By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - France legalizes gay marriage despite angry protests

 

Do you want gay marriage in your country?

Yes, It would just be fair 241 58.78%
 
No, get the gay out of my country 102 24.88%
 
meh, I don't really care 66 16.10%
 
Total:409
Slimebeast on 24 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Slimebeast said:

In your opinion it's the best theory (and probably in the interest of liberal lobby groups) that genetic markers have a deep impact on causing homosexuality. Because it fits your agenda. Not because you're scientifically open to any explanation.

Bold: you know that sentence is false. There are evidence that severe hormonal dysfunctions affect sexuality and in turn this would qualifiy it to be classified as a disorder using medical terms, no matter if you like it or not. We just don't know the whole picture yet.

Like I said, it's laughably clear that you're driven by an agenda rather than objective towards scientific facts.

That's like saying in my opinion the Big Bang Theory is the best. No, it's actually the opinion of the astrophysicist community that it is. Your opposition to the truth is an agenda to appear as less inane than you've been shown to be. It's a futile effort fighting fact with opinion; you would do well to drop your devotion to ignorance and simply admit your egregious miscalculation here.

Hormonal imbalance caused by epigenetics != brain disorder. This is like comparing a car running out of gas to an engine problem. It's just laughably stupid.

Like I said, you clearly don't have a modicum of information about this. Go do some research, you're embarrassing yourself.

No, you are embarrassing yourself. As a medical doctor I can say you have a poor understanding about the basics for medical diagnostics and definitions of disorders, as well as separating theoretical models from facts.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 24 April 2013
Slimebeast said:

No, you are embarrassing yourself. As a medical doctor I can say you have a poor understanding about the basics for medical diagnostics and definitions of disorders, as well as separating theoretical models from facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

oops.



Slimebeast on 24 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Slimebeast said:

No, you are embarrassing yourself. As a medical doctor I can say you have a poor understanding about the basics for medical diagnostics and definitions of disorders, as well as separating theoretical models from facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

oops.

Oops.

But only after you withdrew arguments from the discussion and instead resorted to insults while repeating your stance like a parrot.



dsgrue3 on 24 April 2013
Slimebeast said:

Oops.

But only after you withdrew arguments from the discussion and instead resorted to insults while repeating your stance like a parrot.

You feel insulted because I tore apart your statements. Go back and read them - there is no insult on you, simply pointing out that you aren't knowledgeable of the topic. 

I haven't withdrawn any arguments. I've enchanced them with sources. Not sure what delusion you're in, but the reality of the situation is my point stands and your rebuttal is bunk. (It isn't a mental disorder, get with the times.)



Slimebeast on 24 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Slimebeast said:

Oops.

But only after you withdrew arguments from the discussion and instead resorted to insults while repeating your stance like a parrot.

You feel insulted because I tore apart your statements. Go back and read them - there is no insult on you, simply pointing out that you aren't knowledgeable of the topic. 

I haven't withdrawn any arguments. I've enchanced them with sources. Not sure what delusion you're in, but the reality of the situation is my point stands and your rebuttal is bunk. (It isn't a mental disorder, get with the times.)

A wikipedia article about psychology distancing itself from its  distorted past view on homosexuality was not a source for the point we were discussing (IMO psychology was a very twisted discipline until the past two decades or so). It was just a distraction.

Yes, I admit I feel a bit insulted by your general attitude. I don't think that's a good thing in discussion. I resort to an insulting tone sometimes myself but I strive for a respectable attitude rather than confrontational and ridiculing.

You didn't tore apart anything. You showed your bias towards one explanation model while dismissing the others without any grounds. You failed to see the political connection, and you failed to see the similarity to ADHD and autism when classifying whether something is a "brain disorder" or not.



Around the Network
Zkuq on 24 April 2013
mai said:
Zkuq said:
mai said:
Zkuq said:
mai said:
The most interesting part of the story is not the legalization, but the fact they did it inspite of majority of French stance on the matter.

Actually the majority supports the law.

http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2013/04/04/mariage-homosexuel-les-francais-pour-mais-ils-rejettent-l-adoption_893559

I can't speak French but Google Translate seems to agree with what I just said: 53% support gay marriage.

I'll rephrase it to avoid confusion: majority are against adoption by gay couples -- people tend to distinguish these two things, but one implies another. It says that 56% are against adoption and rising since the start of the pro-gay marriage campaign.

Ah, that is true. What does the new law say about adoption? Anyway, majority supports gay marriage (without adoption) so if adoption rights don't come automatically with marriage, there's nothing going against majority's opinion here. And those two things definitely don't have to imply one another, even if they usually do.



dsgrue3 on 24 April 2013
Slimebeast said:

A wikipedia article about psychology distancing itself from its  distorted past view on homosexuality was not a source for the point we were discussing (IMO psychology was a very twisted discipline until the past two decades or so). It was just a distraction.

Yes, I admit I feel a bit insulted by your general attitude. I don't think that's a good thing in discussion. I resort to an insulting tone sometimes myself but I strive for a respectable attitude rather than confrontational and ridiculing.

You didn't tore apart anything. You showed your bias towards one explanation model while dismissing the others without any grounds. You failed to see the political connection, and you failed to see the similarity to ADHD and autism when classifying whether something is a "brain disorder" or not.

It thoroughly debunked your claim.

ADHD and Autism ARE brain disorders, recognized by neuroscience and psychology. Homosexuality is actually debunked as a brain disorder by psychology and neuroscience has yet to resolve the issue.

I'm open to competing theories, but as you've failed to provide a single competent one I can only surmise there aren't any worth sharing.

I'd also like to clarify that epigenetics controls literally everything in conjunction with hormones, so citing the brain as the issue post hoc is a bit silly. The control units - epigenetics - would promote the formation of sexuality in the human brain. Certainly the brain plays a role in the process, but it isn't the cause. The initial domino is epigenetics, collapses onto the brain domino, which collapses onto sexual orientation. 



Slimebeast on 24 April 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Slimebeast said:

A wikipedia article about psychology distancing itself from its  distorted past view on homosexuality was not a source for the point we were discussing (IMO psychology was a very twisted discipline until the past two decades or so). It was just a distraction.

Yes, I admit I feel a bit insulted by your general attitude. I don't think that's a good thing in discussion. I resort to an insulting tone sometimes myself but I strive for a respectable attitude rather than confrontational and ridiculing.

You didn't tore apart anything. You showed your bias towards one explanation model while dismissing the others without any grounds. You failed to see the political connection, and you failed to see the similarity to ADHD and autism when classifying whether something is a "brain disorder" or not.

It thoroughly debunked your claim.

ADHD and Autism ARE brain disorders, recognized by neuroscience and psychology. Homosexuality is actually debunked as a brain disorder by psychology and neuroscience has yet to resolve the issue.

I'm open to competing theories, but as you've failed to provide a single competent one I can only surmise there aren't any worth sharing.

I'd also like to clarify that epigenetics controls literally everything in conjunction with hormones, so citing the brain as the issue post hoc is a bit silly. The control units - epigenetics - would promote the formation of sexuality in the human brain. Certainly the brain plays a role in the process, but it isn't the cause. The initial domino is epigenetics, collapses onto the brain domino, which collapses onto sexual orientation. 

You seem unable to understand that, as far as we know, there is no fundamental difference between homosexuality and ADHD/Aspbergers on a biological level (you also seem confused about the brain's primary role in causing the end result and what implications that has or doesn't have).

You seem unable to understand the criteria of what constitutes a disorder in the medical field and how they're influenced by contemporary (arbitrary) politics.



Scoobes on 24 April 2013
Slimebeast said:
dsgrue3 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're talking against facts here because you hope that to be the case, while we in fact don't know that to be the case.

I personally, partially based on my experience as a medical doctor and because there are studies that suggest it, believe that homosexuality largely is caused by dysfunctional hormonal regulation during embryonal development, which would be enough to meet the criteria for it to be classified as a "brain disorder" (that's how diagnostics work).

I do believe that some homosexuality is programmed and even selected for at the genetical level too, but we don't have clear evidence for that yet.

Note that I don't think this is dramatic in any way because "disorder" doesn't automatically mean something can be or should be "cured".

 

I'm not "talking against facts," I'm bringing them to the table. This is where scientists believe the fundamental control occurs. 

Epigenetics and hormones go hand in hand and it is absolutely thought to be hormones sent as epigenetic signals during development that produces sexuality. Epigenetics aren't set in stone, they are environmentally impacted. 

Classifying homosexuality as a brain disorder is absurd. Call it a recessive disposition, but disorder in this sense is a pejorative. Like I said, it's not thought of as different to left-handedness - and I think you'll fail to classify this as a disorder. 

Furthermore, what the hell does "hope" have anything to do with anything? I'm not homosexual, so I've no vested interest in a scientific explanation. I'm bringing clarity to an outdated opinion that it's a brain disorder. It simply isn't; any other assertion is baseless and, quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

You claimed that homosexuality "is controlled by epigenetic markers which promote a predisposition". That is not fact, that's a theory. Some homosexuality seem to be controlled by genetic markers, while some homosexuality cannot yet be connected to any predisposition, that's all we can say.

He says epigenetic markers which potentially supports your original hypothesis about hormonal changes in the mother during embryonic development influencing homosexuality. Hormonal changes in the mother could potentially influence the transcription of non-coding regulatory RNA in the developing embryo. This in turn could influence DNA methylation and effect gene regulation in the baby.

I'm not getting into the brain stuff between you two as I've not read up enough on the topic but you're potentially arguing over a shared viewpoint.




Get your Portable ID!

Jay520 on 24 April 2013

I have a solution to settle this madness.

Some people want "marriage" to be defined under religion only. Others think "marriage" should be free to be used by everyone. Here is the solution: we create a new term for homosexuals and nonreligious couples. That new term should be "marriage." Of course this looks and sounds like the religious "marriage" but it's actually different. It would just be a homonym, like "left" and "left" - one is the opposite of right and the other is the past tense of leave. They are spelled and pronounced the same, but have entirely different meaning.

We can reach a similar compromise with religion. The religious "marriage" will be exclusively under religious authority, while the other "marriage" will be a general term for marriage in general. No one group of people has a dictatorship over a particular arrangement of letters and syllables.

Who agrees?