Prop. 8 Approved
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=178759
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 8:31pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prop. 8 Approved
Posted By: DeTrevni
Subject: Prop. 8 Approved
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:31pm
|
Thoughts? ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell" 
|
Replies:
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:32pm
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:34pm
|
Just so we're clear, this is the one banning gay marriage in Cali. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:35pm
|
Wow, way to fail, CA.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:52pm
|
ABOUT TIME!! AGAIN!!!
------------- http://imageshack.us">  
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:54pm
|
Yeah those damn gays. We really need to keep them in line. Who knows what other equal treatment, they'll be demanding next. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:57pm
| Gay. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 2:59pm
Probably nothing too special, seeing as this one just got taken away. Maybe they'll fight for lower tariffs on clear nail polish. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Benjichang wrote:Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:00pm
|
This country is so ass-backward sometimes, it baffles me.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:07pm
| My sister called me all pissed off (she's gay). |
Posted By: cdacda13
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:15pm
|
Don't worry, it will reach the Supreme Court in a few years. That is, if the Senate lets the Supreme Court touch it. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:17pm
Pun intended? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:17pm
|
They banned gay marriage in cali ? Good. Two gays want to be joined by law, thats great, but marriage is between a man and a woman imo, come up with a different term that states the same thing, people do it for so many other things why not that as well. ------------- 
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:17pm
|
Lullz. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:20pm
If you were really against gay marriage, you would vote for it so that they can endure the same crap as straight people. 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:21pm
Why is the word "marriage" so important? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:24pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:25pm
Comedic gold. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:26pm
|
Also, Florida passed a similar amendment this election.
My thought, that is going into a column I am writing: If you voted in support of any of these anti-gay proposals, you can no longer call yourself American. Real Americans fought and died to end oppression from the British. They fought and died to end the oppression of slavery. They took to the streets to end ended segregation and fought for equal rights for all Americans. That is what Americans do. The bigots who feel the need to keep a portion of society oppressed simply because they are different are no different than the bigots who let dogs loose on, and hosed black people who marched for civil rights. One day society will look back and reflect on those who support such legislation the same way our generation looks at those who supported "separate but equal." As morons who held back our great country from becoming the true bastion of freedom that our founding fathers created it for. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:26pm
In other words, no one is saying to the Catholic Church, "You guys have to marry gays now." ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:32pm
| I honestly don't understand it either. Let people get married. Who cares? It isn't like they're going to get married in your house or on your lawn and have the honeymoon in your bed. Grow up IMO. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:33pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:35pm
| I think Ford is just scared a gay guy might ask him to marry him, and that he might say yes. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:39pm
|
Gay people that also believe in evolution amuse me.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:40pm
Because, damnit, it's our word. We coined it two hundred years ago when our Christian forefathers founded this nation. As Ford pointed out, they can have the same rights, with a similar union, but "marriage" is only for the straights. And I can't even believe you'd want to ruin the sanctity of such a meaningful and god-given word by allowing them to use it. I'd make a longer post, but I'm currently trying to pick a Korean mail-order bride. Maybe later. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:41pm
|
California did not "ban" gay marriage. California voted for or against the amendment of the California Constitution to assign the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Californians can still get "married," the state just will not see it as a legal contract, if the measure does indeed pass. Also my understanding there are still millions of absentee ballots still yet to be counted therefore the outcome is still to be determined. And like many social issues, whichever outcome is reached, this is not the end of the issue. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:42pm
I forgot that evolution has come so far as to completely factor out genetic anomalies. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:43pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:47pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:52pm
Its not that simple. A Civil Union doesn't offer the same legal rights that Marriage does, and therein is the problem. I don't care if you call it marriage or not, but gay life partners should have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:56pm
Because that's the argument  If evolution were real, people would not be born gay for centuries on end, last time I check invitro was not an option even 50 years ago. Unless someone can explain to me how this homosexual "anomaly" would survive through the history of mankind, I'd be more than willing to listen. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:57pm
|
That's a pretty simplistic view of genetics/evolution.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 3:58pm
Nah-Uh. Cause people are going to want to marry animals next and some people wont want to hand over their house to their sheep when the sheep decides there are greener pastures next door. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:01pm
The point is that your argument is irrelevant. What good is there to banning gay marriage? How is your life at all effected by the decision? There is simply no rational basis for it. "It's in the bible" doesn't count, neither does "eeewww." |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:01pm
So God finds it funny when he decides people are to born without limbs and or when other genetic abnormalities occur? Is this your anti-evolution response? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:01pm
You know, you and I don't agree on much, but it does my heart good to read you typing that. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:02pm
Then explain it to me. How does a genetic trait that would inhibit the ability to pass on genes unless a homosexual person goes against their natural "instinct"(which of course, DOES happen, but lets assume its at a minimal rate) continue to be widespread throughout an entire species? Because I honestly don't understand it. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:03pm
Probably the same way various physical and mental retardations have stuck around as well. Ninja'd. |
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:04pm
Don't worry, times are a-changin' ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:13pm
Actually, most retardations are caused by problems with the chromosomes. As there is no proof of that in homosexuals, besides slight chemical differences in the brain(which is actually still highly contested), it's not the same thing, also, regardless of how often it happens, retardation(physical or mental) often does not rule out procreation. Again, I'm just trying to see both sides of the issue. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:16pm
|
I think the real problem originates from the idea of marriage (a religious union) being recognized by the federal government as a legal state of being. What should be worked on, though, is a new definition of a legal union between one person and another, that holds the same rights as a legal "marriage" now, just without the religious background. That way there are no disputes about who can "marry" who. After this is established, people can choose to enter this new "marriage" through any religious preference they so please. It sounds pretty full proof to me. Now, all of that being said: Sorry, Gays, everyone being equal is a commie ideal. Stop being such liberals. ------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata <keep the sigs friendly, please> |
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:17pm
So...are you implying it could be possible to "cure" homosexuality, seeing as it's just a chemical difference in the brain? Thats not dangerous water to tread over. A human being is a human being, regardless of their sexual orientation. Except for Asians. ------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata <keep the sigs friendly, please> |
Posted By: TheSpookyKids87
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:30pm
|
[QUOTE=Benjichang]
Yeah those damn gays. We really need to keep them in line. Who knows what other equal treatment, they'll be demanding next. [/QUOTE 'Merica |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:34pm
Some of you guys are so oblivious that it's just funny. Nowhere did I say that we should try to "cure" gays, or that I even agree with that theory of why some people are homosexuals. Hence, WHY i put that it was still a highly contested opinion. And yet, despite that, you tried to turn it into me fighting for the genocide of gay people while swinging your opinions wildly from atop your high horse. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:35pm
|
Pump the breaks there, turbo. I was just asking for clarification. ------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata <keep the sigs friendly, please> |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 4:55pm
|
I'm torn. I used to be all for gay marriage, but I seem
to have swayed my opinion. I agree, marriage is a sanctity which (as far as I know) has origins in Christianity. Being as Christianity doesn't allow homosexuals (Once again, as far as I know. I'm not too educated on the bible) then marriage of homosexuals shouldn't be allowed. HOWEVER. That is not to say there shouldn't be the same legal rights allowed, and granted, to same sex couples who wish to engage in an act similar to marriage. Just give it a different name. ------------- |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 6:04pm
|
At first, I was like "lol, clever." Then I was like "lolwut, he's serious? No wai!" Seriously, dude. If you are trolling, well done. If you are serious, well, that's just embarassing. At least try google before posting. On point - I am glad that Prop 8 passed. That's right, I said it. Yes, it embarasses all of California (writing from sunny San Diego at the moment), but that's just bonus. The real benefit is that it truly forces the issue. This isn't Arkansas or Wisconsin - this is CALIFORNIA, the epicenter of American gayness. This is the gayest state in the union. This place is so gay that Richard Simmons makes fun of it. And all that gayness is going to fight back hard. There is noplace to retreat to. This is home base for homosexuality in the US, and the castle doctrine applies. The gays and their supporters will not retreat, but fight right here. My personal hope is that Sacramento quickly responds by passing a bill removing all references to "marriage" from California law - civil unions for all, and civil unions only. Leave marriage where it belongs: in church. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 6:20pm
|
Amendment 2 FTW! W! I'm glad there are safe-states now. I am a unregistered homo-phobic and It makes me happy that there won't be more gay couples in Florida walking the streets and kissing.... makes me cringe. On another note; I heard of a lez couple that got married in cali, went back to Kansas, and they tried to file for a divorce but couldn't because their state didn't recognize it. LULZ sucks for them. |
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 6:23pm
|
On a positive note, Michigan approves medical marijuana and stem cell research.
------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site 
|
Posted By: gh0st
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 6:31pm
|
LOL U SAID GAY
-------------  |
Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 7:33pm
Got pics to prove it? ------------- |
Posted By: t_hop
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:00pm
|
why do gay people even want to get married. Whats the point? if they say it's for religious reasons and the whole ceremonial aspect then they don't listen to whole part of the bible condeming being gay, and they can't possibly be doing it so they can have a proper family, whats the point?.. they won't be reproducing.
------------- "I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum." |
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:04pm
|
I still remember when you couldn't say gay on this forum. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:20pm
|
You still can't if used as an insult or a derogatory comment.
Many people reproduce without getting married so that observation just went out the window...  -------------
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:22pm
How even to respond to this? What happened here? This thread got invaded by people that have never left there grandma's basement? Clue: People get married without intending to have kids. Atheists get married - in church even!!1! Sterile people get married. Dumb people get married, smart people get married, even French people get married. Marriage is not just god's way of creating children. People even get married where they don't have bibles. Marriage is a complex thing, and different people have different motivations. Another clue: There are Christians who have no problem with homosexuality. There are even gay Christians. Who have married each other. In church. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:28pm
Why do you think black people wanted to abolish racial segregation? Same general principal. Freedom. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 8:28pm
Troll. I will give it a 2/10. Nobody could possibly be that stupid. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:12pm
People voted for Bush's second term. Sorry Whale, the stupidity continues. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:13pm
Remove all legal aspects of marriage, make it purely civil.
|
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:23pm
They do? Why get married in a Church if you don't believe in God?
I've never heard of marriage being freedom, infact its usually the other way around. I personally don't care. If a gay couple wants to get married, let them. Its not my duty to decide who should and shouldn't get married ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm |
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:25pm
I don't disagree with that, having the same rights is fine, but I'm sure they can come up with another word for it. And for the record, I'm as far from religious as they come, I don't know squat about religion really, I just personally believe marriage is between a male and female. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:26pm
|
@ Da Hui: I could see atheists getting married in a church for family members, among other reasons.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:27pm
|
Same reasons as everybody else. Tradition, ceremony, family, pipe organs... Church isn't really about god anyway, and that goes triple on Christmas and at weddings and funerals. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:28pm
I remember Brihard posted something about in-womb occurrences that cause the hormonal imbalances that are associated with homosexuality, but I don't remember the specifics. There was also a study from somewhere which concluded that the more older brothers one has, the more likely one is to exhibit homosexual tendencies. But to answer your previous question: Because homosexual acts were widely looked down upon as wrong, and homosexuals were conditioned to feel that their attraction to their sex was wrong, so they adopted a lifestyle that wasn't truly their own, and passed the gay gene (if homosexuality is a heritable trait). Or because it is a recessive trait.
Rationalize that using something other than tradition, then. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:30pm
Ah. I had not thought of that. Makes sense to me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:36pm
|
Gatyr, thank you for being the only person to actually answer my question. That's all I wanted.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: cdacda13
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 9:54pm
|
Gatyr- I remember hearing that high levels of stress during pregnancy lead to the baby having a higher level of chance of being homosexual. A survey done in London found that women who were pregnant during the German bombing of London had more homosexual children at much higher rates than pregnant women who didn't live though the bombing. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:22pm
Eh, we're not actually that far apart in views, my ramblings just tend to lean right whereas yours lean left. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:27pm
|
Can't they just call it conjoinment or something and move on with it ?
-------------
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:30pm
|
I don't believe Gatyr's answer is in line with current science on the subject. There has been a fair amount of research on the genetics of homosexuality, and the trend that seems to be emerging is that the genes that lead to homosexuality lead to increased fecundity for the non-gay possessors of those genes. IOW - there are genes that make you have lots of babies. Great. But sometimes those genes overdo it and make you gay instead. So even though gay is a dead end for individuals, it is a net gay for the genes, because the non-gay carriers make up for the gays by having lots of kids. Studies have shown that hetero siblings (including twins) with gay brothers have more sex than other heteros. Whether this is because they are more attractive or because they are more sexually aggressive is less clear - there are many theories. The bottom line is that there is a good amount of research indicating that genetic homosexuality serves a similar evolutionary function as "take one for the team" genes. Sacrificing yourself to protect your brother obviously is bad for you, but is good for the survival of the genes you share with your brother. Remember - evolution is a genetic phenomenon. Focussing on the effect on individuals is misleading. You have to look at the effect on the genes. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Zata
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:31pm
|
I don't see why people care. This nation claims to be 'free' and how you can follow whatever religion you want as long as it doesn't harm other people and what not. But then when gay people wanna get married, you better follow God regardless of your religion or if you're religious at all. Nothing makes sense. |
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:32pm
I'm pretty sure thats how life works. -------------
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:32pm
|
So, I guess you won't mind if we change your future "marriage license" to a "conjoinment license" while we are at it? After all, if it is just as good as marriage, you shouldn't care...? Or how about if we changed the badge on your truck to say "Toyota?" Labels have meaning. Labels are important. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:37pm
Not to nitpick here but that doesn't make sense. Evolutionary traits generally support the survivability and fertility of your offspring or yourself, not your sibling. The studies I was reading suggested it was more a hybrid case, like sickle cell anemia, where genes which promoted sexual attractiveness/success were great, but too many lead to homosexuality or thereabouts. Nature doesn't select for gay siblings, gay siblings are a byproduct of the odds of having those genes. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:44pm
Another idea is that the genes could be some sort of evolutionary population control, meaning that the percentage of gay organisms is enough such that overpopulation is more difficult. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:53pm
|
Has anyone ever found the part in the Constitution / Bill of Rights that guarantees the "right" to marry? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:58pm
|
That is completely false. There is tons and tons of research on this exact point. One easy example is social insects. Most social insects are born sterile. Insects have managed to evolve sterility, and it is working great for them. Remember, you share 50% of your genes with your brother. It benefits your common genes for you to take risks to protect your brother. You are focusing on the individual passing on genes directly to offspring. This is too limited - evolution is far more complex than that. Evolution is a genetic phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 November 2008 at 11:59pm
|
Hence my point: Just stop issuing marriage licenses completely. No more legal marriage for anybody. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: STOcocker
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 12:35am
But then you couldn't get half of someone's stuff with a divorce... |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 12:52am
Not surprising. I'm pretty sure I got most of my "information" in 2005/6.
That makes much more sense. -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 3:39am
Key word being "Generally" . . . Yes, in certain hierarchical species such as insects, we do see the concept of "taking one for the team", but the trouble I have with this view is it smacks too much of evolving with a purpose in mind. Not to mention, in the case of social insects we're considering very closely related workers in such large quantities that Hamilton's rule is logical. In the case of siblings, this effect would be reasonable if there were 2 or more heterosexual brothers per gay brother, but humans don't reproduce on the same magnitude as insects and they aren't quite as closely related to their siblings. Hamilton's rule is far less effective in this instance. I'm not ruling it out as possible, just suggesting the advantageous hybrid example seems more logical in the case of humans. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 4:18am
Bruce, By now I'm used to being amazed by the quality of your posts, but this is truly among the best. Thanks for sticking with this place and keeping it what it is.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 4:54am
|
Toasting in epic thread. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 8:39am
|
Or more to the point, what about the whole, man/boy "love" thing. Accept one perversion as "acceptable" then you have to accept the age thing, or else your "discriminating". Morality matters, even in California. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 8:44am
|
Very well said, Reb. Nice to see some open-mindedness.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 8:56am
|
This is not mere speculation - kin selection theory is deeply embedded in current evolutionary thought, and the evidence is mathematically accurate and specific to the point of being kind of creepy. It is easier to study in social insects, for sure, but it bears out fully in other species as well. Kin selection is not the driving force behind homosexuality, since there is no altruism at work - I use it merely to show how a gene can have high fitness even if it occasionally leads to sterility. You have to measure genetic fecundity, not individual fecundity. For homosexuality, the research I have seen is roughly the "hybrid" you are describing. A little of the gay gene makes you have lots of kids. Too much of the gay gene makes you probably have no kids. Add them all up and the gay gene leads to more kids in total. There is plenty of work going on this area, and many details are unknown, but that seems to be where it is headed. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:02am
Well obviously the women who didn't live through the bombing wouldn't have had as many children(ie; none) as the womens who lived through the bombings, let alone gay ones.  ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:32am
|
IMO, gays started as people who failed at trying to get with the opposite sex. Eventually two of the same people ran into each other, told each other thier story...and after a long, awkward pause, decided to stick thier wei- WHAT?! -------------  |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:36am
Get out of my species. ------------- ? |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:38am
|
calm down, it was a joke...
sooo... ------------- |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:44am
|
Your joke sucked. But yeah, marriage shouldn't be part of the law at all. It is a religious ceremony, and we're supposed to have separation of church and state. As Clark said, civil unions for all. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:57am
I know. I still stand by my request. ------------- ? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:39am
|
I think Reb's posts in this thread have led me to the belief that I agree with generally everything he says. This is a scary thought. I do not want to give out strikes.
Why didn't someone say this to him earlier!?!?!
ROFL. I think he meant women who lived at the same time, not through the bombings, in case you missed that. The winky has me all confused. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:05am
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: cdacda13
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:06am
After I posted that, I knew someone would take it like that. I mean other pregnant women from around the England. |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 12:27pm
|
Oh how we missed thee. Need to work on image width, though. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 12:29pm
|
Meh...we all hit our lows. ------------- |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 2:29pm
|
The problem with things like "marriage" as a term is like the "sniper" debate that makes for interesting times here.
Some people think the word means one thing, others see it to mean others. Some think it should mean what it originally means, others want it to apply to their specific arrangements as well. Personally I think that gay unions should also use a different word for the exact same reason, it isn't the same thing as it traditionally meant. But I'd still not support Proposition 8. KBK |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 3:18pm
| So some support the notion of separate words, but equal treatment of the parties involved? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 3:24pm
|
It might boil down to being as simple as that. The same treatment and rights, but for the sake of satisfying those that are clinging to the institution of traditional 'marriage' for religious, or ethical reasons- a different term would be used. That won't make everyone happy, but you'll never get that. ------------- ? |