Maybe I'm just weird like that for being puzzled here, but if something is "outside of science" or "outside our universe", then by what magical method of knowing do people claim to know or suspect it exists in the first place? Shouldn't the most parsimonious answer be a provisional designation of non-existence until shown otherwise?

Something that can be asserted without evidence can reasonably be dismissed without evidence. It's not up to the unbelievers to prove a negative.

I understand people do not want to appear to be extreme or dogmatic, but an appeal to the middle ground (a 50/50 split probability for or against; a false equivalence) in the name of moderation, is still fallacious.

Uggh, it seems like not a whole lot has changed since. (cough, Dad, cough).

I don't think it's in bad taste, as a lot of these issues still linger even today, even amongst my own generation. You made your intention clear too, so yeah.

Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.

But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.

Looks like all that Internet fame has gone to Pearl the landlord's head.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This whole issue has been framed as a false dichotomy: Legalize gay marriage or ban gay marriage. This woman was not particularly well spoken but she hinted at what I feel is the critical point in this debate: Government should not be involved in marriage. So many of you think the solution is for the government to step in; have you even considered that the government should step out? Marriage is a religious ceremony and, as such, the government never had any place promoting, regulating and rewarding it. There wouldn't be a problem if the government wasn't involved.
Contract law can already handle what marriage currently does without the need for coopting religious traditions. Here and now any 2 people of adequate age can enter into a binding contract, gays included. Tax revenue instantly increases; nobodies marriage changes; everyone has equal rights.
It's also amusing how many "Conservatives" are perfectly willing to have the government step in and outlaw gay marriage. How exactly is that conservative? Sounds a lot like Big Government^TM to me.
Someone give me a good reason why marriage should be legislated. I don't dismiss the possibility that there could be one, but nobody has provided me one yet.


I fully agree with you, in principle. For my part I was speaking pragmatically, seeing as how the government is already entangled with marriage and that "institution" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, anytime soon. I'm with you abstractly though!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^bcglorf:
Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.
Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.

Citations? Where? I've re-read all your responses multiple times and I haven't found any.
In response to your response to me, "Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?" sorta has a way of making people think you really don't know of what, if any, fundamental rights that might be denied to "gay folks" and that their grievances are superficial, hence the implied minimization of real issues, hence my response.

From the handbook of behavior genetics, the chapter on Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation. They summarize quite nicely the history of scientific studies on twins, and the results absolutely demolish the idea that identical twins raised in the same home will share a homosexual orientation. At best 50% of the time if one is homosexual, the other will be too. The majority of studies find a much lower likelihood still, and incidentally those studies are generally of more sound methods as well, again as noted by the authors and not myself. To be sure, the text asserts a link between genetics and orientation, but nothing near the definitive levels people seem to be advocating as self evident. It is, in fact, in the same realm as studies on other behaviors.


Fair enough. I'm no expert but after second-guessing myself and researching this further, I've read that the current consensus seems to be leaning towards there being a complex mix of biological and environmental factors at work here in varying proportions for varying individuals, and more research to be done to be able to attribute and quantify just how much of either influences sexual attraction as our understanding of it is far from complete.

So I say to you, in the same vein, you may be appear to be attributing far too much to "choice" as you think others do to purely biological factors. Most homosexuals report their same-sex attraction to be something they've never had a say or a choice in. It might be helpful to distinguish attraction from behavior, there seems to be some overlap going on there in the discussion.

I don't see how something not being solely determined by their genes or biology would automatically suggest "choice" to be its antonym and the answer. There are many unchosen attractions and desires and preferences that people have that can't be attributed to biology alone, yet they're also not consciously made choices. There's a bit of a false dichotomy going on here. The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle.

If I've erred in my ramblings, hopefully someone better trained/more learned in this area will tear it to shreds and set me straight (no pun intended ).

>> ^bcglorf:

Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.
Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.


Citations? Where? I've re-read all your responses multiple times and I haven't found any.

In response to your response to me, "Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?" sorta has a way of making people think you really don't know of what, if any, fundamental rights that might be denied to "gay folks" and that their grievances are superficial, hence the implied minimization of real issues, hence my response.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

I typed out an obligatory Terminator/T-1000 reference.

Well, mission accomplished on making another person more curious about the stuff! Looks tasty.

If this doesn't move you in some way then you're most likely Siftbot.

She makes my wand go, "Engorgio!" No homorphus.

I'm really digging the tune too.

>> ^Gallowflak:

I nearly started crying.


Don't you mean tears from inside your body nearly came outside from the openings between your eyes?

Yeah, I use VLC for the files that nothing else would otherwise play. Like pr0-...err promotional videos.

Everyone, chilly down!

Ah yes, Labyrinth. Or as I like to call it, Labyrinth and the Wrath of the Goblin King's Bulge.