWIW the separation of brothel and state.)
There are many practices that aren’t good for people individually and ultimately aren’t good for society in general. Even though that is a strong belief of mine, my stronger belief is that my right to tell consenting competent adults how to live their lives must be predicated upon some argument that I agree with that shows their practice does more harm to one or more others than analogous but legal practices.
First please notice that statement refers to constraints that I put upon myself in regard to my right to act in opposition to others.
I do not oppose plural marriages, on the grounds that it is entirely legal for a man to engage in all the physical and monetary acts of having multiple wives. He can live with them, have sex with them, impregnate them, share custody of children with them, financially support them, pay for life and health insurance for them. He could keep them each in separate houses as a separate family. All of that could be done with mutual consent from all.
(Similar arguments can be made for homosexual marriage.)
Which means (to me) that legal marriage is not society’s permission to do anything, it is not an endorsement of anything, it is a handy label for a collection of over a thousand laws (or so I have read) that reflect a legally recognized joining of responsibility, obligations, assets, and critically mutual trust and representation.
The last is not an amorphous quality; the law recognizes a spouse as having the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their spouse, including the decision to end life support. In many cases a spouse is treated very specially; they do not have to testify against their spouse, communications are privileged, they automatically have the power of attorney, they can enter into contracts that are binding upon the spouse (or at least backed by their common assets). (I am not a lawyer, but I think those are pretty universal in the USA.)
I do not oppose plural marriage on any ideological grounds, but I do not that all the laws pertaining to marriage have been easy to formulate when the joining is one-to-one. Pragmatically speaking, unless plural-marriage advocates can figure out how to make those one-to-one laws apply unchanged to a one-to-many or many-to-many situation, plural marriage would require a rewrite of the law that might be massive, to sort out what it means.
As I said before: If a man has two wives, and dies, are the two wives married to each other? If they are not, how do we handle the custody of the children they have been raising together? If the man just gets hit by a car and is in a coma, and his two wives disagree on options regarding his medical care, how is that resolved? Is one wife a “superior” wife that can overrule the other? Or suppose everybody is fine: Do the two wives have legal marriage rights with regard to each other, or only to the man? If they do have such rights, can they get divorced to terminate those rights, while remaining married to the man?
All of that would need resolution in the law, that would also have to apply to other configurations of marriage: Say a commune of unequal gender distribution; like three dozen men and four dozen women. Can they be married? Can somebody else join a marriage already in progress?
The problem is that the laws of marriage currently presume just one spouse and thus create no issues of fairness and equality by granting them exclusive control in certain legal situations. Those issues are created when there are multiple spouses that cannot all have exclusive control.
None of those problems need to be solved for homosexual marriage; it is still a one-to-one relationship and all the existing laws would apply just fine without any modification whatsoever. On the physical side, the mechanics of living together, having sex together, pooling finances and assets and all of that is entirely legal. So I am not opposed, it is none of my business.
I am not bigoted against plural marriages either, that is also none of my business. But the pragmatic legal tangle of unanswered issues is not my problem to sort out; and I think somebody with an interest in the problem should come up with a framework that can answer all those questions about what, exactly, are the rights conferred upon all individuals in a “plural-marriage.” In a coherent sense that preserves fair treatment and equality, if that is even possible.
I do want the government to prevent people from predation on other people. I do not want the government deciding what is and is not psychologically “good” for me or for society, I think that is so vague an excuse for a law that it would lead to tyranny.
There is wisdom in letting people make bad decisions for themselves (as long as they are choices and not coercions or exploitations). Trying to outlaw their bad decisions substitutes my judgment for theirs, or more importantly from my POV their judgment for mine, and that is not “freedom.”
If it’s any consolation, Randy, I’m sure you can buy a home cheap in Dakar, Senegal.
False equivalence. Polygamy and adultery are not the same thing.
And yes, the subject is legitimate state interests in marriages. Prohibiting bigamy is a legitimate state interest. Homosexuals won’t be able to have polyamorous marriages either. Again, you mistake a right as not existing simply because it hasn’t been recognized. “it is evident that there is no legal basis for allowing same sex marriage under our Constitution” . . . except for the 9th and 14th Amendments. “and is not discrimination since gays are perfectly free and do marry persons of the other sex” which again relies on a religious definition of marriage as solely a heterosexual endeavor. And don’t b1tch to me about how you “aren’t religious”, Randy. Your definition of marriage is religious and it is regardless of your espoused personal beliefs.
And you clearly don’t understand the logic of Loving.
It’s exactly analogous to the equal protection arguments that are winning in court for homosexual marriage.
Denying them equal rights and equal protection in every way contradicts the legal principles found in Loving based on Due Process and Equal Protection. Here’s a quote from Loving:
“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 13 (1967).
Now compare this revision:
“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Try as you might, Randy, homosexuals are people, they are gay, and the 14th Amendment applies to them.
Gene H I am glad that you finally acknowledge some legitimate state interest in defining marriage. I am rather amused at your contention that just because a right has not been recognized by the state and laws does not mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, if it is not recognized you can and will suffer prison for excersizing that “right”. You can ask the many folks in prison who have used their “right” to use illegal drugs. While our founding documents say we have a “right” to revolution, if you fail at that, you will lose your very right to life.
As for your contention that my position is a religous one, then you will have to say that since we have laws against theft and murder, that is a religious based law as well since it is founded on the Bible and the Ten Commandments too. My position on gay marriage is that it is not allowed under our current laws unless passed by the legislature. It is entirely up to them to decide the conditions and participants in marriage. I think that unless you can find a positive state interest in promoting gay marriage, I can see no rational reason for it and am for civil unions which the legislature can use to ameliorate some of the disabilities gay couples run into. So I guess that you must think that the Democratic party platform of 2204 was also a religious based one on this subject.
As for quoting Loving, it is a real stretch to include gay marriage in that decision since the word marriage at the time ONLY applied to one man/one woman unions. Gay marriage did not even exist as a concept back then and you do not get to redefine decisions and laws by using your new “definitions” of a word. The word person was used to mean a man or a woman being granted the right to marry. To say that the Warren court meant it to mean gay marriage is nothing short of delusional.
As for the so called “logic’ of that decision. If there is a logic to it that allows for gay marriage, then such logic must also apply to plural marriagees as well. It is only your religious bigotry against that which prevents you from seeing that logic. So if you can say marriage means who the person wishes to marry, then the logic dictates as well one in which a man or woman should be able to marry a person who already has a partner too.
In fact, in many countries, havng a mistress is the norm, and thus should the laws be changed to acknowledge this fact? Bigamists and polygamists are people too, and under your logic, the 14th amendment applies to them as well. I disagree with that by the way.
No, Randy. I wouldn’t have to admit that about polygamy. If you want to make that argument, you do so. Don’t do it for me. I have my own arguments and they don’t end in your conclusions.
At one time, I wasn’t adverse to polygamy, but some research Elaine and others showed me on both the psychological and sociological effects of polygamy caused me to reevaluate that position. Even when I wasn’t adverse to polygamy, I thought it was a very bad idea.
Just because something is “traditional” doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t a bad idea. Also, polygamy isn’t traditional to the English common law tradition our legal system is based on or even civilian law based in the Roman civil law tradition (like most European law and the civil code in Louisiana). Bigamy has been recognized as a crime in English common law since the time of James I but illegal in one form or another since the 1200’s and has been a crime in civil law since 285 CE when Emperor Maximilian outlawed polygamy. Most countries today consider bigamy a crime and only a very few allow the practice. The ones that do are almost uniformly Muslim (like Saudi Arabia), only allow the practice for Muslims (like Morocco) or only recognize foreign performed and legal polygamous marriages for very narrow reasons (like the U.K.).
Polygamy may have once been “traditional” but it hasn’t been for a very long time in most of the world and especially in the West.
The conclusion of Reynolds v. U.S.,98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878) recognized that the prohibition on polygamy as a religious practice wasn’t incompatible with the right of free exercise using Jefferson’s distinction between belief and actions taken on belief as their rationale.
It was the right decision.
Contrast this to homosexuality which isn’t a religious practice (it is a naturally occurring variation in human sexual orientation) although discriminating against homosexuals is very often linked to religious practice.
Thanks.
Actually given the huge amount of adultery that goes on, and in some societies is the norm, the fact is that polygamy is also a naturally occurring varitation in human sexual activity. This should let you know that the subject at hand is NOT human sexuality, but the legal contracts granted by the state. Given the fact that marriage contracts until recently have only been allowed in the US for one man/one woman legal uinons, it is evident that there is no legal basis for allowing same sex marriage under our Constitution and is not discrimination since gays are perfectly free and do marry persons of the other sex. Now to allow same sex marriage you will have to redefine marriage and that is simply your choice as to how you wish to define it. If the only rational for allowing same sex marriage is that it is nice or you like it, fine, but it is an arbitrary choice to exclude polygamy which has more tradition in the US and history than gay marriage. This gets back to the point does the state have the right to define marriage? The only constraints are those as defined as in the Loving decision of the SCOTUS. Not allowing gay marriage in no way shape or form violates that decision. Now if you can show me or any other person that when the Warren court made that decision they also intended it to apply to gay marriage, THEN I will agree that gay marriage is discrimination under the Constitution.
David,
You can pour a gallon of Chanel #5 on a pile of that famous bovine barnyard product and it will still be manure. So far, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of statistics, sampling, social trends, equal rights and responsibilities, romantic attraction, biology, debating skills, and even propaganda. I threw the last one in because you are so incredibly lousy at it. You are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Oops: I meant “if the fetus is XX and the androsterone surge does occur, the brain is organized in the way heterosexual male brains are (vice versa).”
DavidM: like the erroneous view that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual and not anything else in between. Ridiculous nonsense.
Brain organization differs in males and females; this is apparent both on fMRI scans and in the outcome of strokes; males and females recover differently.
The same is true in other animals; and researchers have traced this brain organization to an event in fetal development called the “androsterone surge.” If it occurs, the brain is organized as a “male” brain, and if it is absent, the brain is organized as a “female” brain. Whether it occurs or not is up to the placenta, built by the mother’s DNA, and around 90% of the time the placenta matches the androsterone surge to the DNA of the fetus which is either XY (physically male) or XX (physically female).
Various things can cause the placenta to be in error; perhaps stress, or it seems some genetic variation in mothers, and changes in the womb brought on by previous pregnancies (younger male siblings are more likely to identify as homosexual).
If the fetus is XY and the androsterone surge does not occur; the brain is organized in the way heterosexual female brains are (more distributed processing and less localized processing), if the fetus is XX and the androsterone surge does not occur, the brain is organized in the way heterosexual male brains are (vice versa).
In stroke studies and fMRI studies, men that identify as lifelong homosexuals have brains predominately ordered like heterosexual females. Women that identify as lifelong homosexuals have brains predominately ordered like heterosexual males.
A side effect of the androsterone surge in fetal development is a lengthening of the ring finger relative to the index finger. It has been observed, in such lifelong homosexuals (both male and female) that this ratio is intermediate between that of heterosexual males and heterosexual females. Suggesting the absence of an androsterone surge (or a weak surge) in the men, and the presence of a surge (or weaker surge) in the females.
At least for self-identified lifelong homosexuals, there is a very good scientific case that it is an inborn trait, and a good logical case for claiming anybody’s sexual attraction is irrelevant to the law if the parties are capable of consent and mutually consent.
Tony C.,
Do you mean shallow or in David’s case….. Swallow…. Generally… The most homophobic fold that I know…. Keep a few skeletons in the closet…..
Whoever Clive Davis is, there really are a small percentage of bisexuals that are neither heterosexual or homosexual; both in male and female varieties.
In most studies I have seen in which homosexuality is differentiated from heterosexuality (in physiology, brain organization by fMRI, and stroke-recovery differentials) the researchers choose subjects that “self-identified as lifelong homosexuals / heterosexuals”, i.e. have since early elementary school (when such attractions become noticeable) been attracted to the same gender or opposite gender, without variation.
So if gender attraction exists on a spectrum, they are comparing two extremes of the distribution. On purpose, to enhance contrast. But bisexuals do exist, that respond sexually (by blood flow) to pornographic images of either gender, usually with a preference for one or the other, but still more response than heterosexuals to same-gender images, and more response than lifelong homosexuals to opposite gender images.
I would presume, from the story given, that sixty years ago a male bisexual that could be sexually excited by a woman would restrict themselves to woman just because of the social stigma and repercussions of being found engaging in homosexual acts. They had a valid substitute. As that social stigma faded and the social costs of homosexuality decreased (both because of society and because he was older and did not have to care as much), perhaps Clive’s natural preference for men asserted itself.
Tony C wrote: “But bisexuals do exist, …” “I would presume, from the story given, that sixty years ago a male bisexual that could be sexually excited by a woman would restrict themselves to woman just because of the social stigma and repercussions of being found engaging in homosexual acts. They had a valid substitute. As that social stigma faded and the social costs of homosexuality decreased (both because of society and because he was older and did not have to care as much), perhaps Clive’s natural preference for men asserted itself.”
You concede in two areas. 1) that bisexuals exist and so the discussion of human sexuality as being homosexual or heterosexual are actually opposite extremes of a spectrum of sexuality, and 2) environment and social culture does in fact affect sexuality in some way.
It could be that someone like Clive Davis was perfectly happy and content in his heterosexual relationships but became unhappy after two divorces, so he opened himself up to having sexual relations with another person regardless of gender. He now has absolutely no interest in marriage, either gay or straight. This is the way he has portrayed his own sexuality, and there is no scientific evidence to substantiate that he is lying or does not understand himself.
Many in this forum have an unchangeable belief that sexuality is biologically predetermined and human choices have nothing to do with it. Identical twin studies have long ago disproven this non religious dogma, but the belief is embraced anyway and those studies are rarely discussed at all. The studies also suggest a genetic component whereby some are predisposed toward an alternate sexual identity. Similar type twin studies have shown the same kind of predisposition in humans for alcoholism or mental disorders like schizophrenia while at the same time dismissing purely biological predeterminism. The bottom line is that both biological history and social aspects affect a person’s human sexuality. It is not exclusively one over the other. As you are aware, even environmental factors during gestation can influence a person’s sexuality and sexual identity. Human sexuality is much more complex and fluid, and it is less predictable from strictly biological factors than either gender or race. These are the facts, however inconvenient they may be to one’s dogmatic position on changing the definition of marriage to be inclusive of same sex unions.
I realize that the prejudice of those here will flare up and hate me even more for attempting to point out these facts, and instead of discussing the empirical evidence, the ad hominem attacks will fly about how utterly stupid and bigoted and filled with hatred I am. When logic fails, attack the messenger. Unfortunately, this is human nature for which an adequate amount of self discipline is required to overcome its temptations.
DavidM: he responded to the sexual overtones of another man.
I presume you meant overtures. That is how you get where you are, David, you haven’t bothered to grasp the language you use for argument.
Like for the technical meaning of the word “choice.”
Do you deny, in Gene’s poll, that 78% of the population does indeed grant some choice to the mother in terms of abortion, particularly in dicey situations? In particular, that if the mother has to choose between her own life and aborting an otherwise healthy fetus, the choice is hers?
Do you deny that only 22% (at best) of the population denies all choice to the mother?
Do you not understand that there is a difference between a political label (“pro-choice”) and the technical meaning of that label (“in favor of choice”)?
I suppose you don’t understand any of that, you have shown yourself to be a truly shallow thinker.
Tony C wrote: “Do you deny, in Gene’s poll, that 78% of the population does indeed grant some choice…” “Do you deny that only 22% (at best) of the population denies all choice…” “Do you not understand that there is a difference between a political label (“pro-choice”) and the technical meaning of that label (“in favor of choice”)?”
The problem is not my being unable to follow your logic. I understand quite well, as is made clear by my past comments. The problem is that you use logic to rationalize a dishonest statement. Even when faced with the issue directly, you refuse to admit to standard scientific principles of logical inference.
By way of analogy, NBC edited Zimmerman’s call to police, removing an important question asked by the dispatcher. The published call made Zimmerman appear to be racist to the average person listening to the tape. NBC might rationalize their actions in a variety of ways, all of which are logical. They might claim that others are too stupid to understand or do not have a grasp of language to understand why what they did was perfectly reasonable. They might claim that if someone misunderstood, it was entirely their own fault. Most intelligent people see through all that subterfuge.
Gene’s point was that the people who want legal restrictions on abortion are losing the culture war because 78% of Americans are now pro choice. He quoted the CNN poll as if it were fact, and he lumped me into the group whose views were falling into the minority. The average person hearing him would be deceived into believing him. You support this dishonesty, categorizing my views as pro choice even though Gene lumped me into the pro life category in his dialogue. You even agreed that I was part of that 78% statistic, but still refused to admit that Gene inappropriately used that statistic. There really is not much more to say. I consider you and him to be dead ends as pathways to truth. I do not trust dishonest people.
David,
Do you stay awake at night pandering these irrational thoughts or does delusion become you?
Juliet,
When I was taking a course on use of the so-called “lie detector” years ago, the first thing the instructor told us was, “If the question is about sex, expect the chart to go off the scale, because everyone lies about it.”
He emphasized it did not matter what the question was, or even if a crime had not been committed. If there are any sex questions, expect it to be positive for deception, even if the person is telling the truth.
I never heard of Clive Davis. What does he have to do with anything? One person’s claims have nothing at all to do with equal treatment of citizens under the equal protection clause. Anecdotes do not a case make.
I really don’t like pistachio ice cream, therefore it should be banned from grocery shelves, because what I like or dislike as an individual should be the law of the land. That is how David’s arguments sound.
OS wrote: “I never heard of Clive Davis. Anecdotes do not a case make.”
Clive Davis is a famous record producer (5 Grammy Awards and member of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame). I mentioned him because he was in my mind from being recently in the news, interviewed on CNN and other news outlets because he has published his memoirs.
If you want some studies with lots of data, there are plenty of them. You can start with the famous Kinsey Reports. I can point you to all kinds of studies; in a previous thread I referenced some others, but why? All studies have issues, and you will just pick at all kinds of minor issues and claim your theory still stands unfalsified. You probably don’t even notice that you have neither produced an anecdote nor any studies to support your perspective. It is accepted without any evidence required.
A good theory accounts for all data and does not make frivolous excuses for each contrary piece of datum, such as claiming it to be simply an anecdote which means nothing. How many anecdotes must there be before you realize maybe you should consider them?
Actually, a good theory takes into consideration all reliable data, within certain control parameters. Anecdotal self-reporting about sexual behavior? It really doesn’t get more unreliable than that.
At any rate, there’s only so much fun to be had at your expense. I am now officially bored.
What’s the name of that river again?
Juliet,
You can say more in fewer words than almost anyone who hangs out here. Well said.
No. That’s science fact, David. A person can no more change their sexual orientation than they can change their eye color. And maybe Clive Davis was in the closet because of people like you.