This topic has no future. Nevertheless:
Originally posted by eviltama
The police can enforce what has happened, not what will or what can happen.The police are mostly useless from stopping things happen, becuase they were meant to be the join in the chain after the crime has been commited.
Obviously not true. Police arrest people pre-emptively all the time.
Homosexuals can marry, nothing can stop them. Homosexuals can't be legally married in australia, but nothing can stop them from marrying.
If homosexuals can marry regardless of the law, how is a Howard move to ban gay marriage going to affect them? Why are you bothering to participate in this debate?
Law is an integral part of what constitutes a marriage.
The law doesnt 'stop them rather nicely' it is wrong, and it needs to be changed. Society is changing so the law needs changing.. for the better not as the govt desires for the worse.
Gay marriage being change for the better is strictly your opinion. So is the law being wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
And homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, you are born gay.. and yes that can be argued forever.
Most scientific studies would tend to disagree with the idea of being 'born gay'. Most scientific studies would also disagree with the idea of choice. However, most scientific studies would agree that homosexuality develops out of a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. For example:
LeVay, 1991 - Demonstrated differences in the INAH3 area of the hypothalamus in a small [ N=41 ] study. Not proof, but clearly showing statistically significant differences in the brains of adult homosexuals. Not all subjects clearly showed this difference, also indicating a role for environmental factors or some other unknown biological basis.
Kallman, 1952 - Twin study showing 100% concordance between MZ twins compared to 12-42% rate among DZ twins. [ N= 37 MZ pairs and 26 DZ ]. Correctly criticized for bias in selection, but still a landmark study for its time.
Subsequent twin studies by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard in 1991 found lower rates, but still demonstrate a correlation between biology and sexual orientation in male homosexuals:
52% of MZ twins
22% of DZ twins
9.2% of non-twin brothers
11% of adoptive brothers of gay men
were also gay.
The same researchers also studied lesbian twins with the following results:
48% MZ twins
16% DZ twins
14% non-twin sisters
6% for adoptive sisters of lesbians
Both studies recruited specifically gay participants, again raising the question of bias. More recent studies using twin registries that recruited without reference to sexual orientation conclude the following:
Hershberger, 1997 - 48% concordance rate for lesbian twins
Baily et. al., 2002 - 40% concordance rate for gay men
Kendler et. at., 2000 - 28-65% male and female combined
Kirk et. at., 2000 - 30% for males, 50-60% for females.
There are plenty more, but at the end of the day it seems generally accepted by the scientific community that:
Despite criticisms of selection bias, there is a biological basis for sexual orientation, either structural or genetic, that has be repeatedly demonstrated.
There is also a role in environmental factors.
So far, neither nature nor nurture can be conclusively shown to be deterministic of sexual orientation.
As for breeding out the trait i don't see grey eyes being bred out.
This would be because people with grey eyes can fuck. People with grey eyes have always been able to fuck. People with grey eyes can probably fuck as well as you do.
I don't see people breeding out any faults that occur in humans.
You're obviously not thinking about it deeply enough. If you are gay from birth, you will be attracted only to other men and or women, depending on your sex. This means you will be unable to breed. If you are unable to breed, this will mean you are unable to pass on your genetic material to the next generation. This means the 'gay gene' will disappear.
And homosexuals can produce, they are humans like everyone else. Just because they choose to share their lives with a person of the same sex doesnt mean they can't reproduce.
So a gay man CAN have sex with women, but just
CHOOSES to have sex with other men?
There are many species of animal within which the males live with the males and only use the females for reproduction of prodgeny.
Please define homosexuality. I always thought homosexuals didn't have sex with women. You seem to be confusing a bisexual with a homosexual.
It doesn't make it wrong in human society much less in nature.
Occuring naturally doesn't mean something is right. Hell, incest occurs naturally, and I don't see you campeigning to allow my grandmother to toss my salad. Why, I think you'd be quite opposed to it.
And the norm isn't decided by what the majority may or may not be, the norm is whatever you see as normal.. whatever you are brought up to see as normal. And that also means that what is normal for you may not be normal for everyone else.
Maybe so, but laws are made based on what the majority feels. How could it be elsewise?
Humans are humans. Homosexuals are human, heterosexuals are human.
Males are human. Females are human. Therefore, females are the same thing as males?