The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[topcuppla]

I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.

Do you not think for a young girl a mother would be a better source of comfort, direction and guidance as she grows than an auntie or a friend being dragged in for the odd piece of advise, cop yourself on.  I will repeat I think gays, should be able to married whom they like but two men have no right being able to adopt any child.

What I actually think is that you are either an idiot or a troll, and like all examples of the latter, don't care who you hurt to get your thrills. If it is the former, you are dumber than dirt and twice as ignorant.

You know and socialise with many gays yourself?

[omaghjoe]

So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.

From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.

I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse...  all interesting.

Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in  DNA."

The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc

I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.

Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.

[muppet]

So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.

From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.

I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse...  all interesting.

Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in  DNA."

The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc

I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.

Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.

I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory.  What did you think isn't true?

[omaghjoe]

So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.

From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.

I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse...  all interesting.

Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in  DNA."

The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc

I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.

Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.

I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory.  What did you think isn't true?

Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.

[muppet]

So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.

From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.

I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse...  all interesting.

Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in  DNA."

The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc

I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.

Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.

I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory.  What did you think isn't true?

Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.

I never suggested that. All I said is that no one can be certain that there aren't a couple mutations in the billions of genes of identical twins as no one has ever tested them all.

[omaghjoe]

So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php

I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.

From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.

I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse...  all interesting.

Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in  DNA."

The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc

I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.

Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.

I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory.  What did you think isn't true?

Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.

I never suggested that. All I said is that no one can be certain that there aren't a couple mutations in the billions of genes of identical twins as no one has ever tested them all.

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

[Hardy]

For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?

[The Iceman]

My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.

[Eamonnca1]

For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?

A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.

[omaghjoe]

For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?

A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.

Isn't it more about perception than anything that is actually nailed down, like "with what your born with"? My previous point that environmental factors may well be the biggest factor in shaping us as people could well make a mockery of what we are supposedly born with.


Also what about political affiliation, age, nationality and religion none of these you are technically born with? But these days you can't discriminate against these either. Also at the risk of being pedantic you can change gender these days and what about the trannies where do they lie in gender discrimination?

I believe the current discrimination perception is governed by the following:

"If your not doing anyone else any harm then you should be able to do what you want without being discriminated against"

[Hardy]

My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.

I didn't have a problem with your post. It just prompted my observation, which is something that I've been thinking about during the wider debate.

For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?

A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.

I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.

I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.

[AZOffaly]

I thought this was funny, or at least I did when I saw what party he belonged to. Different definition of 'liberal' down there I suppose.

http://www.newstalk.com/Grahame-Morris-Ireland-Irish-people-Australia-Liberal-Party-same-sex-marriage-MarRef

An advisor to the Australian Liberal Party has launched an anti-Irish tirade, after members of the opposition called for a vote on gay marriage there.

Speaking yesterday on Sky News Australia, Grahame Morris made several claims about Ireland and the Irish people.

"The trigger was a vote in Ireland - I love the Irish and half the parliament's full of Irishmen, but these are people who can't grow potatoes, they've got a mutant lawn weed as their national symbol and they can't verbalise the difference between a tree and the number three" he said.

Mr Morris was complaining after a member of the opposition, Tanya Plibersek, had said her party was going to put up a vote on same-sex marriage, following the vote here.

The Australian Labour Party has introduced a bill to parliament. But Mr Morris says it's all Ireland's fault.

Mr  Morris has more than 30 years' association with the Liberal and National Parties around Australia.

He has also served as parliamentary adviser to Liberal Leaders Andrew Peacock and Alexander Downer - and as Chief of Staff to former Prime Minister, John Howard.

[muppet]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

[The Iceman]

My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.

I didn't have a problem with your post. It just prompted my observation, which is something that I've been thinking about during the wider debate.

For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?

A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.

I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.

I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.

I genuinely wasn't going down that path. I have discussed a lot of this at great length at home to try to figure out where we stand on all of it and the points AZ brought up about Lesbians and the "type" they are attracted to has often been a puzzle. With the twins study and some of those findings it raises a lot of interesting points for discussion. It certainly does not mean anyone should be discriminated against - just unpacking things a bit more and trying to understand the nature of it all....

[muppet]

Some interesting conservatives out there: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/irish-can-t-grow-potatoes-says-australian-political-advisor-1.2234430

Grahame Morris, former chief of staff for Liberal Party politician John Howard when he was prime minister, said Australia should not follow Ireland's example in having a same-sex marriage referendum during a TV debate.

.......

Mr Morris said the "trigger" for the bill was the Yes vote for same-sex marriage in Ireland.
"Now I love the Irish, the parliament is full of Irish men but these are people who can't grow potatoes, they've got a mutant lawn weed as their national symbol and they can't verbalise the difference between tree and the number three. But, and then all of a sudden, Australia has to follow suit," he said on Sky News.