Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

I disagree. It's chalk and cheese you're comparing because whilst some may be born with greater tendencies to become addicted, some addictions are clearly harmful and require regulation. People aren't gamblers untill they've gambled - there's usually no "urge" until the act itself is discovered. By contrast sexuality is a trait that isn't solely defined by actions. You can have a 40 year old virgin who knows he is heterosexual, but you can't have a person who "thinks" he's a gambler who has never gambled. Do you not see the difference?

Additionally anti-discrimination legislation does not concern behaviour - it deals with people's identities being used to turf them out of job. It deals with someone being revealed as being a homosexual and getting the sack for that reason alone. If having sexual/romantic attractions towards the same sex was shown to affect a person's ability to work your comparison would have merit, however unlike many compulsive addictions/habits, being gay is of no relevance to a person's work life, or anything else for that matter. And yet, many employers would and have sacked people simply for being gay. That's not creating a class based on action, it's recognising one - a often targeted one at that - based on reality.

Proposition 8 was passed by a bare majority. According to polls taken then and now this doesn't even reflect the true will of California. Referendums are usually dependent on who can spend the most money and more effectively tarnish the opposing side. And tarnish they did. If a referendum were held today the outcome might be different given these rulings and current polling. The shifting attitudes are evident all across the county. Case in point: Maine voted against SSM almost three years ago but now marriage equality supporters are the ones who have placed it back on the ballot - poll numbers showing that a majority intend to vote in favour.

The people in California didn't speak overwhelmingly in 2008, and actually the US is not a pure democracy as I've said. If that were true George W. Bush would have never been elected president. Romer Vs Evans established in the same way as the 9th Circuit did in Perry Vs Brown, that the people don't get the final say on matters concerning the removal of civil rights. That's SCOTUS precedent, so I can't see them overruling the 9th Circuit's decision. But we shall see.

A gay person is a gay person (defined as someone who is sexually attracted only to members of their own sex) regardless of whether or not they have had sex. A middle-aged virgin can still know they are attracted to members of the opposite sex - and call themselves straight. The identity and the biological reality exist despite the behavior that may or may not exist.

A compulsive gambler's behavior would likely affect their ability to pay back a loan - so the "discrimination" is justified. A gay person isn't defined solely by their actions, and clearly homosexuality has no impact on their ability to do their jobs or get married. Discriminating against them therefore lacks rational basis.

Sexual orientation learned? Animals don't "learn" - they act on impulse and instinct. If sexual orientation - an orientation towards a particular gender - weren't ingrained in their DNA they'd have no interest in mating with the gender that furthers the species. Sexual orientation is tied to gender - it's how species survive. It has to be genetically imprinted.

And if sexual orientation is genetically imprinted - tied to what gender we will be, it is not beyond reason that pre-natal conditions could give someone the "wrong" sexual orientation.

 

What this has to do with the topic is not clear - are you saying evidence that those who engage in homosexual pedophilia have a higher rate of childhood abuse is evidence for the continuation of Prop 8? Or that because it's stated here that it's "ingrained" that it should be put on par with homosexuality?

Please elaborate.

Still don't see if true what it has to do with same-sex couples being allowed to call their legal partnership a marriage. No one in the SSM debate is asking to marry children, thus pedophiles stand to gain nothing from it.

The "fake females" used for artificial insemination in animals used as evidence in court that sexual orientation can be changed in a case about whether taking away rights is constitutional??? Are you kidding me? The whole point of it is to trick the animal. In no way is this evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Even if it could be shown to be possible it's not even especially relevant to the question of class status... Or have you forgotten the many legal provisions protecting religious people?

 

Some "homosexuals" may be pedophiles, but don't act like its a problem limited only to gay people - most cases still involve heterosexuals. In fact a majority of the men who molest boys identify as heteorsexual - so when it comes to sexually undeveloped people it's unlikely that normal principles apply. Aside from that, most pedophiles tend to find the fact one is young sexually attractive - not the fact they are male or female. That's why they are called 'pedophiles'. Then the matter of opportunity - they'll likely take what they can get when they can get it. I don't think it's generally indicative of sexual orientation.

 

Only humans convince themselves they have a set, sexual identity.

Boys in the Sambia tribe are taken from their mothers at age 10, taught they must ingest the semen of warrirors, to become warriors themselves. When they get older they have 10 yr old boys injest their semen. As a result, virtually all men are attracted to boys. They are aroused by pictures of young boys faces.

 

No real evidence exists that change is possible though, it's all anecdotal. And if sexual orientation could be influenced to a degree, that's not to say you could take someone who has never had a sexual thought or desire towards the opposite sex and to whom the idea of doing so proves to be nauseating and turn them into the polar opposite of that. That idea is laughable.

Add to that the fact people choose their religion and get a lot of legal protection for that choice and the whole point is irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriage.

How do you know they are biologically attracted to the boys? Obviously it's something that is socially acceptable and encouraged in their culture, so there is no inhibitory/shock factor, and it's an act that whoever performs it is still inherently stimulating in nature. Doesn't mean they are gay or bisexual though - it's just an action. Furthermore the action is encouraged for ritualistic reasons - that ingesting semen assists a boy's development into a man.

 

Actually you're wrong. The Ninth Circuit correctly pointed out that all the rights to marriage already existed in California's domestic partnership law - that's not what the case has been about. It's all centred around same-sex couples right to use the word 'marriage' to describe their union. Voters took that right away, a right that had been established, in order to needlessly create a separate-but-equal institution. Which serves no valid government purpose or interest.

You say "epidemic", but in reality it's only going to be a tiny fraction of gay people. And of those who have been abused, only a small number of those will likely go on to abuse themselves. You can't take that ridiculously small fraction and suggest there is a somehow a huge risk presented by homosexuals rearing children.

Not only that, but the issue of gay adoption has absolutely nothing to do with marriage rights for same-sex couples or the Prop 8 case. They are separate legal issues.

No absolute proof but a fair bit of evidence.. however the evidence for your claim seems to be purely anecdotal. Let me know when they use a plethysmograph to measure arousal in people before they experience so-called "conversion therapy" - the only real admissible evidence that change is possible.

Nothing more than a rational basis test and due process is being applied, just like as it was in Romer and Lawrence. A class status hasn't been established by the Supreme Court.

None of that is proven, and your artificial insemination example is not evidence of a new "sexual orientation". It's evidence of being able to trick easily manipulated animals using a device resembling a female. It's relatively similar to a human male using a blow-up doll - except that he is obviously aware that it isn't a real female. Neither are evidence of a switch in sexual orientation.

 

I didn't say "epidemic", the CDC did. And they used another word to describe the prevalence of having been molested in the population of gay men: pervasive.

Let's look at THEIR words again:

[because that link keeps getting jimmyed with here, here it is in plain text ttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_2_33/ai_n29163291/ just copy and paste in your address bar after you add an "h" to the front end]

So, the highest authority on human health in the land has spoken. And THEY [not me] have said that having been molested as a child is a PERVASIVE quality intrinsic to the overall population of gay men therefore.

Now that we understand that gay men by and large are victims of being molested as boys, let's carry on the with the theme.

One of the most pretigious research organizations not just in America, but in the world, the Mayo Clinic, and its associated citations, have found that having been molested as a child, particularly if you are gay, means you are most certainly predisposed to molesting the type of child you were at the type of your own molestation:

So we have two givens:

1. That PERVASIVE in the gay male culture is their having been molested as boys.

2. That being gay and having been molested as boys means that gay men [not all but in a pervasive appearance in their overall population] are predisposed to molesting other boys near the age they were when they were molested. This, to adoption agencies, would be known as a red flag and a reason to profile for the safety of their wards.

And if this wasn't enough, it gets worse for what we, AS A COLLECTIVE CULTURE, already know about gays, supports the CDC and Mayo Clinic's findings. Gay lingo is rife with terms referring "fondly" to having sex with children. It's everywhere. Thousands of studies have been done on "the lavender language" [Google it].

And there's more. In California, a known, self-admitted, high-profile serial child molestor/pedophile is...get ready for this...it's the cherry on top, the final proof: embraced by the gay community overall, men and lesbians, transgenders etc... as their official ambassador...to children via SB-48 mandated curriculum.

Law enforcement and other researchers will tell you [you can research on your own for that matter] that "grooming" is the gradual process by which a pedophile normalizes the idea of his future crimes against a child, not only with the child, but his parents as well. A pedophile will often go to great lengths to "insert" his agenda into the minds of his child targets and many years grooming and gaining the trust of the child's protectors and guardians.

It took many years and many long steps for gays to get children to be taught that your sexual behavior is synonymous with your life's accomplishments [only as] a hero in elementary school curriculum. But they got it done in California.

Last year they forced CA schools to celebrate "Harvey Milk" day, with special events in the auditorium, parties in classrooms etc....statewide..

How this relates to gay marraige is that gay men will no longer be able to be profiled by adoption agencies. Now this is important because one of the main targets covicted pedophiles describe to researchers of their molesting is children from broken homes or otherwise lacking in keenly interested individuals in their protection. An adoption agency may read and know what we all know now: that gay men are predisposed [not all of them will, but are predisposed to from the pervasive phenomenon mentioned above] to molest. If gay men get to be married, adoption agents will have their hands hogtied behind their backs as to screening gay men wishing to adopt...putting children therefore at risk. And THIS, the State of CA most definitely does have a vested interest in overall.

 

The fact that gay men in particular resist this discussion of the obvious is that insidious quality of having been a victim of molestation: particularly for boys. Boy molestation victims are way more pervasive than reported, as boys are the least likely to report the crimes. Also, the memories of having been molested, as their new foisted-orientation took roots and they began to "enjoy" [orgasm/endorphin reinforcement] the experiences, they tend to legitimize and even defend the episodes in a very confusing mixture of pleasure and self-loathing.

You can Google this too.

So this would explain the depression pervasive and intertwined in the gay male population as associated with having been molested as boys.

Of course denial will kick in. Of course it's uncomfortable to talk about. Of course it comes with fear of stigmans...Of course.

But talk about it we will..

Here is a very powerful account of a female child abuse victim and her discussion of exactly what I just said. She even says that in order to achieve future orgasms she had to fantasize about the original acts done to her during her attempts at normal sex as an adult. http://faithallen.wordpress.com/200...dren-enjoy-orgasms-from-rape-or-sexual-abuse/

 

Yep...Agreed. The point I was making is that even a stallion with an instinctual sexual 'identity' can be coerced into thinking having sex with with a mechanical 'phantom' is 'natural'....The dirty little secret is that IF being 'gay' is learned then being 'gay' can be unlearned.

 

Can you or dixon reference any valid scientific proof of what you are claiming here?

 

Silhouette posted a link in post #57 of this thread...read it.

 

I already reviewed what she posted; I don't agree with her conclusion or yours. Got anything else?

 

Yes, the phrase "denial ain't just a river in Egypt". Read the link again. Maybe you read it with your eyes closed?

That's why the gay militants stormed the APA convention back in the 70s, stole the microphone and flipped over booths in the display area. One of the booths they overturned was one dedicated to reparative therapy..for those homosexuals who no longer wanted their unwanted compulsion.

It should be said though that imprinted behaviors are quite difficult to erase. But if one wants to and there are methods availible, it would be completely unethical to deny that patient that type of therapy.

The infiltrators in the ranks of the APA since the 1970s think differently. While they offer metric tons of support for anyone wanting to explore homosexuality from the hetero ranks, here is their policy on someone wanting to explore heterosexuality from the homosexual ranks:

Jahwohl!

Ist verboten!

"You may not leave and we will close off any help for you to do so; even if you threaten to take your own life".

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a cult...and a possible explanation for why gay teens keep taking their own lives even while "surrounded by support from a huge gay community"..

 

Look, many have suggested certain possibilities. Thus far, science has not pinned-down an exact cause for homosexuality. Thus, to alter what it is just isn't considered to be feasible (and rarely possible in the truest sense). In fact, most valid mental health organizations suggest dangers to patients going under such 'transformative' therapies; they are not proven to be effective; many have wasted money seeking some unknown "cure".

You may have some evidence that you support, but the most valid and peer reviewed science on the matter of sexual-orientation... is (as of yet) inconclusive.

Now, I don't begrudge you encouraging a friend or relative to enter into so treatment based upon various theories you support... but please don't expect everyone else to swallow (whole) the same.

I and scores of other human beings have fairly good reason(s) to at least be fully skeptical of what you conclude or suggest in your opinions here.

 

What you should understand is that whilst it may be true that more self-identified homosexual men may have experienced childhood abuse, this is not directly indicative that gay men generally pose a greater risk to children. In fact:

http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/gay-men-and-child-molestation-myth-or-fact.htm

One hundred times greater. Even if you factor in that gay people only account for approximately 2 - 5% of the population, the proportion of self-identified heterosexuals doing it is still greater.

By and large? By and large would imply at least a majority of gay men have been abused. Do you have any proof for that? The CDC report listed childhood abuse among other things it says are "pervasive", but you've yet to provide any actual figures specific to abuse. I would therefore question your premise of "by and large"...

The Mayo report doesn't make the direct link between gay people and a higher tendency to abuse. It merely states those who have engaged in homosexual pedophilia were more likely to have been abused as children. That is not indicative of a greater potential that same-sex couples - the only consideration relevant to the issue of SSM or joint adoption - will abuse. The statistics show that self-identified heterosexual men have a far greater tendency to abuse, and that an opposite-sex household - even proportionally adjusted - is the environment where sexual abuse is most likely to occur.

Words like "pervasive" are meaningless here unless you can provide some actual statistics comparing them to other groups - gay women (who make up half the homosexual population), straight women and heterosexual men. I'm not saying the rate can't be higher than all those groups, but margins always matter. If we're talking 5%, 10%.. it means 90 to 95% of gay men - a vast majority - have never been abused. Which would shoot down your "by and large" idea straight off the bat. But let's see what you can find.

Again, there's no direct link between self-identified gay men and higher levels of child abuse - that's just an assertion you seem to have made which seems to make sense at first glance, but on closer inspection is based on vague information and seasoned with various assumptions:

1) That childhood abuse is at a high enough level amongst gay men to mean that they are - in your words - victims "by and large". We don't know how much higher it is when compared to other groups.

2) That those who engage in homosexual pedophilia will necessarily be "gay" - studies have shown a good proportion identify as heterosexual or bisexual.

As I said, the only real relevant data, since people aren't individually screened on their sexual orientation, is the rate of abuse based on the type of household. There is no proof that same-sex households present a greater risk than opposite-sex ones - which is ruinous as far as your point is concerned since the evidence points the other way.

If there is no proof of same-sex households presenting a greater risk of abuse then the point is irrelevant. I will just say though that "a chicken" in gay slang usually does not mean someone underage; it typically means someone of legal age who looks young. A "chicken butcher" would therefore imply someone who likes to take away the virginity of younger gay men.

Don't pretend straight culture isn't riddled with similar terms - 'jail bait' ring any bells? A lot of heterosexual men get a kick out of 'lolita' porn, and indeed many of them enjoy deflowering girls of a younger (but typically legal) age. It is behaviour that is, to borrow one of your terms, pervasive among men in general - regardless of their sexuality.

I think you're peddling a view that is rooted in a feeling that it's somehow more immoral or sick if gays do it - just like how people rant about anal sex being disgusting and perverted if two men are doing it yet don't bat an eyelid if it's a heterosexual couple.

Harvey Milk was not a pedophile by the standards of a majority of states - at age 30 he entered into a relationship with a 16 year old boy in New York. And by the time they travelled to California he was 18.

It could of course be argued that NY's laws MAY have been broken because he was less than a year off the age of consent - 17 - but then you'd have to prove they were having sex at that time. To call him a pedophile under those circumstances and given the laws across much of the US, is ludicrous.

Please explain how same-sex marriage would mean adoption agencies would have their "hands hogtied", anymore than without? All the states that have or are considering SSM already have same-sex adoption laws granting gay couples that right, proving that it's a separate issue and most crucially of all has no relevance to the Prop 8 case, which is a debate over being able to use the word "marriage" to describe a same-sex legal union.

I'm not sure of the screening process used in adoption agencies but if there is no actual evidence that same-sex couples are more likely to abuse, as I've pretty much established, why would they screen them? If heterosexual couples are over a hundred times more likely to abuse it makes absolutely no sense.

 

Thanks for sharing that information. So many times I've seen people jump off into ridiculousness using half-baked information.

And I as much as anyone would like to see more answers from science about human sexuality in general; I figure the more we know... the less people will will suffer overall.

 

Being gay is not learned. They are talking about males with a predisposition to being gay that are molested. They said nowhere that being molested makes a person gay. Please learn to read the items you post.

 

"Gay" is just one of many sexual-orientations. Many of them. So since we are properly talking about sexual orientations being either innate or learned along the way, let's look at what the MAYO CLINIC [in 2007] has to say about it:

Add that to the fact that agricultural and zoological scientists have in working practice the fact that all mammals & some species of avians and reptiles can be trained to sexually orient [become habitually aroused to] anything they choose to train them to, you have ESTABLISHED FACT and not mere theory.

That you may have eaten beef or pork today is your indisputable proof that sexual orientation is trainable, learnable and imprintable after birth. Experts in the field have found that the age of maximum receptivity in all mammal species, including humans, is at or near the threshold of puberty when the base "mount and thrust" sexual impulses begin to appear. From there, for stud animals, using female pheremones [the female doesn't have to be actually present], they can stimulate the male to become aroused and then to relieve himself on any object they choose. Two or three sessions later the animal has learned to associate that object with sexual arousal.

Interesting to note: with cattle it's usually another male castrated bull called a steer. So bull stud cattle are trained to be gay, and by all accounts and definitions are gay...because they become sexually aroused to other males.

Then you have this fact from the CDC no less..

You often find in the gay community:

1. Hypersexuality [symptom of molestees]

2. Exhibitionism [symptom of molestees]

3. Promiscuity [symptom of molestees]

The WJM [Western Journal of Medicine] also has something to say about human sexuality and whether or not orientation is innate:

So do your homework folks. Taking the word of wishful gays, who are no more educated about their compulsive sexual behavior than an untreated bulimic is about her eating disorder, is a bit irresponsible. Look at what top world experts have to say. They're all in agreement: sexuality is learned.

Don't forget also that the proof's in the pudding. Enjoy those hamburgers & pork chops!

 

You have one opinion (your own) that you've pulled together. And no, you aren't the only person who has read-up on this or even known or talked to homosexual people.

We can see how you've arrived at your views/conclusions... but for you to expect that everyone else would have to agree with what you propose overall, isn't realistic. Many people have good reasons to disagree with you and come to varying conclusions.

In time, science will reveal just how 'right' or 'wrong' any speculation on homosexuality (or human sexuality in general) might be. Until then, most would agree that you've at least attempted to explain why you believe as you do.

 

Like I stated before you should learn to read your own links. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension and understanding would help your ongoing deficiency in understanding. Please reread your own links and see your own mistakes. They are many so it should not take you long in finding them.

 

That poster you're referring to believes what they do because they misread their own links and draw conclusions that are not present. The grouping that are talked about are different than the groupings the poster relates. Poor understanding and negative interpretive skills draw that poster to such a response.

 

The exact same thing could be said of someone purposefully ignoring important data on my posts in favor of remaining comfortably in denial of the fact that their sexual orientation happened to them and wasn't "born that way".

Because if it happened to them, then they'd have to look back at the when, why and how of that happening. And that's the part that people with deep-seated denial systems are loathe to do. They will lash-out, belittle [your post above evidence of that], stonewall, dodge, chase strawmen, whatever it takes to make the uncomfortable topic and its inevitable revelations go away away away...

Just make that old wound go away! Ignoring the CDC and Mayo clinic qualify as "latter stage denial".

 

so, what "happened" to you that made you heterosexual?

 

Or... what happened, which caused our interlocutor to express such irrational animus toward homosexual people period? (As many previous posts have revealed.)

Reaching conclusions is fine (even from that which one has interpreted in some dubious fashion)... but expecting others to embrace or accept those same conclusions is just arrogant.

It isn't wrong that someone would reserve the right to be tentative or skeptical about certain conclusions reached... especially when such a conclusion is questionably extrapolated from referenced data and surely stands in conflict with the most widely accepted views on a given topic.

Silhouette... why are these things you are "concluding" NOT front-page news?

 

When the same hormone surge that comes to all preadolescents hit me, I had not been "tampered with" by members of the same gender. I chose the first several reinforcing times I achieved orgasm to images and associated stimuli of the opposite gender. Thereby I was imprinted heterosexual. I was allowed to follow my natural instinctive mount and thrust drives to the reproductive gender.

Given the propensity of gay men who were molested as boys, they didn't have the same opportunities I did. My hope is to provide more of those opportunities to future lads. Hence why I spend so much time posting on the topic.