I sez: Lousy laptop keyboard!

“Poeir Pundit”? “He’ll be here ll week…”?

(Oh sure, go back and edit them. Cheater.)

I sez: Words I never expected to read on Peoria Pundit:
“anal sex causes more mucosal tearing than vaginal sex”

He’ll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen…

Even if there is an inherent increase in certain psychiatric disorders among homosexuals … so what??? … I suggest that it simply indicates that we are all different.

See, this thread started when someone said that a “gay gene” had been found — and was using that as justification for legitimizing homosexuality as a lifestyle. You picked up on that thread and said that, while there isn’t a “gay gene,” that there is “strong evidence for genetic influence in homosexuality.”

So I said that there is also genetic influence in smoking initiation and persistence. But the difference is, science looks for ways to change our genetic makeup to make us less predisposed to smoking, but when it comes to homosexuality, genetic makeup is used to condone and legitimize a homosexual lifestyle. Do you see the double-standard here?

What’s the difference between these two? The only difference is that smoking is seen as bad and undesirable, but homosexuality is seen as something normal and to be affirmed. But those are simply beliefs — neither is based in science. Science can only tell us the “is,” not the “ought.” It can tell us facts, but can’t tell us right from wrong.

Your statement is a good example of this. “So what?” you say, if science shows that there may be higher incidence of disease or psychological disorder. It’s not going to change your mind that homosexuality is okay. You’ll interpret the scientific data in a way that’s consistent with your presuppositions.

Just like you do with smoking. You’re not willing to say, “So what? We’re all different,” when it comes to allowing a bar or restaurant owner to allow smoking in his establishment. Even though you are not being forced to inhale anyone’s secondhand smoke (you have a choice whether to patronize a smoking business), you nevertheless have no qualms about using “science” as your billy club to outlaw smoking in all public places, even thought it’s in violation of private property rights.

That’s my only point — that appealing to science here is a red herring.

Prohibitions against same-sex marriage AND anti-smokign laws are, essentially the same thing: There are people who, for whatever reason, DONT like the activity in question and are a bigger mob of people than the people who practice the activity. So the activity gets banned.

It’s nanny statism at it’s worst.

The liberties of smokers end when they start poisoning other people, and it’s about damn time somebody did something about it.

Besides, lesbians have the lowest overall rates of STDs. I guess all girls should be encouraged to become lesbians, by your logic. That’s the safest, right?

As far as the study from the Netherlands … just because same-sex marriage is legal doesn’t mean it’s not stigmatized. In general the Dutch have a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality when compared to Americans, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuals still don’t face prejudice in the Netherlands.

Also, the statistics derived from the study you quote were based on interviews of 87 homosexual men and 43 homosexual women. It was also a self-selected population that agreed to participate in the interview process. That’s not a very convincing study.

Even if there is an inherent increase in certain psychiatric disorders among homosexuals … so what??? Women have higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders than men. African-Americans have higher rates of diabetes. Does that indicate some inherent evil in women and blacks, as you seem to suggest that it does in homosexuals? Is it God’s punishment for their deviance? I suggest that it simply indicates that we are all different.

As for psychological harm, a study done in the Netherlands — where same-sex marriage is legal and not stigmatized — found “support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.”

People are either in control of their own lives/bodies or they are not. Period.

However, there is also overwhelming evidence of the inherent harm in smoking cigarettes. There is no such evidence in regards to homosexuality, so your comparison is completely invalid. Homosexuality does not cause multiple forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The psychological harm associated with homosexuality is due to the judgmental attitude and prejudice shown to them.

Researchers Find Genetic Connection to Cigarette Smoking

A meta-analysis of estimated genetic and environmental effects on smoking behavior in male and female adult twins

Genetic and environmental contributions to smoking

Genetic and Social Determinants of Initiation and Age at Onset of Smoking in Australian Twins

Personality and the inheritance of smoking behavior: A genetic perspective

Elucidating the role of genetic factors in smoking behavior and nicotine dependence

Perhaps Sen. Koehler can introduce a bill that will guarantee equal rights for smokers, eh?

What’s really interesting about these studies is that they’re undertaken in an effort to cure smokers of their natural predisposition to smoke. In contrast, studies on genetic predisposition toward homosexual behavior are undertaken to legitimize and reinforce that behavior.

Regarding #4, all I can say is, really? The state shouldn’t set any limits on who can marry whom (or what)? No age or consanguinity requirements? No proscription of polygamy or exogamy? The state should draw no line? “Commitment to another is commitment to another”?

Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.

Human sexual orientation has a heritable component.

A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples.

Familial aspects of male homosexuality.

A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation in a U.S. sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs.

And here’s a really interesting one … scientists were able to induce male-male courtship in fruit flies by knocking out a certain hormone receptor.

However, despite the evidence from fruit flies, CGiselle12 is incorrect. There is no single “gay gene” that has been discovered. There is certainly very strong evidence for genetic influence in homosexuality, but no one has successfully claimed discovery of an all-encompassing “gay gene.”

1) I think the state has much bigger issues to address than this one…however, given their dysfunctionality, they are only likely to address non-critical issues such as this during the session.

2) I don’t understand why a man and a woman would prefer to be “civil unionized” rather than married? If they want the “rights” of marriage, why don’t they get married? What “rights” of marriage don’t they want? Perhaps, I’m missing something…..

3) I’m not a proponent of having two legally recognized forms of commitment. I’d be much more supportive of having the state only provide one type - and let’s call it civil unions and open it to everyone - with the same rights, benefits, and detriments to all without regard to the sex of the individuals being c.u.’d. We’ll then let those who wish to have a religious ceremony utilize the word marriage. (I was married in a church but it was official until I filed the paperwork with the state!) Church ceremonies are religious occassions but unless I’m missing something, don’t constitute a legal marriage without the state’s blessing. Let’s just take one more step to separate church and state and clearly define their roles.

4) I think that individual churches can set whatever limits they want on the ceremonies that they have and who can participate in them. But that the state should not. Commitment to another is commitment to another.

Any, who’d be against happy people getting married?

As a proud member of Equal Marriage Illinois, the coalition of citizens backing the bill and Sen, Koehler - I’d like to note that the bill is a “civil unions” bill. It is not asking that gay people be allowed to have a “marriage” - it is asking that gay people who enter into “civil unions” be given the same legal rights as “married” people - the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right of power of attorney, the right to receive benefits upon death, the right to keep their children, etc.

There are approximately 1,300 legal rights that “married” people have (and take very much for granted) that people in civil unions don’t get.

Those of you who are religious can continue to guard your precious “marriage” word - which historically, is not what you think it is. “For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.” check the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....ref=slogin

Go Sen. Koehler! (PS I’m a straight, married, mother of two, because that matters to some of you)

Just because people make that argument, doesn’t make it accurate. It’s well proven that smoking is harmful, but there is no proof that: 1. homosexuality is a choice 2. that it’s unhealthy.

And I’m sure someone will trot out the whole “it’s a behaviour not genetic” argument, so riddle me this, what about being left handed? You could say it’s a behaviour… but I doubt my children “chose” to be left handed….

The marital escapades you mention are not “more holy,” they are also wrong. There is more than one way to pervert marriage into something its not supposed to be. This doesn’t make any of them right.

For many, marriage is still important and honorable. Starting with the right basic ingredients (opposite genders) is a big key. Just because pancakes are made with flour and eggs doesn’t mean that either of those ingredients alone is also called “pancakes.”

-b in Peoria