In homosexuality, actions are identity, that’s where the confusion is. Regardless, you have not proven to me why you continue to claim that homosexuals have fewer rights.

From William Rice,
“We know that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) can be caused by simple genetic changes in fruit flies, and since so many reproductive and neurological genes are shared by flies and humans, it seems highly likely that there are major genes influencing homosexuality in humans,” said Rice. “However, we also have firm evidence for a birth-order effect on male homosexuality, and discordance in the expression of homosexuality of identical twins, so clearly there is also an environmental influence on the trait.”
Gavrilets, Sergey and Rice, William R. “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038.

From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. “Unfortunately,” says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, “it’s hard to come up with many” findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. “…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.”
Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

In regards the APA, they hint that they may have studies to support their point of view but in my research, I was unable to find the actual studies. Can you find them and post them? The reason is that the APA studies seem to contradict what others have found in their studies (see several links in my blog).

We have reached a point where there is no longer any rational justification for the unequal treatment of gays. There is simply no rational argument in favor of such discrimination. And I think you’re being a little disingenuous when you claim that this is merely a difference in verbiage. If this were merely about a word, I doubt you’d be spending so much energy defending your position. This is a much deeper issue than “verbiage” for you.

I hope some day you’ll apply your energies to defending equality, because you really are pretty good at this.

It’s been fun.

Peace out, brother –

Fire Mike

Not only that, but there are provisions in California law that give all the benefits the state of California gives Man/Woman marriages, to Domestic Partnerships. They are equal under CA law already.

I see no discrimination here. I see a difference in verbiage, nothing else.

I understand that my brothers and sisters who have same sex tendencies can be great people, very kind, very wonderful, and I love each of them as the brothers and sisters they are. We’re all part of the same human family. Everyone deserves to be loved unconditionally. Loving someone doesn’t mean agreeing with them.

That’s where we differ.

First, some terminology house-cleaning. When I use the term “normal,” I do so with the same intent as the American Psychological Association. I do not use the term to infer that being gay is “the norm,” or that it is “typical.” Similarly, I would not use the term “abnormal” to describe gays, due to the pathological connotation of that word. Homosexuality is atypical in human populations, but not abnormal in the pathological sense.

So, what is the current understanding of homosexuality in the scientific community? There are a few points here that are worth considering:

First, according to the American Psychological Association, “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.” Furthermore, the APA has found that, “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

I’ve read the articles on troysmsxp blog, and I have to say that most of them are a re-hash of worn out stereotypes regarding gays. In fact, that APA addresses some of them directly:

“Stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have persisted, even though studies have found them to be misleading. For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.

A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.”

That’s the current scientific understanding of homosexuality. I like to think of myself as a pretty rational guy, so I find the accepted opinion of “all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country” to be compelling.

However, equally compelling for me are the stories of real gay and lesbian couples. I don’t know how open you are to changing your mind – I can see you’ve got quite a bit of time and energy invested in trying to preserve marriage inequality. But if you are at all open to the possibility of changing your mind, I would encourage you to seek out gays where you live, or even here online, and learn about their lives. You will find that they are every bit as “normal” as you or I. They have the same hopes and dreams, the same tragedies and disappointments, the same worries about the mortgage and how they just got f*&#*ed in the stock market – they are just sadly, painfully “normal.” (OK, you might find a slightly increased tendency to belt out a show tune, but that’s not a bad thing.)

So in the end, it’s pretty simple for me. Gays deserve the same treatment as anyone else is entitled to. In fact, it seems silly to me that people would even consider doing otherwise. But, in the world we live in, people do silly things, and gays are denied simple, basic rights.

I really do hope that you’re just a teensie-weensie bit open to considering the other side on this issue. If you are, then maybe you’ll think about these questions:

Why would you exclude a whole segment of society – millions of people – from the rights and benefits that you enjoy?

How do you look another human being in the eye and tell him that he shouldn’t have the same protections under the law that you have?

http://troysmsxp.blogspot.com/2008/10/off-topic-but-important-proposition-8.html

I agree that if this was the case, we’d see the subject in a different light, the civil rights argument WOULD apply and everything would be different, however, there is no proof of this, in fact, I believe there is evidence that just the opposite is true.

Before we jump off the bridge of “gay is normal”, let me ask why you think this is true fact beyond personal opinion?

First, thank you for the clarification. It’s nice to hear from someone who doesn’t resort to “God hates fags and you all should just move somewhere else!” I’ve had about enough of that . . .

I wanted to respond to a couple points you made, first about the clash of world views, and then about how that relates to the current discussion of gay marriage.

It’s pretty clear that there is a division between the view that God is interested in our happiness – and so gave us rules to live by – and the view that whatever we decide is right, implying that “anything goes.” I can’t disagree. These two views are diametrically opposed, and differences between them probably cannot be overcome in the long run.

But there is another possibility that I hope you will consider. I subscribe to the notion that ethical principles are neither divine in origin, nor subject to the whims of the moment. That is to say, firm, fair universal ethical principles do exist without guidance from (anyone’s) god, and without being subject to the “whatever feels good – do it” mentality. Those principles include (but are not limited to) empathy (and closely related, compassion), responsibility, fairness (and equality), respect, dignity, and sovereignty. Of course there are others, but this is a good starting point. I think that regardless of religious background, people can (almost) universally agree that we should bear these principles in mind when determining how to behave toward others.

(As an aside, it always strikes me as a little creepy when someone tells me that he gets his moral guidance solely from Biblical or religious inspiration. I’m not putting you in this category, but my question to such a person is always along the lines of, “Do you really mean that you wouldn’t know that murder (or theft, or rape, etc.) is wrong unless you read it somewhere?” I’ve had a number of responses to that question, ranging from inchorrent stuttering, to (really, I’m not joking) “Damn right. I’d kill you where you stand if God didn’t tell me I shouldn’t.” And, thankfully, most people respond thoughtfully, and ask themselves just how it is that they seem to know what’s right. Anyway, moving on . . . .)

So what does this imply for gay marriage? First, I think a little more clarification is in order. Many people (on both sides of this issue, I’m sorry to say) refer to a “gay lifestyle,” or “gay behavior.” I noticed you do so, too. But one of the things we’ve learned recently is that homosexuality is part of a broad continuum of normal human sexual orientations. It is less common than heterosexuality, but normal nonetheless. So referring to a “behavior” or “lifestyle” is inaccurate, and leads to some faulty assumptions.

To get a flavor of what I mean about sexual orientation not being a behavior or lifestyle, just think about your own identity (I’m taking the liberty of making the assumption that we both fall into the “normal” spectrum of heterosexuality. I know what they say about assuming . . . please forgive me if I’ve overstepped here). Without going into gory details, I can tell you that I’m straight all the time. Not just when I’m sharing an intimate moment with my wife or perusing the Victoria’s Secret catalog, but all the time. Mowing the lawn, buying groceries, taking the kids to the orthodontist – straight all the time. In fact, the actual “behaviors” that would designate me as straight (if orientation were reducible to behavior) comprise just a small part of the ways I am bonded to my wife, and take up a small fraction of our time (which, of course, is the lament of many married men, but that’s another story altogether . . .). My point here is that I hope you will at least entertain the idea that being gay is just as normal (if not as common) as being straight.

So for me, the question becomes: How can we justify treating gays differently under the law if (a) equality is an ethical principle we espouse, and (b) gays are just as “normal” as the rest of us? Since I hold both those things to be true, I cannot justify treating them unequally – whether in marriage, housing, employment or any other area. It seems to me that in order to argue against gay marriage, we must (a) assert that equality is not a principle we espouse, (b) assert that gays are not normal, and therefore not deserving of equal treatment, (c) reduce sexual orientation to a “behavior”, and attempt to regulate the behavior, or (d) come up with other reasons that gay marriage is (or would be) inferior or detrimental to “traditional” marriage.

You mention a few of these “other reasons,” and I have just a few comments about them. You mention that “the gay lifestyle is not as stable, loving, kind and beneficial as the gay activists would have us believe.” I’ve addressed the “lifestyle” issue, so can we agree to talk about gay relationships instead? I will grant that gay relationships have historically been less stable than straight relationships. However, it seems reasonable to believe that in a culture that has historically been hostile to gays – a culture in which gays are still beaten and killed for who they are; a culture in which gays have never had institutional support for their relationships; a culture in which letting other people know you are gay could mean the difference between a job or unemployment, a roof over your head or homelessness – relationship stability might suffer. Heck, in a system designed by and for straight people, half of our marriages fail. Can you imagine how hard it might be to have a stable relationship with the added pressure of being gay?

As to being less “loving, kind and beneficial,” I’d be interested to know just how that might be measured. I really don’t know what sort of research you’ve done in this area, but my own experience (albeit limited) is that gay couples have about the same ups and downs as straight couples.

So, finally. (If you haven’t fallen asleep yet, congratulations, and thanks.) Your original point was that such deeply conflicted world views cannot coexist. I hope you can see that our world views are not as far apart as you might have thought. I think we can coexist if our morals are firm and principled, and not dogmatic, and if we strive to assure that the ethical treatment of all people is the ultimate determinant of what is right and what is wrong.