Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2012, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
794 posts, read 1,321,162 times
Reputation: 973

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
I work in genetics.
Yes, of course you do.

But, I wasn't asking the question - is there a gay gene? And, if you are in genetics than you'd know that question is still being heavily researched, with inconclusive findings. Anyone can try and swing the data one way or another to support their personal view, especially since most of the scientific research I've read points to a variety of factors (biological, environmental, etc.), not just a single gene....but I've also never read of any scientist concluding that a young person just decides one day that they will be gay.

And, if you'd actually try and talk (and listen) to your friend who is gay about his experience you would probably learn a lot.

I do agree with you on one thing, though...I'm going to drop it. You won't be changing my opinion on this matter, and I don't think anyone will be changing your's either. Best of luck to you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2012, 02:49 PM
 
Location: The Triad
34,090 posts, read 82,528,650 times
Reputation: 43648
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
I can see how heated this topic is, especially for the opponents painting it as a civil rights issue.
Which it is.. and which is all that it is about.
Using the term marriage is a hot button that only distracts.

Quote:
Marriage as defined by the state is a legal protection for an institution the clearly benefits the state.
The state has never defined marriage. The "state" has inherited a whole host of traditional social norms through common law. Some of these norms are admirable... some of these have been reprehensible. A few remain so.

This particular issue, active prevention of the full exercise of a persons civil rights and responsibilities falls into the latter category and the sooner it is remedied the better society as whole (including our LGBT brothers and sisters) will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 02:59 PM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,433,126 times
Reputation: 8382
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
The perfect example of government overreaching and wasting our time, resources, and money. To me it's a pretty clear conflict of the separation of church and state...

Why do these conservatives preach small government and rail against the politicians... yet they want that same government in people's houses dictating what is "moral" and "good" telling us how to live our lives? What a bunch of hypocrites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
More name calling. Please, isn't this supposed to be a grown up discussion, MikeyKid?
Dude, your just trolling for a fight ain't ya. Exercising your right to be offended without cause, yet another common trait of the theist. The description of hypocrite is not name calling, just an accurate summation of their actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 03:00 PM
 
5,126 posts, read 7,370,746 times
Reputation: 8396
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
Well, we can all agree that a major difference in opinion here is whether protecting the definition of marriage between a man and a woman affects the institution of marriage itself.

What needs to also be addressed more, is how this affects the younger generation. I've heard it several times, and it seems logical that children from broken homes are more likely to be in broken homes.

And numerous studies have shown that children in two parent (man + woman) families are better off than any other permutations.
I think you need to look deeper.

First of all, the divorce rate that you mentioned earlier is not 50%. There is a drastic difference in the divorce rate when you look at educational levels. College-educated couples have a divorce rate that is only twenty-something percent.

Different socioeconomic groups have entirely different divorce rates. Plus, the 50% figure is only arrived at over decades. It's not from people getting divorced after only a few years of marriage.

There are conclusions that could be drawn from this. Economics affects the success of marriage. Education affects family economics. Higher education levels are often associated with family support, personal discipline and other behaviors that impact the success of a marriage.

There was a time when the divorce rate between college grads and high school grads was almost exactly the same. But the non-grads have lost a lot of ground over the last twenty years as the economy has changed. Their wages have been stagnant and their job prospects narrowed. In fact, marriage rates have fallen sharply among non-grads because they are more often not financially secure enough to sustain a family.

At the same time, there is more government assistance being used now to raise children in single-parent households, which mitigates a bit of the financial pain of not having a financially-contributing spouse. Studies have shown that many low-income single mothers WANT to get married, but the pool of men they have access to can't support a family.

It does not just come down to merely devaluing marriage as you suggest.

You also do not seem to be aware of studies involving the well being and outcome of the children of gay couples. It turns out that on average, those children actually do better and are more successful than the children of heterosexuals. It is speculated that it may be because gay couples tend to have a higher socioeconomic status.

I think you are looking for a solution in the wrong place. The amendment cures none of the factors that destabilize marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 03:02 PM
 
164 posts, read 356,426 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
Gangs are in most schools nowadays, .
Again--Can you give anything to back that statement up? Why in the world would you say that gangs are in MOST schools nowadays?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 03:08 PM
 
164 posts, read 356,426 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
Not all of these problems are due exclusively to the decline of marriage in our society, but when people deny the existence of a slippery slope, they are usually on one.
I knew of three big time drug addicts when I was in school. Two are now dead. One is recovered.

All three had parents that were married and attended church. They were Good Families by all accounts. Meh.

I am sure there are children of gay marriages that have drug issues as well. Although, all of my gay friends have delightful, civic minded children

What does it mean to "work in genetics"? Are you a doctor? A geneticists? A genetic engineer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 03:28 PM
 
5,126 posts, read 7,370,746 times
Reputation: 8396
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
One of the first things they teach you in introductory genetics in college is that any genetic condition that leads to even a 5% lower chance of reproduction will be eliminated from populations in a few generations unless there is an advantage to being heterozygous for the condition.

Since there is no detectable advantage to being heterozygous for a homosexual gene, and obviously there is a large decrease in reproductive likelihood, there is very little probability for there to actually be a homosexual gene.
Who says there is no detectable advantage?

I'm not a scientist, but even I have read about studies that point to evidence that having a certain percentage of the population not able to have children is advantageous.

Childless people have time to help the busy parents in their family. How many families have benefited from having a childless aunt or uncle who had lots of time to give? This contributes to the child's well being and survival.

Childless people are also usually the ones who pick up the pieces that irresponsible parents inflict on society. They help by adopting their children when they are removed from abuse/neglect or are put up for adoption.

Not only do gay couples pick up the slack by adopting these children, but they can have their own children too by means of a surrogate.

Last edited by Shooting Stars; 05-11-2012 at 03:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 03:35 PM
 
164 posts, read 356,426 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooting Stars View Post
Who says there is no detectable advantage?

I'm not a scientist, but even I have read about studies that point to evidence that having a certain percentage of the population not able to have children is advantageous.

Childless people have time to help the busy parents in their family. How many families have benefited from having a childless aunt or uncle who had lots of time to give? This contributes to the child's well being and survival.

Childless people are also usually the ones who pick up the pieces that irresponsible parents inflict on society. They help by adopting their children when they are removed from abusive/neglect or are put up for adoption.

Not only do gay couples pick up the slack by adopting these children, but they can have their own children too by means of a surrogate.
You made fabulous points. I LOVE your post!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,758 posts, read 8,121,835 times
Reputation: 8515
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
Isn't that being consistent though? It's not targeting homosexuals, but predominantly heterosexuals. I know too many people in their 30s and 40s who are disappointed about not being married, most especially the ones living with a "partner" of the opposite sex. To hear how one of them talks about his girlfriend makes me naseous, because it shows an utter lack of respect for her as a human being. Marriage forces you to try harder. I've lived with a girlfriend before without commitment, and marriage definitely changes the whole perspective on things.
You think that your experience is the right thing but the individual couples have the right to do what they want. I know a lot of couples both straight and gay who have been living together with children and without who have no problem that they are partners. Marriage has shown that a large number of people should have lived together first before they found out that they couldnt get along. This is from someone married for 35 years after living with a partner for 2. Too many of my friends have had 2 and 3 marriages so you have no idea how forcing marriage on a couple is wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 06:50 PM
 
5,265 posts, read 16,543,105 times
Reputation: 4325
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA palmetto View Post
I think you misinterpreted what I meant here. But to address what you brought up, the last I heard domestic violence was no better than years ago, and probably worse. In fact, women outside of marriage are more likely to be abused than women in marriage. I would have to look it up to be sure.

Well, thanks to the new amendment one; the women abused women in those relationships outside of marriage now have much less protection under the law. So yes, continue to congratulate the voters who passed it. Also I see that the other questions/comments in my response post seemed just too complex for you to respond to. It's funny, I thought they were pretty simplistic and straightforward!

Last edited by just_sayin'; 05-11-2012 at 07:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top