Dar:
The best thought on the matter thinks that the brain is programmed very early in the pregnancy as to just what is attractive. Later in pregnancy, the so-called "primary" sexual characteristics develop. I'm told that you can reliably make a gay monkey by manipulating the hormones in its mother during pregnancy.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;270182]While I might disagree with several of the above opinions, the tendency of humans to pair bond is very well documented and easy to demonstrate. I have trouble understanding how how pair bonding works in a polygamous society. I also have trouble understanding pair bonding in same sex couples. That it does occur can be seen in numerous public examples.


DarJones[/QUOTE]
It would be genuinely very interesting to me to see you elaborate on why you have trouble understanding same sex pair bonding despite affirming its existence. Is it, for example, simply that you cannot empathise with a woman who loves another woman, or a man who loves another man, due to not sharing this phenomenon yourself? Or does your trouble with understanding have religious causes? Or is it something you cannot explain from a biological starting point? Any further input you give on this might throw some light on parts of the argument against opening up marriage to same sex couples which maybe haven't been discussed in this thread so far.

[QUOTE=Christenson;270184]Dar:
The best thought on the matter thinks that the brain is programmed very early in the pregnancy as to just what is attractive. Later in pregnancy, the so-called "primary" sexual characteristics develop. I'm told that you can reliably make a gay monkey by manipulating the hormones in its mother during pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
From my own gut-feeling, based merely on my own experience growing up as a gay man, I agree with this point of view as far as it's possible to judge. Studies from the 1990's, which seemed to show different genes and brain structures in gay and straight people, supported it too. It has to be said, though, that the nature/nurture scientific debate is still in its infancy.

Dear Brian-E,

I've given your post quite a bit of thought. It still seems to me that you were not quite grasping what I was trying to convey. I believe the reason may be cultural. I had hoped someone else would step in, but maybe they didn't quite grasp my point either. I'll try to express that below in my response.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;270074]...the difference being that the extreme cases of forcible breaking up of families due to failure to recognise marriages at federal level are occurring on a structural basis in the modern-day USA. Would you care to comment on the example to which I have linked twice of the married couple in San Francisco who are being split up (today is in fact the date that one partner is required to return to Australia) because their marriage is not recognized at Federal level?[/quote]First, I want to note that vaccinations in America are done on a structural basis in modern-day USA. I'm not entirely familiar with the applicable laws, but I know that if you ignore a doctor's recommendation you can lose insurance. Furthermore, I'm in favor of laws requiring people to vaccinate their children (with some vaccines at least). So I don't really see the difference you suggest.

But to answer your other question, my feelings about immigration laws are sufficiently complex that I don't think they would really adequately help you understand my feelings about the gay rights movement.

[quote]Really? When I read through the article after you posted the link I found it extraordinarily bigoted and blinkered, but I didn't notice such a blatant misunderstanding as this of why marriage arose. Which part of the article are you talking about? Come on, surely you are not suggesting that the marriage institution did not come into existence because there was a natural human need for it.[/quote]I would be interested to know what you felt was extraordinarily bigoted and blinkered. I believe myself to be a good judge of such things, and didn't see anything like that.

But I think you misunderstood my point. Of course marriage arose out of a natural human need. I just don't think that need was a desire for pairing and companionship as you suggested. In particular, I would argue (as in the article) that if we were not a species which reproduced through coitus, marriage would not have arisen at all. Marriage arose as an institution to give social authorization for coitus; not as some stamp on best-friendship.

[quote]No, it's the same natural urge. Love, llifetime commitment, family forming.

...

It is now being called for in no uncertain terms. That is why we, and politicians and commentators throughout the western world, are having this discussion now.

...

No. The values are the same. Lifelong bonding in committed love relationship with another human being in a family unit.

...

No. Ditto.

...

As an insider in a country which opened marriage 10 years ago, the first in the world to do so, I am proud to judge the removal of the previous inherent discrimination favourably.

...

I see no evidence of this other natural urge in the western world. Lesbian and gay couples have always been forming their family units despite the lack of legal recognition: the same is not true of set-ups with more than two adults. If multiple bonding was a natural human instinct the evidence would be all around us just as same sex couples are everywhere. I have a suspicion that you are actually talking about the urge to have sex with multiple partners (rather than lifetime committed bonding): that urge is definitely there, but it doesn't require any social/legal construction.[/QUOTE]In America, the gay marriage debate (at least currently) centers around the idea that being in the GLBT crowd is an innate, unalterable, and natural aspect of humanity. The relevant legal question is whether one's status in this group is (or should be) a protected class. Those Americans who support gay marriage do not do so because there is a large call for it (because there isn't), but rather they view it as a civil rights issue. If scientists found a way to safely prevent anyone from developing gay/lesbian characteristics, or found irrefutable evidence that it was an aberration of human development, the debate would die in America. [Of course, neither of those is likely at present.]

In fact, in America, the more political power a group has the *less* likely the group is to be given protected status. So that's one reason why your response made very little sense to me. It seems you are implicitly agreeing with me that those calling for even more expansions to marriage (such as polygamy) are politically powerless. In America, that is an argument *for* polygamy, from the "civil rights" aspect (but not the "majority will" aspect).

But further, the reasons you gave against expanding the definition for marriage are exactly the ones used here, in America, against the gay marriage movement. If we Americans grant your arguments, then (in my opinion) in principle we Americans similarly need to grant the arguments against gay marriage. On the other hand, if we don't grant your arguments, then we may need to expand the definition of marriage to an unreasonable limit.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270732]But to answer your other question, my feelings about immigration laws are sufficiently complex that I don't think they would really adequately help you understand my feelings about the gay rights movement.[/QUOTE]Ok, let's examine another very slightly different case.

Suppose the couple in question were male and female (one each, of course!) and were validly married under US law.

Would you personally support that couple being split up and one of the pair being deported because of an immigration offense committed by that person?

A simple question, with a simple yes or no answer.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;270754]Ok, let's examine another very slightly different case.

Suppose the couple in question were male and female (one each, of course!) and were validly married under US law.

Would you personally support that couple being split up and one of the pair being deported because of an immigration offense committed by that person?

A simple question, with a simple yes or no answer.


Paul[/QUOTE]I will attempt to answer your question, but let me try to express first why I don't find it a "simple question." What was the offense? Did the person murder someone else, or jay-walk? Why are the couple being split up, instead of the non-offending spouse returning with the other person to his/her origin??? [If you meant for the example to be exactly as in the case cited by Brian-E, then you could say those things.] What would such "support" entail? Are you assuming I am in a position of power, asking what I think should be the laws, or what I think should happen with the laws already given?

I believe that laws can give society structure it needs, without which we would suffer anarchy. There are times when one should disobey laws, but if someone disobeys laws they should expect the consequences. I am personally a person who likes to extend mercy, and I think that can be worked into laws to an extent. On the other hand, I also believe in the principle of "rule of law". No person is above the law. No president, no king, and no married couple.

I personally would like to open our borders a little more, and let people come to our country. I find it sad that there are times when caregivers (whether married or not) are separated from one another by laws, as lame as visas running out. However, I believe that if those are the laws then they should be followed or changed.

So, technically speaking, the answer to your question is "yes" if you mean currently; the answer is "no" if you allow for changes in the law (and the offense in question was a minor one).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270776]So, technically speaking, the answer to your question is "yes" if you mean currently; the answer is "no" if you allow for changes in the law (and the offense in question was a minor one).[/QUOTE]Thanks.

Now for the obvious follow-on question. On the assumption that those changes in the law were in existence and the offense was exactly the same, would your answer be the same if the couple in question were of the same sex and in a relationship which in Massachusetts, say, would be classed as marriage?


Paul

I thought I made it clear that the relevant changes in the law would allow caregivers (whether married or not, whether of the same sex or not) to remain.

Immigration laws are a federal issue here in the USA. That one state would pass laws which might lead some to think they now have federal protections which they do not is not really a concern of mine. Whether or not they should have those protections for other reasons (such as being a caregiver) is another question.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270799]I thought I made it clear that the relevant changes in the law would allow caregivers (whether married or not, whether of the same sex or not) to remain.[/QUOTE]Ok, I misunderstood. My apologies.

Paul

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576569193270225576.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271671][URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576569193270225576.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Paywall, $#%^&!*!!!

That is lame. There was no paywall when I first read that story.