Time to give it up, son.

Ah, so now we’re finally, after 180 posts, getting to the meat of the matter.

The Bobbonian definition of “legislating from the bench” is completely unrelated to what everyone else means when they say “legislating from the bench”.

You’re just pissed about the ruling.

In othe0r words, you’re a homophobe and the idea of gay marriage creeps you out.

Why is this the way things always seem to turn out with the anti-gay-marriage crowd?

I assume you know this and are being manipulative. Some poor souls reading the end of this thread may not understand that.

Note that there is no legislation that is being made here. Instead the Courts have declared that laws that qualify privileges based on sexual preference are unconstitutional based on California’s Constitution and the fundamental principles of equal treatment under the law.

-==///More likely pork layered between tortillas and smothered with refried beans, salsa and cheese, topped with two poached eggs and sour cream.=-=-=/=

“in the cloth of fine reasoning.”

Porridge again for breakfast?

“fine 5. reasoning.”???

You get more inscrutable by the day.

1. You maintain your ignorance in light of significant evidence waiting for science to provide the nature of a proof? Ok.

2. Religionist do report personal experiences but they are legitimately discounted because they don’t act in conformity with their revealed truth and nothing they say about their experience is true. Prayer doesn’t work, they aren’t more honest, etc.

3. Homosexuals though report those impulses and act consistently by living with the same sex and/or hanging themselves after escaping from Christian Reform Camps. They indeed LIVE what they report.

4. You yourself know that science does not yet have good proof of that which you know. You love women. You have sex with them and live with them==just as gays do with their love objects. To deny them is to deny your own reality.

5. So–people reject what they shouldn’t for emotional reasons. In your case, its just not enough money? ((Joke!!!)). No, your parents or friends told you that when you were young, and it stuck. Thats all, very simple. But you are an adult now, so grow up.

I don’t personally have a problem with gay marriage. But I honestly don’t want anything to interfere with my kids’ delicate sexual maturity by having them face a whole new government-supported overlay of sexually ambiguous messages from society. And I don’t want my government recognizing anything equivalent to the recognition of flying saucers.

You don’t have to respond to that, let’s just agree to disagree. One way or another, I believe science will eventually sort this one out.

If pervasiveness and sheer numbers were the test for truth, then we’d be obligated to recognize religion in all aspects of our society. Here too, you have people who believe in their deepest soul that what they experience is real. But I’ll only accept everything they have to say once they present me with something well beyond their current weak and inadequate scientific proofs.

And also for the record, let me quickly repeat something I posted perhaps years ago: as the cliche goes, my closest friends are gay and I would fight to the death to defend a gay person as I would any person in trouble.

An atheist who likes gay people: your worst nightmare.

173 Thomas. Agreed. But such legislation does not appear magically out of a vacuum. It isn’t the way it should be, or has to be. And it still is fully subject to criticism & change. See RBG #52.

RBG

That is some interesting information. Thanks for sharing it. And, thanks for starting to provide links with your opinions.

I do think, however, that the data still shows homosexuality to be natural and normal even if not 100% genetic.

So, if we can agree on that, I would ask you this.

Why deny the right to marry and be happy to anyone?

Personally, I still don’t get your insistence on exclusive homosexuality. And, I never really got why anyone cared if it was genetic. I think there is probably a strong genetic bias.

Even the 30% that you cite would be about double the genetic tendency for type 1 diabetes, which is usually considered genetic.

However, regardless of genetics, why legislate against something so pervasive?

500 species have had homosexuality well documented and another thousand have had it observed to some degree. Every human culture on earth has homosexuality. Homosexuality is well documented on the walls of ancient Jain and Hindu temples. It is well documented in the Bible, though as an admonition. It is well documented from ancient Greece and Rome.

I would say it is well within normal human behavior.

Would you really disagree? I can search for links if you think it necessary. I’m sure the psychological journals are full of references. Is that really not enough to justify legalization of homosexual marriage?

So how about I help you along a little then? How about citing the latest research that shows one genetic twin has just over 30% chance of claiming homosexuality if the other claims to be one.

That proves that homosexuality isn’t strictly genetic, else the rate would be 100%. But statistically that shows genetics may not be completely discounted either.
http://tinyurl.com/3vfue7

Now isn’t that a lot better than the crap you chose to dish out?

‘Course there were a lot of limitations to consider.
Is there then something environmental that triggers the homosexual phenotype in some individuals but not the majority? No one knows yet.

How accurate can a self-report questionnaire be?

To what extent did common upbringing influencing results? No one can say.

How accurate can such a statistically low, limited study be? Possibly strong enough to show some valid conclusions.

A population of twins separated at birth where one is homosexual would be far better for study, but the situation is almost impossible to find.

So, very interesting study but, in the presence of necessarily biased methodology & survey limitations, more research, definitive conclusions and the need for similar predictable, repeated confirmations remain to be seen. Certainly too early to shake up society as science goes.

RBG

Gosh, Bobster. You sure know a lot about the lifestyle terminology.

Sure you’re not getting a little action on the DL? Tee hee!

**BUSTED!!**