Do you support gay marriage?

[Subduction Zone]

I know somebody from Utah who told me nobody can get a decent job in Utah unless he/she belongs to the Church of Latter Day Saints... Is this not true?

That sounds like the sort of excuse a failure would use. I am not saying that there is not any bias, but people with abilities will still find a way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I actually appreciate a bit of ethnic diversity. Flame didn't rightfully quote my entire sentence written of which I wrote there's too many mixed-breed persons ( meaning multiracial persons) everywhere for interracial marriages to be in legal jeopardy. I would never simply think there's too many mixed-breed persons ( meaning multiracial persons) everywhere for my liking.

Well, okay. Like in that other thread, I will advise you to be more careful with your words.

 

[Salvador]

That sounds like the sort of excuse a failure would use. I am not saying that there is not any bias, but people with abilities will still find a way.

From what I've been told, In Utah, belonging to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, is the best way of social networking to get a good job.

 

[Katzpur]

I know somebody from Utah who told me nobody can get a decent job in Utah unless he/she belongs to the Church of Latter Day Saints... Is this not true?

No, it is absolutely not true. Thousands upon thousands of people who are not LDS hold high-paying jobs in Utah, and that's the truth. I suspect the person who told you this was unable to get a good job and needed somebody to blame. It happens.

 

[Nous]

Aka

Sexual arousal is not a social construct.

I'm not a doctor. So, I can't give you the details of how the male and female anatomy works in relation to sexual response to other humans. They do have a lot on it in medical books.

Online it goes straight to orientation and interpetation of sexuality. (If you read my links)

Again. That is not my point.

100% wrong. Go to the sites I referenced and click on the references to studies. If you're not prepared to do that minimal amount of work, spoon feeding references won't have any effect either.

I'm fairly sure I've read more of the scholarly literature on the subject than 2 people who had never heard of sexual orientation as a social construct and did not know what word “essentialist” means until this conversation, or anyone who claims that there are “gay animals”. I've read dozens of the relevant studies, and I cannot confirm your claims for you to the extent that they are intelligible at all because I know that they are false. Ask me about the seasonal variation in the size of the INAH3 in sheep's brains.

The biological studies on humans invariably treat sexual orientation as a binary, and employ a disease model methodology, where “heterosexual” is considered the norm and “homosexual” is any deviancy from the norm. The methodology in which sexual orientation is considered binary is a critical flaw in all such studies that claim to have found a correlation between sexual orientation designations and some biological feature--in the same way, if one were to classify school children according a binary of sock colors--i.e., ”light” vs. “dark” socks--one can undoubtedly find all sorts of statistically significant correlations that have nothing to do with the socks they are wearing, correlations that disappear when one divides their sock colors into, say, 7 different colors.

Neither the term “sexual orientation” nor any particular designations for sexual orientation are scientific terms; many different definitions and concepts for these terms are used in the various studies to the extent that there is any attempt to define the terms at all. In most such studies, rarely is there any inquiry to ascertain subjects' sexual orientation beyond asking a few questions. There is no objective method to determine whether a person belongs in any particular category of sexual orientation.

No biological study has ever acquired findings by which to deduce that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. No study has acquired findings by which to deduce that sexual orientation is something other than a social construct. In contrast, the historical evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal that in cultures that did not consider categories of sexual orientation as immutable traits, people did not behave as though they have any such immutable trait of sexual orientation. But, then, even in current cultures where many people consider sexual orientation an immutable trait, a significant portion of people similarly exhibit behavior inconsistent with that belief, changing the designations by which they identify, or eschewing self-identification as any sexual orientation category altogether.

Anyone claiming the sexual orientation is an immutable biological trait needs to account for the overwhelming and unequivocal evidence showing that people in cultures that did not have sexual orientation categories did not behave in accordance with either monosexual orientation category. Neither you nor Unveiled Artist has even mentioned this evidence, much less accounted for it.

 

[Nous]

The majority of the Supreme Court has now shifted to sensible conservatives who may overturn Obergefell v Hodges on the basis that the SCOTUS in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts " is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.' "

Nothing has changed about the fact that civil marriage is a fundamental right subject to the Constitutional protections of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, and you obviously haven't been able to articulate any compelling governmental purpose to deny same-sex couples and their children the rights and responsibilities that come with the state recognition of the couples' marriage.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm fairly sure I've read more of the scholarly literature on the subject than 2 people who had never heard of sexual orientation as a social construct and did not know what word “essentialist” means until this conversation, or anyone who claims that there are “gay animals”. I've read dozens of the relevant studies, and I cannot confirm your claims for you to the extent that they are intelligible at all because I know that they are false. Ask me about the seasonal variation in the size of the INAH3 in sheep's brains.

The biological studies on humans invariably treat sexual orientation as a binary, and employ a disease model methodology, where “heterosexual” is considered the norm and “homosexual” is any deviancy from the norm. The methodology in which sexual orientation is considered binary is a critical flaw in all such studies that claim to have found a correlation between sexual orientation designations and some biological feature--in the same way, if one were to classify school children according a binary of sock colors--i.e., ”light” vs. “dark” socks--one can undoubtedly find all sorts of statistically significant correlations that have nothing to do with the socks they are wearing, correlations that disappear when one divides their sock colors into, say, 7 different colors.

Neither the term “sexual orientation” nor any particular designations for sexual orientation are scientific terms; many different definitions and concepts for these terms are used in the various studies to the extent that there is any attempt to define the terms at all. In most such studies, rarely is there any inquiry to ascertain subjects' sexual orientation beyond asking a few questions. There is no objective method to determine whether a person belongs in any particular category of sexual orientation.

No biological study has ever acquired findings by which to deduce that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. No study has acquired findings by which to deduce that sexual orientation is something other than a social construct. In contrast, the historical evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal that in cultures that did not consider categories of sexual orientation as immutable traits, people did not behave as though they have any such immutable trait of sexual orientation. But, then, even in current cultures where many people consider sexual orientation an immutable trait, a significant portion of people similarly exhibit behavior inconsistent with that belief, changing the designations by which they identify, or eschewing self-identification as any sexual orientation category altogether.

Anyone claiming the sexual orientation is an immutable biological trait needs to account for the overwhelming and unequivocal evidence showing that people in cultures that did not have sexual orientation categories did not behave in accordance with either monosexual orientation category. Neither you nor Unveiled Artist has even mentioned this evidence, much less accounted for it.

Is sexual arousal and attraction as a cause a social construct?

Im asking your opinion not a lecture.

Do not. Belittle my intelligence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually appreciate a bit of ethnic diversity. Flame didn't rightfully quote my entire sentence written of which I wrote there's too many mixed-breed persons ( meaning multiracial persons) everywhere for interracial marriages to be in legal jeopardy. I would never simply think there's too many mixed-breed persons ( meaning multiracial persons) everywhere for my liking.

Dont sweat it. It's a freudian slip. I had a friend who used the N* word as natural as I say, the guy over there. It was where she was from and upbringing. I didnt correct her given the background but I assume she knew from my expression. Things happen. Mix breed is derogatory (in the U.S.) Better words are interracial, multicultural, race diversity, or so have you. I'm sure the majority would understand.

 

[Shad]

There's too many mix breed persons everywhere nowadays, I highly doubt interracial marriage is in legal jeopardy anywhere.

What..... That wording is so off.....

However, there's still many persons in some places who continue to define marriage as strictly between a man and woman; I disagree marriage can't be between two persons of the same-sex, but I respect those of the many religious Faiths who have always taught marriage is strictly between a man and woman.

I used it only as a past example of the majority holding not only a subjective view but one the majority no longer supports by government edict. It was to demonstrate how the whims of the majority can be immoral and damaging when used to determine rights and government action. Limits on the majority are in place lest the majority start dictating who has rights or no rights... again.

 

[Salvador]

Nothing has changed about the fact that civil marriage is a fundamental right subject to the Constitutional protections of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, and you obviously haven't been able to articulate any compelling governmental purpose to deny same-sex couples and their children the rights and responsibilities that come with the state recognition of the couples' marriage.

There is no choice between living in a state where gay marriage is legal or living in a state where gay marriage isn't lawful, if the status quo of an overbearing powerful centralized federal government rather than a decentralized and more localized state level body of government determines what constitutes legal marriage.

There could be some very nasty repercussions from the national legalization of same-sex marriages.

Universal legalization of gay marriage, may cause job hiring discrimination against gays by employers who don't wanna extend marital benefits to same-sex married couples whom a prospective employer's religion forbids to be married. Also states heavily influenced by Fundamentalist Christians may be less inclined to offer tax breaks for married couples, if this must include giving tax breaks to same-sex married couples.

 

[Salvador]

What..... That wording is so off.....



I used it only as a past example of the majority holding not only a subjective view but one the majority no longer supports by government edict. It was to demonstrate how the whims of the majority can be immoral and damaging when used to determine rights and government action. Limits on the majority are in place lest the majority start dictating who has rights or no rights... again.

Sorry for my poor choice of words, I meant to write there's too many multi-racially persons everywhere for any interracial marriages to be in legal jeopardy.

Most persons overall now do support same-sex marriage, but that doesn't necessarily make it right to those whose deeply held religious beliefs consider marriage as strictly between opposite sex couples.

 

[Shad]

Sorry for my poor choice of words, I meant to write there's too many multi-racially persons everywhere for any interracial marriages to be in legal jeopardy.

I get the general point. You just really need to work on how you phrase things.

Most persons overall now do support same-sex marriage, but that doesn't necessarily make it right to those whose deeply held religious beliefs consider marriage as strictly between opposite sex couples.

Sure. This was a general point that the majority if given too much power will dictate what is right and wrong by government edicts and enforce it upon everyone with government.

 

[Nous]

There is no choice between living in a state where gay marriage is legal or living in a state where gay marriage isn't lawful, if the status quo of an overbearing powerful centralized federal government rather than a decentralized and more localized state level body of government determines what constitutes legal marriage.

All Americans are also deprived of any choice to live in a state where slavery is legal. That's simply part of living in a country with a Constitution ratified by a majority. But you are free to seek out a country that doesn't have such Constitutional principles.

There could be some very nasty repercussions from the national legalization of same-sex marriages.

Universal legalization of gay marriage, may cause job hiring discrimination against gays by employers who don't wanna extend marital benefits to same-sex married couples whom a prospective employer's religion forbids to be married. Also states heavily influenced by Fundamentalist Christians may be less inclined to offer tax breaks for married couples, if this must include giving tax breaks to same-sex married couples.

Discrimination on the basis of marriage status is not a consequence of recognizing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

 

[Nous]

Is sexual arousal and attraction as a cause a social construct?

In asserting that sexual orientation is a social construct, no one is denying that people become sexually aroused or are attracted to specific individuals. Socrates expressed his attraction for a particular guy in Plato's Dialogues.

If you wish to claim that sexual orientation or particular monosexual orientations are immutable traits, then you need to account for the massive historical evidence contrary to such a claim, not try to knock down straw men.