He could argue the other side just as well, he is good at what he does.

Ted Olson Upholds Same Sex Marriage on Fox News Sunday – Brilliantly”

Really? He used a first year law student’s argument that the judiciary decides if a law is constitutional , and this will still go to the SCOTUS for review.

“and this will still go to the SCOTUS for review.”

Where the ruling will 5-4 in favor of overturning Prop 8.

See, not all righties are stupid and evil. By the way, Olsen’s wife was murdered by people who would put all fags to the sword if they could.

Moderate said:
He could argue the other side just as well, he is good at what he does.

Or he could have been giving his fair and honest interpretation of the law and relevant judicial precedent.

The best part was where he asked Chris if he would mind putting Fox News’ freedom of the press to a vote. About that time something came to mind concerning the tyranny of the majority, which our system protects against.

Brilliant and succinct; he’s partly forgiven for Bush V Gore.

Jim R said:
The best part was where he asked Chris if he would mind putting Fox News’ freedom of the press to a vote. About that time something came to mind concerning the tyranny of the majority, which our system protects against. Brilliant and succinct; he’s partly forgiven for Bush V Gore.

Olsen was right about that too.

The government does not have to issue licenses for marriage like they do fishing, but if they do, they can’t discriminate. How hard is that?

Sean68,

Yes, I can see where you’d think that those eight years turned out so wonderfully.

A more cautionary discussion was on Face the Nation. Watch the full clip below. And learn:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6754390n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

borntoraisehogs said:
The government does not have to issue licenses for marriage like they do fishing, but if they do, they can’t discriminate. How hard is that?

It’s not hard. The right should not fight this battle. They should be encouraging gays to marry. In every respect it’s a good and civlizing institution. It’s the religious right that’s opposed. They can’t seem to get it into their heads that people don’t just choose to be gay. It’s a fact; they should just embrace it and court the gay vote with issues that affect them disproportionately–such as taxation.

When I read a conservative lawyer’s brilliant defense of constitutional rights I can’t help but think, what’s wrong with these rightwing people. What are they defending? They call everyone who disagrees with them “America haters’. Well, we love our country just as much as they do. I just wish they would recognize their own pejudices, in this case homphobia, and get over it. Gay people are just as normal as straight people and are entitled to exactly the same rights as we are.. Why don’t you get this?

Jim R said:
Sean68, Yes, I can see where you’d think that those eight years turned out so wonderfully.

That’s a different argument.

The People voted for Prop 8. Its not up to the judge to remove the decision of the people. We the people created the nation.

Marriage is possible for anyone, a man united with a woman. Contstitutional rights? I don’t think Marriage is listed in the constitution. You dont get to redefine something because you want to. If you want to unite same gender people do so in a civil union or some thing named for it. Marriage is already defined. Any attempt to change marriage is really not about equality but foisting your agenda on others.

Good job Rachel. Glad to see someone is listening and not sticking to stupid Palin non-stories.

Funny, I saw the same interview and thought his arguments were rather sophomoric.

PJ said:
The People voted for Prop 8. Its not up to the judge to remove the decision of the people. We the people created the nation.

That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

Do I have to paste it anymore?

PJ said:
Marriage is possible for anyone, a man united with a woman. Contstitutional rights? I don’t think Marriage is listed in the constitution. You dont get to redefine something because you want to. If you want to unite same gender people do so in a civil union or some thing named for it. Marriage is already defined. Any attempt to change marriage is really not about equality but foisting your agenda on others.

You should read Olson’s defense. Marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court 14 times as a Constitutional Right. Therefore, preventing marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

PJ said:
The People voted for Prop 8. Its not up to the judge to remove the decision of the people. We the people created the nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

PJ said:
The People voted for Prop 8. Its not up to the judge to remove the decision of the people. We the people created the nation.

It does not matter if people voted on it. If the popular law is deemed unconstitutional, it is overruled. The judge was acting within the confines of the Constitution and doing his duty as the Constitution describes it. This judicial oversight is in place to protect the rights of the minority from the discrimination of the majority.

“Do I have to paste it anymore?”

1,996 more times. Then write a 1,000 word essay on why you feel that is the case. Please include all relevant SC rulings. Thank you.

Azarkhan said:
“Do I have to paste it anymore?”

1,996 more times. Then write a 1,000 word essay on why you feel that is the case. Please include all relevant SC rulings. Thank you.

Forgot you’re a rightie….so gays don’t fall under the Equal Protection Clause according to you guys…..

Sorry next time I’ll remember you see anyone not White Male and Christian as sub human.

“Sorry next time I’ll remember you see anyone not White Male and Christian as sub human.”

Master Race baby! Ain’t it sweet!

If it goes to the supreme court and the ruling is that anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional, it will be inescapable that anti-polygamous marriage laws are also unconstitutional.

All 50 states have anti-polygamy laws. They will eventually be struck down as well. I expect some of the same people that are pro-gay marriage will be rabidly against polygamous marriages, but it will be too bad. They only naval gaze at their own little pet issue and don’t consider how it will be extended to what they may deem undesirable side effects of their desired outcome..

First if you use the Equal Protection Clause you have to use it for polygamy, beastality, etc etc . You can not do for one and not the other. In addition the gays want the government to get out the marriage business. If that happens for a minority then they better get out the alimony business, child support business etc etc etc because you have to do it for both sides or else you’re not giving them equal protection as well. My prediction is Supreme court will overturn the judge ruling 5-4

Let’s put this through like this: This site is a libertarian left site. They post this “brilliant” analysis while ignoring the much better one on “Face the Nation,” which argued that it may go 5-4 the way of the right on this one. Kennedy’s only experience on gay issues is no longer making it illegal to have gay sex in your own home.

A ruling in favor of gay marriage would corrupt the state constitutions of 44 states. Kennedy is not known for making that big of a splash. And Kagan said she’s not for gay marriage.

And the government has no right to be in the religious institution of marriage to begin with. Damn 15th century court ruling.

Here’s the best compromise ever: Rid the term “marriage” from government and replace it with a legal term that grants all the current benefits of marriage the government offers. So, no one gets married under the state any more. 14th Amendment argument will then fall apart.

Also, there’s a great 10th Amendment argument here.

Oh, and the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage shouldn’t have worked to begin with: Civil unions in CA already confer all the rights of marriage as given by the state.

It is a war over a word and nothing else.

blkconservative said:
First if you use the Equal Protection Clause you have to use it for polygamy, beastality, etc etc . You can not do for one and not the other. In addition the gays want the government to get out the marriage business. If that happens for a minority then they better get out the alimony business, child support business etc etc etc because you have to do it for both sides or else you’re not giving them equal protection as well. My prediction is Supreme court will overturn the judge ruling 5-4

Polygamy is the only one that works in that sense. Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent.

There are the laws of man and there are the laws of nature; the former must never contradict the latter.

But, hey, I guess I should look at it this way: Now, Barney Fwank can marry his cocker spaniel.

ganymede said:
When I read a conservative lawyer’s brilliant defense of constitutional rights I can’t help but think, what’s wrong with these rightwing people. What are they defending? They call everyone who disagrees with them “America haters’. Well, we love our country just as much as they do. I just wish they would recognize their own pejudices, in this case homphobia, and get over it. Gay people are just as normal as straight people and are entitled to exactly the same rights as we are.. Why don’t you get this?

He’s not conservative. Do you really think that every person on FNC, including all guests, are automatically conservative? He works for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, an obviously liberal group by the very title.

blkconservative said:
First if you use the Equal Protection Clause you have to use it for polygamy, beastality, etc etc .

Polygamy, maybe, but an argument could be made that the rights of the multiple wives are being violated. Beastiality? Nope. That probably won’t happen since the other partner, the animal, cannot give consent.

“Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent.”

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t know if it was polite to ask or not, so usually I don’t.

PJ said:
The People voted for Prop 8. Its not up to the judge to remove the decision of the people. We the people created the nation.

One fucntion of the judicial system is to interpret laws. If that law violates our rights, it becomes invalid, no matter how the law was enacted.

PJ said:
Marriage is already defined.

By whom? Those who have the right to be married. Wasn’t it white people who defined what “separate but equal” meant?

I don’t need the law to define anything for me. I can read a dictionary:

mar•riage \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ noun; [Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry; 14th century] 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union

Here’s a novel idea: Just get the government out of the marriage business and have civil unions for everyone. If you want the blessings of God/Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/L. Ron Hubbard/Flying Spaghetti Monster for your “marriage”, then go to your church.

Polygamy is the only one that works in that sense. Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent. The beastiality is just an example however its a slippery slope. Once you go that route under the equal protection clause you have to have it for everybody. In addition somebody could get Beastiality through because an animal dosen’t give consent to live with you either. An animal doesn’t give the consent to be put to death. An animal doesn’t give consent to be left in a will. so you could say beastility can get through because an anminal doesn’t give consent for those things and it still happens.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/08/face-nation-same-sex-marriage-ruling-enormous-stretch-supreme-court

This page has a clip from “Face the Nation” that shows the challenge of creating gay marriage by the courts is very difficult indeed.

And everything about Judge Walker, from his written decision showing an utter distaste for Prop 8 supporters to the fact that he’s one of the only two openly gay federal judges in the country, points towards bias on his part. He should have recused himself from this case.

blkconservative said:
Polygamy is the only one that works in that sense. Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent. The beastiality is just an example however its a slippery slope. Once you go that route under the equal protection clause you have to have it for everybody. In addition somebody could get Beastiality through because an animal dosen’t give consent to live with you either. An animal doesn’t give the consent to be put to death. An animal doesn’t give consent to be left in a will. so you could say beastility can get through because an anminal doesn’t give consent for those things and it still happens.

Whys is not anyone standing up for the necorphiliacs? :D

blkconservative said:
Polygamy is the only one that works in that sense. Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent. The beastiality is just an example however its a slippery slope. Once you go that route under the equal protection clause you have to have it for everybody. In addition somebody could get Beastiality through because an animal dosen’t give consent to live with you either. An animal doesn’t give the consent to be put to death. An animal doesn’t give consent to be left in a will. so you could say beastility can get through because an anminal doesn’t give consent for those things and it still happens.

Polygamy, incestuous marriage, and perhaps a lowering of the age of consent are possible, but removing consent completely would never happen. We don’t want to go back to the days of female kidnappings for brides.

William Thode said:
Let’s put this through like this: This site is a libertarian left site. They post this “brilliant” analysis while ignoring the much better one on “Face the Nation,” which argued that it may go 5-4 the way of the right on this one. Kennedy’s only experience on gay issues is no longer making it illegal to have gay sex in your own home.

Kennedy has actually come out on the side of gay rights as the swing vote pretty frequently. What’s more is that the judge wrote his decision in a way that is tailored for Justice Kennedy.

William Thode said:
And Kagan said she’s not for gay marriage.

She may be opposed to it personally, but that should never determine how someone rules on a legal matter.

William Thode said:
Also, there’s a great 10th Amendment argument here.

There’s not if marriage has been defined as a constitutional right, like it has been 14 times by the Supreme Court.

William Thode said:
Oh, and the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage shouldn’t have worked to begin with: Civil unions in CA already confer all the rights of marriage as given by the state.

The 14th amendment argument works because you are giving the same rights but still treating them differently under the law by giving it a different name. Marriage is a legal status and to deny ‘marriage’ to a minority group violates the Equal Protection clause.

William Thode said:
It is a war over a word and nothing else.

Hardly. It’s a war for legitimacy. Using a different name for a gay marriage, like civil union, is like saying to a gay couple “well, your love isn’t as legitimate as my heterosexual relationship, so you can’t use the word marriage”.

well According to olsen and the gays you will have that once you open up pandora box you can’t close it when you want too. They are using the equal protection clause which will open up the arguement for everything. Once that arguement is opened it has to be opened for everybody period. You can’t say that we don’t want to go back to the days because everything would be open for debate.

William Thode said:
And everything about Judge Walker, from his written decision showing an utter distaste for Prop 8 supporters to the fact that he’s one of the only two openly gay federal judges in the country, points towards bias on his part. He should have recused himself from this case.

Would you ask a black judge to recuse himself from a civil rights case? Would you ask a female judge to recuse herself from an equal rights case? Using your same logic, wouldn’t a heterosexual judge also have a conflict of interest in the matter?

Frankly, if his ‘conflict of interest’ is that he wants to have the same right to proudly present his partner as his husband with the same social legitimacy as his heterosexual peers do with their wives, then that’s a conflict of interest I have no issue with.

Kennedy has actually come out on the side of gay rights as the swing vote pretty frequently. What’s more is that the judge wrote his decision in a way that is tailored for Justice Kennedy

Kennedy had cover with sandra day on board on a roberts court he won’t have cover. In addition Kennedy don’t want to overturn the states because he knows he will ruined it for any judge that even looks like a moderate. In addition Kennedy don’t want to overturn over hundred million people that voted against gay marriage.

The 14th amendment argument works because you are giving the same rights but still treating them differently under the law by giving it a different name. Marriage is a legal status and to deny ‘marriage’ to a minority group violates the Equal Protection clause

Once you go down that route you have to open the doors for polygamy and other types of marriage because they have equal rights as well.

Azarkhan said:
“Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent.” Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t know if it was polite to ask or not, so usually I don’t.

What are you talking about? Dogs can say yes and no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_Vx0A8lfo

Stephen Hogan: Would you ask a black judge to recuse himself from a civil rights case? Would you ask a female judge to recuse herself from an equal rights case? Using your same logic, wouldn’t a heterosexual judge also have a conflict of interest in the matter?

Frankly, if his ‘conflict of interest’ is that he wants to have the same right to proudly present his partner as his husband with the same social legitimacy as his heterosexual peers do with their wives, then that’s a conflict of interest I have no issue with.

So Stephen is people born gay and if so show me some scientific evidence and not some liberal blog either. You are born Black no way shape or how you do not have a choice. You are not born gay its a lifestyle. In addition that Judge should have passed on this case because he is gay. That is like a judge that let child sex offenders go free will rule on under age sex between a grown person and a minor. But this judge wanted to get into this fight to make a statement. He even suggested that his ruling probably will be overturned that is why he put a stay on the ruling.

blkconservative said:
Kennedy had cover with sandra day on board on a roberts court he won’t have cover. In addition Kennedy don’t want to overturn the states because he knows he will ruined it for any judge that even looks like a moderate. In addition Kennedy don’t want to overturn over hundred million people that voted against gay marriage.

I’m interested in your ability to prognosticate Kennedy’s decision, especially along political lines. Kennedy is a judge in a job that he was appointed to for life. Politics probably don’t matter to him. They shouldn’t matter. He shouldn’t be concerned about the ’100 million’ people that voted against gay marriage. He should be concerned about interpreting the law. If he places the former over the latter, then he is not doing his duty as the Constitution states.

blkconservative said:
In addition Kennedy don’t want to overturn the states because he knows he will ruined it for any judge that even looks like a moderate.

I’m not sure how he’ll ‘ruin it’ for any judge trying to be moderate. Most judges are appointed, not elected.

blkconservative said:
Once you go down that route you have to open the doors for polygamy and other types of marriage because they have equal rights as well.

As I said before, that slippery slope argument does not hold well. I seriously doubt polygamy will be legitimized because it frequently involves violating the rights of the multiple wives. Bestiality will not be legitimized because animals cannot give consent.

i was wondering has george rekers referred tony perkins to (rentboy.com)?

Olson’s problem is that “marriage” simply cannot exist between same sex couples. What he and others want to call marriage is merely a homosexual union. If you wanted to adopt a constitutional amendment to define marriage “a union between two unreted adults, irrespective of gender”, then Olson would be right. But you have to take that step first, just as we had to adopt the 15th Amendment, Section 1, to grant voting rights to people who were previously slaves.

As a bisexual woman, I happen to support the right to same-sex “marriage”, but Olson’s wrong here.

We should have same-sex marriage (and not civil unions or some other legal invention) because we have no jurisprudence for “civil unions” whereas we have centuries of jurisprudence for marriage.

That should read “a union between two unrelated adults, irrespective of gender”. Keyboard problems…

Stephen Hogan :I’m interested in your ability to prognosticate Kennedy’s decision, especially along political lines. Kennedy is a judge in a job that he was appointed to for life. Politics probably don’t matter to him. They shouldn’t matter. He shouldn’t be concerned about the ‘100 million’ people that voted against gay marriage. He should be concerned about interpreting the law. If he places the former over the latter, then he is not doing his duty as the Constitution states

That is right he was appointed by a republican not a democrat. So he owes the liberals nothing and can ruling against it because of the 14th amendment and the slippery slope. You can’t use the 14 amendment for one and not for all sorry. If you believe that then they must not have taught you well in law school. The law cuts both ways regardless of what you think.

Stephen Hogan said:
Kennedy has actually come out on the side of gay rights as the swing vote pretty frequently. What’s more is that the judge wrote his decision in a way that is tailored for Justice Kennedy.

She may be opposed to it personally, but that should never determine how someone rules on a legal matter.

There’s not if marriage has been defined as a constitutional right, like it has been 14 times by the Supreme Court.

The 14th amendment argument works because you are giving the same rights but still treating them differently under the law by giving it a different name. Marriage is a legal status and to deny ‘marriage’ to a minority group violates the Equal Protection clause.

Hardly. It’s a war for legitimacy. Using a different name for a gay marriage, like civil union, is like saying to a gay couple “well, your love isn’t as legitimate as my heterosexual relationship, so you can’t use the word marriage”.

Actually, no. Read it again. He shows an extreme dislike of one side. That’s bias.

Actually, it does. If she disapproves of it, she may not think it’s a constitutional right for gays.

14 times for heterosexuals, not gays. That argument falls apart.

Different name means different treatment? Can you show this in any legal case in front of the Supreme Court?

Ah, so you admit it: That won’t give them legitimacy. The people aren’t going to treat them any different. This could actually set back gay relations just like the Obama-obsessed media has set back black relations by calling anyone who disagrees with him on policy a racist.

Forced legitimacy isn’t legitimacy. People’s attitudes will stay the same.

blkconservative said:
Stephen Hogan: Would you ask a black judge to recuse himself from a civil rights case? Would you ask a female judge to recuse herself from an equal rights case? Using your same logic, wouldn’t a heterosexual judge also have a conflict of interest in the matter?

Frankly, if his ‘conflict of interest’ is that he wants to have the same right to proudly present his partner as his husband with the same social legitimacy as his heterosexual peers do with their wives, then that’s a conflict of interest I have no issue with.

So Stephen is people born gay and if so show me some scientific evidence and not some liberal blog either. You are born Black no way shape or how you do not have a choice. You are not born gay its a lifestyle. In addition that Judge should have passed on this case because he is gay. That is like a judge that let child sex offenders go free will rule on under age sex between a grown person and a minor. But this judge wanted to get into this fight to make a statement. He even suggested that his ruling probably will be overturned that is why he put a stay on the ruling.

Sure. I’ll offer scientific evidence. Just to let you know, I’m a neuroscientist and this is something I follow pretty heavily.

My understanding is that there are actual brain differences that are largely determined before birth, in most cases. Specifically, the structure of the brains of gay men is similar to the structure of the brains of straight women. This also goes for lesbians and straight men. These differences are noticed with the amygdala where “in straight women and gay men, the signals from the amygdala ran mainly into the regions of the brain that mediate mood and anxiety. In straight men and lesbians, the amygdala fed their their signals mainly into the sensorimotor cortex and the striatum, regions of the brain that trigger “fight or flight” in response to fear. “It’s a more action-related response than in straight women,””

Similarities in the structure of the network that regulates emotion across gender and orientation lines? Pretty important considering that the emotional network is connected to the parts of the brain associated with sexual arousal and oxytocin regulation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

blkconservative said:
You are not born gay its a lifestyle.

I provided scientific evidence for my claim. Can you do it with yours? I’m not sure you can, because nearly every study that has been done to try to find a conditioning aspect of homosexuality has found the exact opposite. And seriously, why would someone ‘chose’ to be in a prosecuted minority?

blkconservative said:
In addition that Judge should have passed on this case because he is gay. That is like a judge that let child sex offenders go free will rule on under age sex between a grown person and a minor.

That’s a very weak analogy. In fact, it doesn’t make much sense. In one hand, you have the extension of marriage rights, on the other, you have the drastic reduction of the age of consent. Two completely different things that, frankly, are not equivalent and would only be seen as such by someone who views homosexuality as abhorrent.

Mr. Thode has the most correct posts on this thread. He wins.

What if a judge decided that the word “murder” did not mean murder anymore? That is not his job. It is the legislatures job.
That is the reason we have this nonsense going on. Gay Marriage can not be obtained by the vote of the legislators or by a vote of the people. When they can win a vote of the people I will not oppose it.
In states where they have approved gay marriage, lets see what happens to those folks that voted for it.
Marriage is just a word. The government has the right to create civil unions that are in all ways equal to marriage. Marriage is about procreation and inheritance rights.

blkconservative said:
That is right he was appointed by a republican not a democrat. So he owes the liberals nothing

And he doesn’t owe the Republicans anything, either. Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican. How did he frequently rule?

blkconservative said:
If you believe that then they must not have taught you well in law school.

So, I assume that you have been to law school?

blkconservative said:
You can’t use the 14 amendment for one and not for all sorry.

Actually, you can. If the rights of others are being violated, then the 14th amendment is not being followed. If gay marriage is allowed, nobody’s rights will be violated. If polygamy is legalized, then the rights of the multiple spouses are being vioalted.

Stephen Hogan: My understanding is that there are actual brain differences that are largely determined before birth, in most cases. Specifically, the structure of the brains of gay men is similar to the structure of the brains of straight women. This also goes for lesbians and straight men. These differences are noticed with the amygdala where “in straight women and gay men, the signals from the amygdala ran mainly into the regions of the brain that mediate mood and anxiety. In straight men and lesbians, the amygdala fed their their signals mainly into the sensorimotor cortex and the striatum, regions of the brain that trigger “fight or flight” in response to fear. “It’s a more action-related response than in straight women,””

Similarities in the structure of the network that regulates emotion across gender and orientation lines? Pretty important considering that the emotional network is connected to the parts of the brain associated with sexual arousal and oxytocin regulation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

You took an article study from stockholm sweeden ha ha ha ha ha. I guess you believe in the climate change arguement as well. I see you took a study from a socialist liberal institution and tried to say they are born gay ha ha ha Well I see you have no arguement sir. Being gay is a lifestyle even the gays admit to that. So you need to do some more research on that arguement. Far as a conflict of interest it was for this judge because he is gay and should not have ruled on this case. Even throughout the trial he put restraints on the defense and let the plantiffs run wild with their arguements. He should have recused himself from this case period. Unlike sweeden in the U.S laws that over hundred million people voted for don’t get overturned by a judge. However since the gays choose to go their when this ruiling gets overturned then mass, NH, Conn, Vt won’t have gay marriage as well.

Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

To be honest, it’s nice to see a fair defense of the judge’s ruling without it turning into a screaming match you’d typically expect on the cable news landscape. His argument is more or less completely fair, and in terms of the state alone, it should be allowed. In roughly the middle of the clip, the point that any judge is pegged as “controversial” as soon as they do something against someone’s wishes seems to sum up why we have checks and balances, to make sure we don’t give people rights that they shouldn’t necessarily have, as well as not pull back ones they should get as well. A good defense indeed.

William Thode said:
Actually, no. Read it again. He shows an extreme dislike of one side. That’s bias.

No, it shows extreme dislike of the other side’s argument. That’s not bias.

William Thode said:
Actually, it does. If she disapproves of it, she may not think it’s a constitutional right for gays.

Judges do not rule based on personal preference. They rule from their interpretation of the law. Judges frequently rule in the opposite of how they personally view things.

William Thode said:
14 times for heterosexuals, not gays. That argument falls apart.

You can’t dismiss that argument so quickly. Many of those rulings only involved same-race heterosexual marriages. Still, they were used as precedent for rulings involving interracial marriages. The same will probably be done for same-sex marriages. The previous rulings established marriage as a constitutional right. You know, rights that the Constitution reserves for everyone. Sorry, argument still stands.

William Thode said:
Different name means different treatment? Can you show this in any legal case in front of the Supreme Court?

No, that’s not what I said. I said that having the same rights while maintaining an institutionalized separation is not seen as equal rights. This was famously ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Since marriage is a legal status and a legal term, withholding it from a minority violates the equal protection clause.

William Thode said:
Ah, so you admit it: That won’t give them legitimacy. The people aren’t going to treat them any different. This could actually set back gay relations just like the Obama-obsessed media has set back black relations by calling anyone who disagrees with him on policy a racist.

I admitted nothing of the sort. However, you implicitly admitted that you are pretty ignorant of this matter. How would the acknowledgment that civil unions are not seen as socially legitimate when compared to marriage set back ‘gay relations’? That’s why there is a big push for marriage. That’s why people are not satisfied with civil unions.

William Thode said:
Forced legitimacy isn’t legitimacy. People’s attitudes will stay the same.

Forced legitimacy creates social legitimacy over time. People’s attitudes will change when there is no longer an institutionalized separation.

blkconservative said:
Stephen Hogan: My understanding is that there are actual brain differences that are largely determined before birth, in most cases. Specifically, the structure of the brains of gay men is similar to the structure of the brains of straight women. This also goes for lesbians and straight men. These differences are noticed with the amygdala where “in straight women and gay men, the signals from the amygdala ran mainly into the regions of the brain that mediate mood and anxiety. In straight men and lesbians, the amygdala fed their their signals mainly into the sensorimotor cortex and the striatum, regions of the brain that trigger “fight or flight” in response to fear. “It’s a more action-related response than in straight women,””

Similarities in the structure of the network that regulates emotion across gender and orientation lines? Pretty important considering that the emotional network is connected to the parts of the brain associated with sexual arousal and oxytocin regulation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

You took an article study from stockholm sweeden ha ha ha ha ha. I guess you believe in the climate change arguement as well. I see you took a study from a socialist liberal institution and tried to say they are born gay ha ha ha Well I see you have no arguement sir. Being gay is a lifestyle even the gays admit to that. So you need to do some more research on that arguement. Far as a conflict of interest it was for this judge because he is gay and should not have ruled on this case. Even throughout the trial he put restraints on the defense and let the plantiffs run wild with their arguements. He should have recused himself from this case period. Unlike sweeden in the U.S laws that over hundred million people voted for don’t get overturned by a judge. However since the gays choose to go their when this ruiling gets overturned then mass, NH, Conn, Vt won’t have gay marriage as well.

HA! You didn’t even read it. You just tried to find some ‘evidence’ of liberalism so you could dismiss it. See how easy it is to be willfully ignorant?

Just because the science comes from Sweden does not make it ‘liberal’. The Karolinska Institute has been around longer than the current government in Sweden, so your argument doesn’t hold.

Science is science. Sorry if you disagree, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

blkconservative said:
Being gay is a lifestyle even the gays admit to that.

Source?

blkconservative said:
So you need to do some more research on that arguement.

I question that you understand what real research is.

blkconservative said:
Unlike sweeden in the U.S laws that over hundred million people voted for don’t get overturned by a judge.

Actually, they do. It’s called judicial oversight, you law student, you.

Azarkhan said:
“Bestiality is illegal as an animal cannot give consent.” Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t know if it was polite to ask or not, so usually I don’t.

RFLMFAO till tears came…that’s just funny I don’t care who you are

“Fundamental Rights” – to marry???????

Then who’s to say a Father & Daughter don’t have those same “fundamental rights”? – or a Mother, Son & Cousin?
Are you going to deny THEIR “fundamental rights”?

AGE OF CONSENT, perhaps? – Then it’s AGE DISCRIMINATION!

Try seeing the forest from the trees.
There’s a societal reason for traditional marriage as the optimal means of civilized progeny…and personal identification beliefs – whether one espouses a homosexual identity, or believes they’re Napolean – does not meet the criteria!!

Steven Hogan, the New Scientist is a discredited pseudo-science journal that pushes left wing causes. Citing that Journal does not help your case.

Stephen Hogan said:
No, it shows extreme dislike of the other side’s argument. That’s not bias.

Judges do not rule based on personal preference. They rule from their interpretation of the law. Judges frequently rule in the opposite of how they personally view things.

You can’t dismiss that argument so quickly. Many of those rulings only involved same-race heterosexual marriages. Still, they were used as precedent for rulings involving interracial marriages. The same will probably be done for same-sex marriages. The previous rulings established marriage as a constitutional right. You know, rights that the Constitution reserves for everyone. Sorry, argument still stands.

No, that’s not what I said. I said that having the same rights while maintaining an institutionalized separation is not seen as equal rights. This was famously ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Since marriage is a legal status and a legal term, withholding it from a minority violates the equal protection clause.

I admitted nothing of the sort. However, you implicitly admitted that you are pretty ignorant of this matter. How would the acknowledgment that civil unions are not seen as socially legitimate when compared to marriage set back ‘gay relations’? That’s why there is a big push for marriage. That’s why people are not satisfied with civil unions.

Forced legitimacy creates social legitimacy over time. People’s attitudes will change when there is no longer an institutionalized separation.

You’d be saying the same thing I am if a Mormon judge ruled against your side.

Yes, judges do that. They do it all the time. They’re not supposed to, but they do.

They only involved heterosexual marriage not homosexual marriage. Marriage has meant one man, one woman for 5,000 years.

Oh, God, blacks did not have the same rights in the segregated schools, so your argument fails. The only difference is a word, not teachers, materials, and location.

I put forth a good compromise you completely ignored. Get the government out of marriage. Leave it to what it was intended for: The religious institutions.

Real separation of church and state when a gay couple can sue any religious person for denying their request to marry them on the grounds of discrimination even if it goes against the religious person’s beliefs.

The separation of church and state of the Founders was set up mostly to stop a federally-sponsored religion (but not a state religion) and to keep the federal government out of religion as much as humanly possibly. The federal government has no grounds to rule on marriage in this context anyway. It’s up to the states in this context.

ordinary said:
Steven Hogan, the New Scientist is a discredited pseudo-science journal that pushes left wing causes. Citing that Journal does not help your case.

Why? Because NewsBusters says it is?

Regardless, I would have posted the peer-reviewed article, but you’d need a subscription to see it. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Well, I’ll try to post it anyway.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.full.pdf+html

Very well. Here are some other articles that reference the same study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

Big_Willie_Styles said:
You’d be saying the same thing I am if a Mormon judge ruled against your side.

Yes, judges do that. They do it all the time. They’re not supposed to, but they do.

They only involved heterosexual marriage not homosexual marriage. Marriage has meant one man, one woman for 5,000 years.

Oh, God, blacks did not have the same rights in the segregated schools, so your argument fails. The only difference is a word, not teachers, materials, and location.

I put forth a good compromise you completely ignored. Get the government out of marriage. Leave it to what it was intended for: The religious institutions.

Real separation of church and state when a gay couple can sue any religious person for denying their request to marry them on the grounds of discrimination even if it goes against the religious person’s beliefs.

The separation of church and state of the Founders was set up mostly to stop a federally-sponsored religion (but not a state religion) and to keep the federal government out of religion as much as humanly possibly. The federal government has no grounds to rule on marriage in this context anyway. It’s up to the states in this context.

Marriage is much older than religion. Sorry, marriage was not developed for religious institutions, it was adopted by religious institutions.

In our country, marriage is a legal designation.

Big_Willie_Styles said:
Marriage has meant one man, one woman for 5,000 years.

Not really true. There have been cultures that allowed for men to marry men and women to marry women.

Big_Willie_Styles said:
Real separation of church and state when a gay couple can sue any religious person for denying their request to marry them on the grounds of discrimination even if it goes against the religious person’s beliefs.

The couple would not have a case. The church is not bound by law to marry the couple. You know, freedom of religious expression, and all that. Just like there are still churches that refuse to marry interracial couples, there will be churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples. As discriminatory as that is, it is still their right.

Stephen Hogan said:
If polygamy is legalized, then the rights of the multiple spouses are being vioalted.

How so? If they choose that arrangement, how does it violate their rights?

gordonbloyershow said:
Mr. Thode has the most correct posts on this thread. He wins.

Sorry, Stephen Hogan has given the most thought out, studied, intelligent argument, better than I ever could, and better than anyone else has on here. He not only wins, he OWNS!

Stephan Hogan’s posts have been peer reviewed here. The peers give him thumbs down.

gordonbloyershow said:
Stephan Hogan’s posts have been peer reviewed here. The peers give him thumbs down.

You mean the brainless right wing clods such as yourself Blowers….

gordonbloyershow said:
Stephan Hogan’s posts have been peer reviewed here. The peers give him thumbs down.

Hmmm…. I forgot how the general consensus of a small population of visitors to a media website overrules empirical evidence and broad scientific consensus. You may not approve of my statements, but that doesn’t make them any less true.

Pablo said:
How so? If they choose that arrangement, how does it violate their rights?

It would be different if they chose the arrangement. The problem is that is most frequently not the case. By having one gender marrying a multitude of another gender, you are implying the former has greater value than the latter, and is thus entitled to marry more of them.

Stephen Hogan said:
Why? Because NewsBusters says it is?

Regardless, I would have posted the peer-reviewed article, but you’d need a subscription to see it. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Well, I’ll try to post it anyway.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.full.pdf+html

Very well. Here are some other articles that reference the same study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

Ok, I read the article. Its not totally hokey like so many New Scientist papers are. I’ll give you that. However, the article rightly spells out the study’s limited scope. It says “Whether they may relate to processes laid
down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question. These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology
of homosexuality”. Of course that assumes there are neurobiology differences. That kind of shows their hand though. If you look hard enough for something, you will find it. What is needed is a blind study.

Also, I noticed the standard deviations of the brain asymmetries in the groups studied were considerably larger than the average asymmetries. That makes it very likely each group has many individuals who do not meet the characteristic of the groups. In other words, in the homosexual mens group there would be many that had asymmetric brains and in the heterosexual mens group there would be many that had symmetric brains.

Yah Hooooooooooo Polygamy here we come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would guess that Ted Olson could use logic and rhetoric to convince you that up is down. Good for him and I trust he is pleased with this win. Ted Olson has sold out. For most who knew of and respected him, there is immeasurable sadness and disappointment.

It was well done. But the average Republiscum who chanced to see/read it cannot intellectually comprehend it. He/she can only scury & cry & scream & burn, as shown on TV. From sea to shining sea.
These are uneducated Murcuhns who live way off the intellectual grid, who don’r read, don’t eat with utensils, don’t care, don’t know HOW to care – and have never really evolved their own intellectual curiosity much beyond the walk-upright-and-don’t-drool stage. Jesus-loving patriots all. Yup.

If the arguments in favor of gay marriage are so overwhelmingly clear, the left shouldn’t have any problems letting the voters hear them and decide for themselves. And if they think that gay marriage is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they should point out with amendment makes that unambiguous statement.

gordonbloyershow said:
Mr. Thode has the most correct posts on this thread. He wins.

What if a judge decided that the word “murder” did not mean murder anymore? That is not his job. It is the legislatures job.
That is the reason we have this nonsense going on. Gay Marriage can not be obtained by the vote of the legislators or by a vote of the people. When they can win a vote of the people I will not oppose it.
In states where they have approved gay marriage, lets see what happens to those folks that voted for it.
Marriage is just a word. The government has the right to create civil unions that are in all ways equal to marriage. Marriage is about procreation and inheritance rights.

I don’t know Gordo, even for you, this is some pretty dumb shit.

A fellow person of science! Cool :)

ordinary said:
Ok, I read the article. Its not totally hokey like so many New Scientist papers are. I’ll give you that. However, the article rightly spells out the study’s limited scope. It says “Whether they may relate to processes laid
down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question. These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology
of homosexuality”.

The study itself recognizes its limited scope. This is an exploratory paper that really only suggesting that more work be done. They made the observation of subcortical and cortical differences and, given our knowledge of neural correlates, made a hypothesis on how these differences function. The paper basically says “there’s really something to this, we should go deeper”.

ordinary said:
Of course that assumes there are neurobiology differences.

Which there were. That’s what was observed to a significant degree, hence the aforementioned ‘call to action’.

ordinary said:
Also, I noticed the standard deviations of the brain asymmetries in the groups studied were considerably larger than the average asymmetries. That makes it very likely each group has many individuals who do not meet the characteristic of the groups.

Well, there will be. There is always variance with human brains. What is important, however, is that the differences were big enough to be statistically significant.

Uh, actually we DID put the Bill of Rights to a vote. THAT is how we got them in the first place. The Supreme Court had exactly nothing to do with creating the Bill of Rights. It was an act of Congress and a political procedure, not a court effort.

The last minute or so is the best. That’s what a real conservative looks like. One who really tries to uphold our fundamental beliefs, someone who’s respectable and not some flip-flopping, fair-weather type. Although, who knows what might happen to him if he got into politics.. but he’s survived being a lawyer so far, so that’s something.

Poor Ted, why do you expose youself to ridicule? So letting people vote is dumb. Having the legislature write the laws and NOT judges is dumb?
Ted, is that your photo next to the word dumb in the dictionary?

Funny, I am a conservative, but my brother in law is married to another man and they have 3 wonderful little girls , that from what I can tell are just terrific. I don’t condone the lifestyle, nor do any of my friends or family, but as civilized peole, we accept this and treat them all with respect. The little girls are loved and cared for as much as I have seen any, so who am I to judge? It has been legal in Canada for years and the world did not change, like at all.

Hey Gordon Blowhard, when are you going to give some links to the articles you had published in the USA Today? Like I’ve said before, I tried googling it but all that comes up is where you claimed to have articles published in it. Plus your tv show in a town of 37,000 people probably makes you world famous doesn’t it.

Some fool sez: “He could argue the other side just as well, he is good at what he does.”

Yeah, he’d just have to do so without either evidence, Constitutional foundation , or any legal precedence.Otherwise, piece of cake.

I’m not sure what people are even arguing this topic for. SCOTUS has already ruled that states have the right to prevent gay marriage. It is “Baker v Nelson”, originally a Minnesota Supreme Court case from 1972. Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent. How this federal judge overlooked this is beyond me (I’d hazard to guess his emotional connection to the subect blinded his objectivity and strict adherence to the law). It actually doesn’t matter what he or the 9th circuit says. Since it is binding on all federal courts, they have no jurisdiction in the case. The 14th Amendment argument was shot down under both “Due Process” and “Equal Protection”. The 9th Amendment (privacy) was shot down, too.
But to play along as if Baker V Nelson doesn’t exist, there are several other legal problems. Marriage is a fundamental right (as SCOTUS has determined numerous times). However, there is no discrimination question here. Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry as heterosexuals. Neither group can marry persons under-age, of same blood, multiple persons, or same gender. Comparing gay marriage to Loving v Virginia is apples to oranges, and quite frankly, ridiculous. Loving v Virginia dealt with a criminal sanction, whereas homosexual acts have been “legal” since Lawrence v Texas, therefore there are no criminal (liberty) questions.
Another question has been brought up several times by SCOTUS concerning gay marriage. If marriage is re-defined from it’s millenia definition of one man, one woman, what groups do you include/exclude? They specifically asked about polygamy, incest, and beastiality. For the people complaining about polygamy being “unfair” or violating multiple females’ rights, are you saying adult females are too stupid to give consent to being in a polygamous relationship? Being a little misogynistic, aren’t we? As to animals, how can you say they don’t give consent? And why would they need to? They don’t give legal consent to being adopted, walked on a leash, fed, housed, etc…. As to adult consensual incest, what legal argument would there be against it? Justify discriminating against two consenting adults with a straight face while professing your support for gay marriage. How about using the “general welfare” clause? That argument smacks down gay marriage. Lets take some numbers from the CDC….. 45% new HIV/AIDS (a “gay disease”-meaning originated and rampant in gay community) cases are in MSMs (men-sex-men). 85% and 82% syphillis and gonorrhea are in the gay community (gay community makes up 1-3% of population, avg of 2%). Over 10x anal cancer rate. 20 year decrease in life expectency (contrast to 13.5 years for smokers). 7 times the money per person afflicted spent on AIDS research compared to cancer research. Hepatitis is rampant in the gay community. Human Herpes Virus 8 (HHV-8) is only found in gay men. Mental illness is rampant in the gay community according to this study from the Netherlands: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/58/1/12 Interestingly, the gay community’s argument that Americans are “homophobic” and homosexuality is stigmatized, which causes psychiatric issues in gays is completely debunked here. Homosexuality has been socially accepted in the Netherlands for quite awhile, with no stigma attached.
The gay marriage debate comes down to the gay community wanting to force their inclusion (and resultant “normalcy”) on a society that has historically rejected their behavior. If gay marriage is permitted, do schools have to teach it as a viable, healthy, normal lifestyle? Does the gay community really want a public discussion about the facts above? Those will have to be taught in schools. The gay community doesn’t get to select what is taught about their lifestyle. Along with the “good” will be the bad. And people who feel like “outcasts” now will be even further alienated from the society they wish to be included in.
Here’s a good article for allowing the people to decide instead of a federal court: http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/09/overreaching-on-gay-marriage

You would think these public servants, government and the courts would be swift in moving away from all this and their ignorance and demonstration of lack of education. It is apparent, from their statements and decisions they were, and perhaps still are, ignorant to the simple fact that God gave marriage to man in a time predating government and courts. They, government and the courts, are best to obey their own ends and workings and leave marriage alone for their claim of there being a separation of church and state. The book of Genesis, a compilation of oral traditions handed down since antiquity and the apparent beginning of man, and finally recorded by Moses, around 1440-1400 B.C., is the strongest evidence of their, government and courts, lack of authority to be involved in marriage. Have things worsened to the point they can no longer even recognize their own ignorance and errors? Then surely, the times written of, about satan taking rule, are here upon us! Or, are they claiming they have already held trial and decided against God and in their favor, and everything is OK?

I really shouldn’t be commenting on this issue but I would hope that someone could clear up the “reasoning” for the marriage between the gay couple, is it financially rewarding, if one would die, would the other receive the larger benefit from social security, (considering whether they stay together until death), what about his/her former natural mates, wife or husband and/or children, would they be left out of the will or the estate if the gay ex husband/wife is deceased. I mean, these are all credible reasons to not rush into such a union. What about their children, will they be forced to visit or spend the week end with gays, especially if they are straight and, could this lifestyle possibly change their attitude towards sex. This could set up an entire multitude of lawsuits if this union is made legal. I also think the judge (who is gay) should NEVER have presided over this ruling. If one of my children were gay, it would not change my love for them; however, there are some “weird” gays out there that act outlandish & I am sure, creates fear amongst parents who might find a child heading in that direction. Hollywood is having a direct impact on homosexuality, glamorizing it, & actually promoting it, I feel for the family that must live through such a decision on their child’s part. You love the child but abhor the lifestyle but we don’t really know how it starts, some say, as they did years ago, that a too strict father & an overly loving mother creates this change in a male in his formative years, somehow, I doubt that, my Dad was all male, with too much testosterone & although he favored me (I’m sorry to say) I didn’t become a lesbian & my brother certainly did not lean towards any form of homosexuality..we don’t know but marriage, I think is wrong, especially if there are family members of the same gender that would be viewing the “feminine” actions of their loved one. That’s just my idea, perhaps I’m wrong but..I wouldn’t want to “advertise” to the world that “homosexuality”is a good thing because it is NOT natural & could lead to consequences..like death!

BAM!!..Ted Olsen KILLED Chris Wallace. Slink away stupid Chris

real john t, your question has been answered the last time you posted it. Show me where I said I had “articles” published in USA TODAY? Should I repeat myself, can you read? I said I has LETTERS published in USA Today. Do you know the difference? Letters are not archived, too bad, they should be. I don’t have to prove anything to you because you are a nobody using a phony name. I also gave you the link to a NATIONAL magazine about my “little” t.v. show.

As a conservative libertarian (small “l,” please) I have to agree with Olson’s reasoning. The judiciary exists to protect the minority from the majority. Would traditionalists be with the voting majority in California if Prop 8 had mandated (no pun intended) gay marriage? When it comes down to allowing individual citizens the liberty to live as they wish as long as no immediate, provable harm comes to others, we have to err on the side of the individual, not the State. This is the same guiding principle that overthrew knee-jerk gun control in Chicago and Washington, DC; if conservatism even pretends to be logically consistent, it has to overcome its curious aversion to gays and consent to protect the rights of ten percent (at least) of the population.

felixw said:
If the arguments in favor of gay marriage are so overwhelmingly clear, the left shouldn’t have any problems letting the voters hear them and decide for themselves. And if they think that gay marriage is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they should point out with amendment makes that unambiguous statement.

Let’s see: the Fourth Amendment protects the rights of American citizens to be secure in their property, implying a right to dispose of it as they choose, not as some polyester-clad cretin with a Sunday morning televangelism show chooses. So gay marriage enforces the Fourth Amendment rights of gay couples by ensuring survivor benefits, inheritance rights, and equality of benefits. Just one example.

There is NO bill of attainder against gays in the Constitution. No reference to them, pro or con, at all. So one has to appeal to so-called “natural law” (the same one which protected slavery, absolute government and the jus primae noctis for centuries) to defend dscrimination against gays. It just won’t wash.

The Deists who gave us the Constitution, I think, would be massively indifferent to all the “arguments” advanced by the Prop 8 people against gay marriage if they were here today, just as they were largely indifferent and unsympathetic to the special pleading for various religious sects of their day. Ted Olson was reading from the same script as Thomas Jefferson and George Mason.

ordinary said:
Ok, I read the article. Its not totally hokey like so many New Scientist papers are. I’ll give you that. However, the article rightly spells out the study’s limited scope. It says “Whether they may relate to processes laid
down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question. These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology
of homosexuality”. Of course that assumes there are neurobiology differences. That kind of shows their hand though. If you look hard enough for something, you will find it. What is needed is a blind study.

Also, I noticed the standard deviations of the brain asymmetries in the groups studied were considerably larger than the average asymmetries. That makes it very likely each group has many individuals who do not meet the characteristic of the groups. In other words, in the homosexual mens group there would be many that had asymmetric brains and in the heterosexual mens group there would be many that had symmetric brains.

Damn… someone with a grasp of biostatistics. The authors obviously should have done what Eli Lilly did in massaging their synthetic insulin efficacy data and pulled in Bayes’ Theorem. :)