DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on July 01, 2015, 02:41:30 PM
-
Can People Really be "Born Gay"?
Can someone really be "born gay"? Is there a "gay gene"? Does biology equal destiny?
Clearly, the controversy over this issue is huge in our culture. While pro-gay activists and their allies want us to believe people are "born gay" and that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic like race or eye color, a closer examination of the scientific evidence reveals that the "nature vs. nurture" debate over homosexuality is far from settled.
At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable, two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.
Because of this, the current thinking in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of psychosocial, environmental and possible biological factors. And the two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. (1)
In sum, there is no scientific or DNA test to tell us if a person is homosexual, bisexual or even heterosexual for that matter. And since nobody is "born gay", it's clear that sexual orientation is, at its core, a matter of how one defines oneself, not a matter of biology or genes.
But what about the studies I've heard about in the media that say people are born gay?
While the media's headlines and reporting of these studies have given the impression that science is closing in on a "gay gene," it's important to note that each study suffers from significant problems and limitations. And what the researchers themselves have said about their own work is important. Specifically, you should know that their comments have never been fully reported in the press.
Some examples:
"From the 1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." (2)
"And from the 1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard, also a gay man, admits: "Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins." (3)
"And from the 1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer , also a gay man said: ""environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay". I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." (4)
"And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviors are genetically determined is "rudimentary at best." He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviors they observed probably involved "environmental and social stimuli" and that the female-female courtship behavior was abnormal, missing some key steps. (5)
"And what about the 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality" (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behavior. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said "it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation." (6)
"More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations" (italics added). (7) As a comparison, Collins indicates that the potential genetic component for homosexuality is much less than the genetic contribution that has been found for common personality traits such as general cognitive ability, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, aggression and traditionalism. (8)
Clearly, the case for a "gay gene" has not been made.
So, do all gay people believe that sexual orientation is "fixed" and unchangeable?
Not by a long shot. While it's true that many homosexuals and their allies believe that people are "born gay" and cannot change, there exists a surprising, and not insignificant, minority of gays and lesbians who recognize that sexual orientation is, in fact, flexible. For example, Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued in the gay magazine Frontiers that sexual orientation is not fixed. And lesbian columnist and psychotherapist Jackie Black has said that sexuality is not static. Further, lesbian author Camille Paglia argues that homosexuality is not normal and that it is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.
Most recently, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force spokesperson Roberta Sklar admitted in an ABC news story that today's young lesbians and bisexuals have a "more flexible view" about sexuality and see it as "a fluid thing." (9)
Thus, while no one knows for sure what causes a homosexual identity to develop, recent research confirms that substantial change is, indeed, possible. Pro-gay ally Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University published results from a study of 200 gay men and lesbians who had sought "re-orientation" therapy. Spitzer found that most were able to achieve fulfilling heterosexual relationships. While his research shows that such change often involves a long and difficult journey, it is nevertheless possible for highly motivated individuals. (10)
Even more recently in 2007, a landmark study was published by Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse which concluded that it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and that such efforts to bring about change do not appear to be psychologically harmful. Entitled Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, this groundbreaking research has been hailed by experts from both sides of the debate as being the most methodologically rigorous to date. (11)
And as more evidence of the fact that people can and do change their sexual orientation, Exodus International, a group of more than 150 Protestant Christian ministries in the United States and around the world, represents literally tens of thousands of people who have made the choice to walk out of their homosexual and bisexual identities. Similar organizations exist for Roman Catholics (Courage), Mormons (Evergreen), Jews (JONAH) and Muslims (StraightWay). (12)
Even in the secular cultural arena we see evidence of well-known people who have clearly changed their sexual orientation. Examples of formerly gay-identified celebrities who reportedly have become involved in relationships with people of the opposite gender include actors Anne Heche and Julie Cypher. Apparently, the reality that people can change their sexual identity isn't just a right-wing Christian thing.
Clearly, pro-homosexual advocates and their allies aren't dealing with all the evidence in their insistence that people are "born gay" and cannot change.
[e-mail]
-
It's a choice.....just as any other sexual urge is. Some urges are moral, some not so much. Simple as that
-
Most humans are not attracted to the opposite sex. It is not a matter of morality for them to avoid gay sex, just as it is not a problem for them to avoid eating the bark off of trees.
SOME people (and a number of animals) are attracted to members of the opposite sex. There are even some fish that change gender based on the sex of fish around them.
Attraction for members of the opposite sex is in the DNA of some people and not others, just like being left handed (considered a curse in some cultures).
The fact that they have not discovered a "gay gene" does not mean that none exists. Perhaps a gay urge is something that happens as a result of some sort of social factors, like clownfish changing gender (they have three).
It is simply ignorant to say that it is all a matter of "morality", when that "morality" is nothing but the manifestation of a particular view of a particular culture in a particular era, notably, Canaan/Israel/Palestine around the 3rd century BCE or so.
It is lots more fun for someone who has never had any homosexual urges to resist them and feel morally superior, as sirs obviously does.
Gay sex hurts no one. The human race has has gay people in it ever since we came down from the trees. If it were detrimental to us as a civilization, we would be extinct, just like being unafraid, flightless and delicious made the Dodo bird extinct.
-
.....and its still a choice. Some choices, less moral than others
-
Can People Really be "Born Gay"?
Can someone really be "born gay"? Is there a "gay gene"? Does biology equal destiny?
If,...
If the cause is medical , then there may be a medical fix for it.
Even of the biological cause is congenital , whatever is deficient or surplus can be stimulated or suppressed with medication more than likely.
If the cause is genetic then there could be a test for it applied in early pregnancy , then most "gay" infants might be aborted .
If the cause of homosexuality is medical then there can be a scientific elimination of the phenomenon.
I do not expect there to be a medical cause of Homosexuality , I expect eventually it will be found to be a habituation like many other Human preferences. Learned behavior is not entirely free of genetic component , because there has to be an inherited ability to learn the habit, but the ability to learn is so common and deep in human beings that learned behavior is the best explanation for most of what we do both normally and abnormally.
The comparison to left handedness is not really apt, in practically all human populations there is a 10% left handed cohort, whether it is encouraged or not. Where left handedness is encouraged (like boxers or baseball pitchers) there can be much larger fractions of left handed people , but these are chosen out of the population.
-
Why not simply accept Gays and Lesbians for what they are as normal people with the same rights as everyone else?
Why should anyone submit to a "fix" for anything they do not want fixed?
If people WANT to be "normal" and there is a useful treatment for it, I see no reason for not allowing them to have it.
The percentage of Gays and Lesbians is the same in every culture that has been surveyed. It is EXACTLY the same sort of thing as left-handedness.
I see no reason to not simply accept people for what they are, so long as it does not harm or interfere with me or my life.
Seeing it as a moral issue is simply medieval.
-
I dont factor any of it. I used the closet equation . The very existence of the closet is proof that it's not choice. It's choice to act upon those feelings but not to have them. But the issue is those feelings not the action.
Many men have often said i can't imagine having sex with a man. That very statement is proof it's not choice. It's likely the most pro-gay statement around. But most don't see it that way. Funny.
If it was choice then straight men will find both sex attractive but simply prefer women more.
-
Like so many things in nature, there is a continuum involved. There are some who find sex with members of the opposite sex so utterly repulsive they cannot imagine even other people practicing it: there are others at the other end who find it absolutely irresistibly enticing, and there are many people who are less emotional about it.
If other mammals practice gay sex, and they do, then it is part of the DNA. Humans are social animals and every society has some way of dealing with the Gays that figure into its population. The Iranian ayatollahs deny that there are any Gay Iranians. Gay sex was a central element of the civilization of ancient Sparta. There is a continuum among human societies as well.
There have been few societies in which exclusively gay man dominated, because they could not pass the leadership of the monarchy or the priesthood on to their offspring, since they would have none.
Women have rarely been dominant because of their lesser physical strength. An Amazon society like the fictional Wonder Woman grew up in is probably impossible among human beings.
-
....and its still a choice. Some choices, less moral than others. No one said they were abnormal. Its no different than someone choosing to enter an adulterous relationship. People have different desires, some more moral than others. Doesn't mean they've got a screw loose, although when the urge shifts to young children....that's when the moral line isn't just being crossed, its being obliterated
-
SIRS....the excuse makers always try to tie any abnormal behavior to some kind of genetic reason.
It allows them to blame something besides looking in the mirror.
Murderers, criminals...."well it's in their DNA"
Pedophiles...."well it's an uncontrollable urge"
Alcoholics...."well it is genetic...or his parents were alc-ies"
School failure...."well he's got A.D.D."
Obesity...."well it's a thyroid problem" or "well it's Burger King's fault"
DUI...."well the bar served him too much & thats why he was drunk when he killed those people"
Black crime..."well it's because they're poor"....(they were poor decades ago and a lot less crime)
Excuse makers are enablers
-
then the question is why have an excuse for being gay.
I only hear that it's less moral but not why. Cu list most has behavior thatbleads to harm . This is a group that for all this time has not been lead to any serious harm. Even aids seems to not be serious charge against them now.
i think the reason thier againing acceptance is finally enough people know them and the thought they are deserving lesser treatment is unjust. That list are behavior that people who deal with them tend to not like them. Gays rarely get that response. I never heard people say they know gay people and they are trouble. i believe that issure of morality is not even brought up on the topic in that list,only gays get that tag. Its like they cant pin a crime so just use that
-
What right do you have to inflict your morals on other people who do not harm you in any way?
I say you have NONE.
On LGBT rights, a majority of the country agrees with the latest Supreme Court ruling, and this is not going to change.
It is not a matter of making excuses, it is about TOLERANCE. CU and sirs are INTOLERANT.
-
Non-sense....
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You prefer the easy way and demonize first without knowing the facts.
What right does 3% of the population have to force their deviant behavior
and redefine language/standards that have been in place for centuries across all
cultures, religions, and nations?
I am tolerant of gays.
I have gay friends.
I have knowingly hired gays at my company for years and I knowingly use gay vendors.
I could easily choose otherwise...but it's not an issue to me.
One of my department managers (I promoted) is gay.
My only real problem with gays (besides thinking their sexual habits are totally disgusting)
is that a tiny, tiny minority tries to impose their will on the vast majority not thru the ballot box
but thru unelected judges....in trying to re-define marriage which is only between a man and woman.
The union of a man and woman is unique...and has created mankind and human history.
None of us would even be here without the union of male and female.
So that union is special...sacred...and without equal.
Calling two men together a marriage is a fraud...it is undeserving of such title.
-
then the question is why have an excuse for being gay.
I only hear that it's less moral but not why.
Because Kimba, when you're a child, your parents teach you your moral code. They do it, however they've decided to do it, and they instill the moral compass that you can then accept or be rebellious and reject it for your own version. Why is murder a moral bad? Why is Adultery? Because that's what we've been taught. The left likes to hang onto this level of moral equivalence, where nothing is outside the scope of acting on, so long as that person finds it ok for themselves, and who are we to judge.
Adultery really isn't harmful. Willing participants in Sadomasochism isn't really harmful. But I'm allowed to judge such acts as being immoral, based on my upbringing. Doesn't make them "abnormal" or "damaged" that requires fixing. I simply can acknowledge it for what is is......a choice. Some choices less moral than others.
And no, that isn't "forcing" my morals on anyone else. People can act however they want. However, they don't have a right not to be offended if I judge such acts as being immoral
-
Since there is rather a lot of proof that a certain percentage of every human society is composed of gay individuals, why would you assume that gays do not have a function in human society? Clownfish have essentially THREE genders. They were also created by whatever created humans, so this is the way clownfish must be meant to be. In a colony of clownfish, there are several females, one male and several males in waiting, that can only become full fledged males if something happens to the dominant male.
Your concept that the entirety of human civilization has been based on married couples, one man and one woman from Adam and Eve to present is quaint, but is hardly historically accurate. On repeated occasions in the Bible, Jehovah actually commands a man to take more than one wife. God commands Abram to mate with Hagar and then causes Sarah to become pregnant at some implausible advanced age. Joseph met Rachel and immediately knew that she was his One True Love, but he had to marry her older sister Leah first, because the father had some rather strict rules about marriage and nookie. So Jacob had TWO wives and God said not one word in opposition. He did not get very upset over Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines, either. I bet several of them really liked anal sex, you are going to find at least several women in a thousand who are really into anal action. Hell, maybe a couple of them were hermaphrodites.
Polygamy is common in the Bible and in many ancient societies. All the Pharoahs were polygamous. Polyandry (marriage between several men and one woman) has also been common in other human societies. One man and one woman has not even been the basis in this country. American Indians were often polygamous, some polyandrous, and then there was Ol'; Bigamy Young with fifty odd wives and a whole lot more polygamous Mormons. Some even live in Texas.
Marriage between one man and one woman is NOT any sort of arrangement that every society has considered special and unique.
Gorillas and chimps typically are organized in groups of one dominant male and several females, that are not necessarily faithful to their mate. There is a lot of monkey business in the monkey house.
You are only arguing about the use of one word. You want to deny gay people to declare themselves to be married, as though this would somehow affect you in any way, which it does not.
No one is forcing anyone to marry a person of the opposite sex.
No one is forcing you to cornhole anyone or be cornholed by anyone. You are free to have sex or not have it any way you choose. Just as everyone else should also have that right.
I dare you to speculate about how long anal sex has been practiced by human beings. I would say that it has been around, practiced by both men and women in every conceivable combination since before we came down from the trees. You should read research on binabos and chimps perhaps become enlightened. Anal sex between man and woman has been a method of birth control since forever. There are lots of porno tapes you could watch in which couples seem to really dig it.
You only think you are tolerant, but you are very far from it. You are seriously intolerant, uptight and uncool. Not to mention seriously ignorant of anthropology. One man one woman, forever joined let no man rend them asunder until death do they part is just one of several types of marriage. You are certainly free to choose what is best for yourself, but why do you have this need to judge others that do not fit into your rather limited group?
BY THE WAY. the most common arrangement in the US seems to be not one man and one woman for life for as long as both shall live, but serial polygamy.
You know, first Jane Wyman and then Nancy Davis. Ronald Reagan was a serial polygamist. So is John McCain. First Cindy, then Carol. Shit, your beliefs do not even extend to Republican Presidents and presidential candidates!
The next time you shake hands with one of your many gay pals, CU, just think about where that had has BEEN! Ewwwwww! Now imagine it is CONTAGIOUS! Double Ewwwwwwww!
-
There's also proof that a certain % of every human society is composed of adulterous individuals. So?? To each, their own
-
Can you be sure that Nacy Davis was a virgin when she married Ronald Reagan?
Can you be sure that Ronald did not fool around while he was married to Jane Wyman?
-
And what does that have to do with anything? No rational comeback so just throw trash at Reagan and think that deflection gets you off the hook of the point you couldn't refute? Think again
-
You were referring to adultery. In his first ghostwritten "autobiography" Reagan vaguely admits to fooling around before his divorce to Wyman. You brought up the topic of adultery, not me.
The topic here is CU4's belief that all of civilization has depended on marriages of one man to one woman, which is, of course, naive and false.
-
Since there is rather a lot of proof that a certain percentage of every human society is composed of gay individuals, why would you assume that gays do not have a function in human society?
SIRS STRAW MAN ALERT.
Who said they do not have a function in human society?
I just said I have hired them, promoted them, would vote for them, I actually had a gay doctor as well.
Quit making shit up out of thin air....it is a waste of space.
.
Your concept that the entirety of human civilization has been based on married couples,
one man and one woman from Adam and Eve to present is quaint, but is hardly historically accurate.
2nd SIRS STRAW MAN ALERT.
The entirety of human history would not exist without the male/female union.
As hard as you may try to argue otherwise, it is an indisputable fact.
You, me, Sirs...mankind would not exist without the male/female union. PERIOD!
That is why there is no equal.
Marriage has come over many centuries to symbolize that sacred union.
You are only arguing about the use of one word.
Words have meaning.....yell "FIRE" in a theater and find out.
Homos....want what is not theirs.
Marriage is man and woman.
Homos can have a "civil union"...after all as you say only words right?....lol
You want to deny gay people to declare themselves to be married,
as though this would somehow affect you in any way, which it does not.
Yes it does affect me when a tiny politically correct special interest group wants to change the meanings
of words and language to fit their special interest cause by using un-elected courts that overturn repeated
votes of the people on a specific issue. Plus the homos and leftist will begin the next phase of this battle. If
anyone thinks this is it...they live in a fantasy land. Homos will next start litigating their agenda with
a huge cost on society....against business....against churches....against schools...against local and state gvts,
all with costs passed down to citizens...whether they be financial costs or freedom stealing costs....tons of
costly litigation on the whole of society for a tiny tiny fraction of society.
No one is forcing you to cornhole anyone or be cornholed by anyone.
You are free to have sex or not have it any way you choose.
Just as everyone else should also have that right.
No one is denying homos the right to have their disgusting sex....again SIRS STRAW MAN ALERT!
More bullshit that relates to NOTHING I have said.
I dare you to speculate about how long anal sex has been practiced by human beings. I would say that it has been around, practiced by both men and women in every conceivable combination since before we came down from the trees. You should read research on binabos and chimps perhaps become enlightened. Anal sex between man and woman has been a method of birth control since forever. There are lots of porno tapes you could watch in which couples seem to really dig it.
Exactly my point....anal sex by anyone could have NEVER produced mankind nor will it EVER!
But only male/female union can produce mankind.
Male/Male Union or Female/Female Union = Only sex - can never produce mankind.
Male/Female Union = Sex but also produced mankind.....thus NO EQUAL.
You only think you are tolerant, but you are very far from it. You are seriously intolerant, uptight and uncool.
What is intolerant is the constant need to outright lie and fabricate about other's views are that disagree
with control freak views. Everybody is a racist that doesn't kow-tow to leftist's views.....
conservatives wanna starve grandma if they don't agree with reckless immoral gvt deficit spending
blah blah blah....
you judging what is "cool" is laughable....
but I suppose it is true that "cool" is in the eye of the beholder
so "coolness" 2EachHisOwn!
I don't find liberalism and control freakism "cool" at all.
One man one woman, forever joined let no man rend them asunder until death do they part is just one of several types of marriage.
Please show me where I said "one man one woman forever"?
Where? Show me?
Or are you lying again to see if it sticks?
You are certainly free to choose what is best for yourself, but why do you have this need to judge others that do not fit into your rather limited group?
My limited group?
Hello? Homos are about 3% of the population.
Prior to the un-elected judges decision last week only 3 States had allowed Homo Marriage by vote!
The homos couldn't do it by vote or they would have....they knew they could not pull it off by vote.
BY THE WAY. the most common arrangement in the US seems to be not one man and one woman for life for as long as both shall live, but serial polygamy. You know, first Jane Wyman and then Nancy Davis. Ronald Reagan was a serial polygamist. So is John McCain. First Cindy, then Carol. Shit, your beliefs do not even extend to Republican Presidents and presidential candidates!
More lies....see above.....no where did I say "one man one woman for life"....but feel free to just keep making shit up....lol
The next time you shake hands with one of your many gay pals,
CU, just think about where that had has BEEN!
Ewwwwww! Now imagine it is CONTAGIOUS!
Double Ewwwwwwww!
I rarely shake hands with anyone....I avoid it...but have to sometimes out of politeness
shaking hands is a nasty cultural custom that I wish would go away.
It has probably led to countless illness and death....but we keep doing this crazy-ass custom.
That's one of my pet-peeves about church....everyone wants to shake my hand....I carry hand santizer on Sundays!
As nasty as so many people are....straight or homo...I don't wanna be shaking hands with anyone.
Hetro or Homo...you are shaking hands with germs of all types of gross stuff including fecal....no thanks.
If I NEVER shake another hand in my life....it would be too soon!
-
There is a reason to assert that homosexuality is congenital , if you want .
Whether it is true is an other thing.
Asserting that homosexuality is inborn and unavoidable releases them from horror most feel at the prospect of recruitment.
Does a natural sort of parent really think it good news that their child is homosexual.
-
My limited group?
Hello? Homos are about 3% of the population.
=============================================
And intolerant assholes that they have the right to prevent LGBT people from equal treatment, what percentage of the population is that?
The idea that only people capable of reproducing children are capable of raising them is also rather quaint, being as we do not require teachers to be parents to educate children.
Nearly everything that children need to adapt themselves to any society does not require a pair of different sex organs.
Of course, soap and water remove nearly all the germs from anyone's hands, and of course, there is always Clorox, which kills everything.
I was just kidding about shaking other people's hands. It has never bothered me a whit, and I am rarely ill.
You are a truly obsessed character.
I don't think that homosexuals do a lot of recruiting. I don't think they find it necessary, they seem to have a sense of "gay-dar" that seems to work.
A loving parent would understand that they can still love a gay child and that it isn't their fault.
-
A loving parent would understand that they can still love a gay child and that it isn't their fault.
That does seem to be true.
But it is still not good news.
So you think there is no recruiting effort at all?
This would be good news,
-
XO....certainly Homos could raise a child
but most experts would agree that the ideal (if everything is else is pretty much equal)
is for a mother and father to raise a child.
again...Male/Female is the ideal and has no equal.
as far as obsessed....you need to stay up with current medical opinion
shaking hands is thought by many respected sources to be a factor in the spread of illness
In fact The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 80% of all infections are transmitted by hands.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-sh-germs-handshake-fist-bump-20140109-story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fist-bump-handshake-high-five-which-spreads-the-most-germs/
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/11/dr-dillners-health-dilemmas-shaking-hands.
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-1/QUA-306955/Handshaking-Spreads-Germs-Get-Over-It
you claim it's never bothered you a bit
but I bet it has made you sick..
you just have not associated when you are ill that you shook hands with some germs days earlier
-
You were referring to adultery.
Right. ....AS A CHOICE. Why you brought Reagan into it, and what he supposedly did, is irrelevant to the point that such a choice is looked and judged to be an immoral one. Which at the end of the day, any such sexual choices are nothing more than that. Some choices less moral than others.
-
The key word is taught. Thats is the proof its not choice. The majority if not all are taught to be straight. But still a percentage are gay. I did say if you find sex with a man repulsive , proof still its not choice. T he only the choice is acting on the attraction.
To use centuries of customs is easy to deny due to the fact many things do not past the test of time. Marraige in the. Past was largely involuntarily and now its mostly voluntary. Civil unions did exist but a push to stop it that likely made gay marriage to only option so thiers that to consider.
Yes it's choice but its choice with very little options. Your basicly telling a man he's only aloweed to marry people he's not attracted to and never will. So far the i do not recall forced marraiges in the U.S. So gay marriage has no influence on straight marraige. If people are divorcing because of this. Thats a choice also.
If marraige gets devalued because of this then it's just wasn't worth it to begin with. Remember i eas married i can say with authority it aint the gays that messed it up.
-
Being gay is based on attraction. Adultery is a religion-defined judgement.
Adultery came to regarded as a sin because of issues involving paternity and therefore inheritance. Sarah and Isaac get all of Abraham's stuff, Hagar and Ishmael get driven out into the desert, perhaps to die. Of course, Hagar had no real choice in the affair, it was commanded bu Jehovah.
Later, sexually transmitted diseases became another disadvantage of adultery.
People being gay rarely has much to do with problems that heterosexual people have with marriage.
A woman gets married and hopes to change her husband.
A man gets married and expects the wife to remain the same.
As a rule, the women never manages to mold the man into the Perfect Husband, since most women have unrealistic expectations.
The woman never stays the same because of changes due to age and pregnancy and often the process of becoming smarter once she is no longer controlled by her family as a child.
No one gets their wish as a rule: the way the frustration over this works out determines the successfulness of the marriage.
-
Adultery came to regarded as a sin because of issues involving paternity and ....
And?
And nothing, a man that wants to reproduce needs to monopolize a woman's reproductive potential.
The alternative is to love em and leave em, then trust to luck.
Paternity is not really about stuff, people who have nothing of wealth,still have reproduction.
-
The less stuff a person has in most societies, the higher the rate of infidelity and illegitimacy.
People with stuff have always had more influence with makers of religious rituals and requirements.
Weeth Money dances ze dog.
-
The less stuff a person has in most societies, the higher the rate of infidelity and illegitimacy.
People with stuff have always had more influence with makers of religious rituals and requirements.
Weeth Money dances ze dog.
Now why should I think this true at all?
Having children is a priority above having stuff, for most of us the stuff is for the children.
-
The more poor a family is in the US and all of Latin America, the more likely it is that the parents are not married.
Not all children are seen as the purpose of having sex. In many cases, they are an unwanted consequence.
-
Not all children are seen as the purpose of having sex. In many cases, they are an unwanted consequence.
This makes victims of the children , and the mothers who love them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/violent-death-claims-survivors-of-brazils-child-massacres-699359.html
How bad can it get ?
-
I did not say it was a good thing.
But it is reality.
Brazil is one of the worst places to be an urchin. India is probably worse, as there are a lot more of them.
-
I did not say it was a good thing.
But it is reality.
Brazil is one of the worst places to be an urchin. India is probably worse, as there are a lot more of them.
This is one of the things that make family a good idea.
It is not primarily property, it is the safety of the child as an individual and the shaping of the society as a collective effort.
Men are not really trapped in Marriage it is a means to make reproduction an equitable deal when the two sexes are not equally invested by nature.
-
Being gay is based on attraction. Adultery is a religion-defined judgement.
They're both based on actions/choices as generated by sexual urges.....period. ....end of sentence. Some choices less moral than others
-
And the definition of the word "moral" is related to some religion. There are LOTS of religions and they do not agree on what is "moral".
-
Yes, morals are based on your upbringing, religious or not. Murder is immoral. Is that purely based on religion?
-
I think the Bible is a tad unclear on the Thou shalt not kill bit.
All those Malechites, Sodomites and Gomorrans, as well as the original inhabitants of Jericho, they were murdered either at the command of Jehovah or by angels in executionary mode.
Do you not find it strange that Jehovah has not wiped out The Castro in San Francisco, Fire Island or Key West in the same fashion for the same reason?
There was that Russian astronaut, Gargarin, who went up in orbit and he declared that he saw no God or gods around. Look what happened to the builders of the Tower of Babel, and they were at a far lower altitude, and then there are all those really tall buildings in NYC, Dubai, Shanghai., Kuala Lumpur and Taipei.
Could it be that Jehovah is on vacation? Or were those tales just myths?
I am personally opposed to murder. I don't even agree with capital punishment as practiced in the US.
-
You're opposed to murder?? But why would that be? Because its ........ MORALLY wrong perhaps? And who taught you that?? That's the point, one's morals, as Kimba accurately referenced, are what you're brought up with, regardless of religion, although religion does play an integral role. So, you can opine that someone else's morals are twisted, such as believing that homosexual behavior is immoral, but that'd be a judgment opinion...as in you are JUDGING SOMEONE ELSE. That's NO DIFFERENT, that someone judging someone else's actions on what they've been brought up with
At the end of the day, choosing to be attracted to someone of the same sex is no different than choosing someone else's spouse. Both are based on sexual urges. Kind of along wanting something of forbidden fruit. You shouldn't have it, based on a moral upbringing, so it makes you want it all the more. Some choices, less moral than others. Murder probably the worst moral choice...as in amoral
-
Choosing MY spouse is one thing, choosing someone else's, especially someone's I do not know, is just being a busybody. It does not affect me if Adam marries Steve. Wh I marry surely will affect me.
I do not believe in murder because I do not wish to get murdered. I can see the issue from someone else's point of view. It does not require brainwashing or catechism or threats from an invisible being.
-
I think the Bible is a tad unclear on the Thou shalt not kill bit.
What part of "Thou"is unclear? God is not limited in reforming his creation. All those Malechites, Sodomites and Gomorrans, as well as the original inhabitants of Jericho, they were murdered either at the command of Jehovah or by angels in executionary mode.
Yes Do you not find it strange that Jehovah has not wiped out The Castro in San Francisco, Fire Island or Key West in the same fashion for the same reason?
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.
Proverbs 14:34 NIV I wouldn't be surprised, but the circumstance of Sodom was that it would be spared if a small number of righteous persons could be found there, God can forbear punishment on a large group for the sake of a tiny minority.
There was that Russian astronaut, Gargarin, who went up in orbit and he declared that he saw no God or gods around. Look what happened to the builders of the Tower of Babel, and they were at a far lower altitude, and then there are all those really tall buildings in NYC, Dubai, Shanghai., Kuala Lumpur and Taipei.
Could it be that Jehovah is on vacation? Or were those tales just myths?
I am personally opposed to murder. I don't even agree with capital punishment as practiced in the US.
Gagarin could have seen God in his own living room if he had known where to look.
Your question was once asked by a guy named Habakkuk https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&search=Habakkuk%201
How long, Lord, must I call for help,
but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
but you do not save?
3
Why do you make me look at injustice?
Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?
Destruction and violence are before me;
there is strife, and conflict abounds.
4
Therefore the law is paralyzed,
and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous,
so that justice is perverted.
The Lord’s Answer
5
“Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.
6
I am raising up the Babylonians,[a]
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwellings not their own.
7
They are a feared and dreaded people;
they are a law to themselves
and promote their own honor.
8
Their horses are swifter than leopards,
fiercer than wolves at dusk.
Their cavalry gallops headlong;
their horsemen come from afar.
They fly like an eagle swooping to devour;
9
they all come intent on violence.
Their hordes advance like a desert wind
and gather prisoners like sand.
10
They mock kings
and scoff at rulers.
They laugh at all fortified cities;
by building earthen ramps they capture them.
11
Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—
guilty people, whose own strength is their god.”
So,... are you complaining that our comeuppance is taking too long?
The Chaldeans and Babylonians are still available .
I don't look forward to it.
-
Sexual preference and sexual urges maybe confusingly different. The presence of the closet is again proof the urges are kept in check. Adultery is not the case at all.
The problem is probly we have a habit to lump things together and ignore the differences . Most subjects and issue gets this treatment. the general topic of sex itself tends confusingly gets misunderstood
-
Choosing MY spouse is one thing, choosing someone else's, especially someone's I do not know, is just being a busybody. It does not affect me if Adam marries Steve. Wh I marry surely will affect me.
I do not believe in murder because I do not wish to get murdered. I can see the issue from someone else's point of view. It does not require brainwashing or catechism or threats from an invisible being.
Nor does it require you to believe in an alternate being, Dr. Deflection.
So as long as you don't get murdered, its an ok thing then?? Seriously?? Perhaps in your effort to try and rationalize yourself out of the hole you dug, its because murder is more so a severely moral wrong, that requires serious repercussions. And that moral judgment, is one you made. Which is fine.......AND THAT'S THE POINT
And that also is extended to those who chose to act in being attracted and following thru with an adulterous relationship. It doesn't affect me in any way, and the 2 people having the affair are obviously ok with it, and mutually consenting. Still immoral in my book...just as acting out in a homosexual manner is.
Bottom lime is that you choose whatever you want to choose. If you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex, good for you. If you choose to be attracted to the same sex, that's fine as well. I'll still judge it an immoral choice, but its your freedom & choice to act that way. Notice that's not forcing my morals on you, or anyone else. To each, their own. Some choices, less moral, than others, and we are free to judge such acts as so.
-
SIRS....it doesn't take long for unintended consequences to start popping up!
Nathan Collier: Montana man inspired by
same-sex marriage ruling requests right to wed two wives
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html
-
I've never knowingly killed anyone. But i hope you all kniw i prefer not to but can and will if pushed. I'm a baptist but do not believe my religion is the deciding reason i do not kill. I dont kill because i've never seen a positive reason to do it. I've got alot of assholes in my life that taught me such actions don't lead to anything positive
This topic of morals has only the slightest hold on me due to a chunk of people who claim to be moral are in that group of assholes also. Lets just say that the claim of morality in my opinion needs to be judged always
Two wives. Not a surprise. That goes with the subject of lumping sex topics
-
Two wives. Not a surprise. That goes with the subject of lumping sex topics
There is a reason.
What interest and right does the state have to regulate marriage and other sex related stuff?
Is the states right to regulate different in each particular?
-
I've never knowingly killed anyone. But i hope you all kniw i prefer not to but can and will if pushed.
I don't know you that well, Kimba, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;-)
This topic of morals has only the slightest hold on me due to a chunk of people who claim to be moral are in that group of assholes also. Lets just say that the claim of morality in my opinion needs to be judged always
And no one is claiming otherwise Kimba. The issue is this lack of tolerance by hard core leftists, who insist that anyone judging others based on their sense of morality is to be literally condemned as supposedly homophobic. Literally, the epitome of intolerance by those who preach tolerance. Notice also how there's no scientific support for the case of homosexuality, merely that "it occurs", and that's all the basis for giving it the thumbs up of acceptance. A lot of things occur, as a percentage of acts by humans. Doesn't make it DNA driven, as in, no control over it. That's just rationalization cover. People act out in all kinds of ways.....especially when the sexual drive is pushing the act
Two wives. Not a surprise. That goes with the subject of lumping sex topics
And why not. If we're going to redefine marriage, anything is game at this point
-
I do not see it as unusual that someone wants to make polygamy legal, but I do not think that there is enough support for polygamy among the people or sympathy for polygamy on the Court to make it legal.
At most, the issue will be defeated at the local level and the Supremes will not bother to consider it.
And the same would happen if someone wanted to marry his dog, his cat or his horse.
-
And the same would happen if someone wanted to marry his dog, his cat or his horse.
Hey maybe if someone wants to marry their horse....they were born that way! ::)
-
I do not see it as unusual that someone wants to make polygamy legal, but I do not think that there is enough support for polygamy among the people or sympathy for polygamy on the Court to make it legal.
Same was said for Homosexual marriage
-
I all may require the folks not involved to see its ok. The reason gay marraige made it because the relatives,friends folks who kniw them found them worthy.
Notice we rarely if ever we hear someone who hates gays base thier opinion on gays they know.
-
Neither the public nor the court will approve of polygamy.
This is unrelated to the issue of gay marriage, and I doubt that the Supremes will even hear the case.
However, the polygamous families of the Mormon fundamentalists in Texas simply live together and the man marries no more than one woman.
I have not heard that any of them have been charged with bigamy. The patriarch was convicted of kidnapping and sex with a minor as well as welfare fraud, and they put him in prison.
-
Also its not exactly a viable system. American women has to agree to it . So not many men will have the option. On another post i talk about men giving up marraige so getting support for polygamy will be alot harder still.
-
Neither the public nor the court will approve of polygamy.
Why not? The public didn't support homosexual marriage either. Just give it time.....like Homosexual marriage required. As long as the peoples involved are consenting, what's the problem? It certainly can be made viable, with the appropriate corroborating/assistive legislation. What's it to us if someone wants to marry more than 1 person? In fact, a man should be able to marry a woman and another man, following this latest Supreme Court ruling.
Just give it time
-
I do not see it as unusual that someone wants to make polygamy legal, but I do not think that there is enough support for polygamy among the people or sympathy for polygamy on the Court to make it legal.
At most, the issue will be defeated at the local level and the Supremes will not bother to consider it.
And the same would happen if someone wanted to marry his dog, his cat or his horse.
How much support is needed?
There was an obvious majority against Gay marriages when Candidate Obama was also against it, and a referendum in California (of all places) failed it.
There may not be much support for polygamy , or bestiality , but doesn't the recent Supreme court decision remove a layer of restriction from the state power to define marriage at all?
I don't think that the public needs to be consulted , the courts will tell us what we should think.
-
Much more support would be needed than currently exists. Polygamy changes a social balance that gay marriage does not.
Wait until some court rules on this case. I do not think it has much of a chance.
-
I do not see it as unusual that someone wants to make polygamy legal, but I do not think that there is enough support for polygamy among the people or sympathy for polygamy on the Court to make it legal.
Nor was there for Homosexual marriage either. Just give it time. Initially it was defeated at the local levels, but over time enough noise was made by the minority to get the courts to change
-
Notice we rarely if ever we hear someone who hates gays base thier opinion on gays they know.
Notice your huge jump of faith that implies that if someone who supports how marriage has been defined for centuries
and opposes gay-marriage they "hate gays" which is a big pile of untrue bullshit. Did Obama and Clinton "hate" gays just a few years ago? I have hired gay employees, promoted gay employees, chose a gay doctor, would vote for a gay, have a gay hairdresser.....I don't hate gays....that's laughable... but I do oppose gay marriage.
-
You have often said that you find gay sex utterly disgusting.
You are not in favor of their being treated equally.
You appear to have more than a few prejudices that you are incapable of seeing in yourself
-
Much more support would be needed than currently exists. ......
You have to be over estimating the support requirement.
If Gay persons represent 3% of us all , and less than 30% of them are eager to marry, then a minority of 1% can find its way to get its way.
Do you suppose that fewer than 1% of our population would like Polygamy?
Polygamy changes a social balance that gay marriage does not.
Wow, what social balance could you be referring to there?
-
You have often said that you find gay sex utterly disgusting.
You are not in favor of their being treated equally.
You are spewing bigoted non-sense.
I do find gay sex disgusting....but I don't have to partake or be exposed to it.
I am in favor of homos being treated equally.
I treat homos equally in employment, as candidates, as friends, and as vendors.
I support homos having full rights under civil unions.
I do not support calling a horse a cow because a horse is not a cow.
That does not mean I hate horses, or that horses are not treated equally.
XO you are a typical liberal bigot.
-
You have often said that you find gay sex utterly disgusting.
You are not in favor of their being treated equally.
You are spewing bigoted non-sense.
I do find gay sex disgusting....but I don't have to partake or be exposed to it.
I am in favor of homos being treated equally.
I treat homos equally in employment, as candidates, as friends, and as vendors.
I support homos having full rights under civil unions.
I do not support calling a horse a cow because a horse is not a cow.
That does not mean I hate horses, or that horses are not treated equally.
....
Well said.
-
Ill apologize to some on the hate gay tag but not all. Since the outcome of the marrages has spurred some businesses to refuse services to gays and such. So the homophobic tags is not enirely without merit overall.
Define by centuries but modified also. Most of those marriages at one time did not acknowledge other marriages. Vatican two took forever to wipe that from our memories
-
Since the outcome of the marrages has spurred some businesses to refuse services to gays and such. So the homophobic tags is not enirely without merit overall.
So if business are "homophobic" that refuse to violate their religious beliefs and cater gay weddings...again not refusing to serve gays....just gay weddings....then people that claim this is hate or homophobic then those people are Christian/Muslim Haters and Christian/MuslimPhobics.
-
Nope.these banned service has not been stated before this situation. Meaning these stated bans just started .
-
To say that baking a cake for a person in exchange for a lucrative profit is "support" is stretching it, but it is fine with me. There are plenty more businesses than can cater to weddings.
There is no shortage of churches that will agree to marry gays, either, so this is unlikely to be any serious problem.
-
it is fine with me. There are plenty more businesses than can cater to weddings.
Yes exactly.....then we agree...2EachHisOwn.
-
To say that baking a cake for a person in exchange for a lucrative profit is "support" is stretching it, but it is fine with me. There are plenty more businesses than can cater to weddings.
There is no shortage of churches that will agree to marry gays, either, so this is unlikely to be any serious problem.
That ain't the problem .
The problem is that those who don't want to participate are going to loose tax exemption , or the right of free speech, or get jailed.
-
BINGO
Now, what does the 1st amendment of the Constitution remind us of again? Oh yea.....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
No where in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution for that matter, is there some right not to be offended.
-
The Catholic Church has never been denied tax exempt status for refusal to marry non Catholics. The same is true of Jewish synagogues.
I don't see how there is any legal obligation for any religious entity to provide services for those it does not wish to.
I don't see what this has to do with offending anyone, either.
Religions are free to say what they wish, believe what they wish, whatever, unless they are preaching murder and mayhem.
-
For its not bakeries i have a problem but more specificly pharmacies i have an issue. Because of religion a pharmacist refuse to return a prescription back because it was a ru486 type of med.
The response that article was the person could of gotten it replaced shortly afterwards. Years since i found this fact almost fataly false due to my experience taking care of my parents. The longest I've filled a prescription was 10days. My last refill took 5days.
Now i got no problem if the business post notice they refuse service so they dont even have to see they people they dont want to service.
-
Pharmacies are not like churches, as they are licensed by state and local governments and they deal with public health.
I agree that any pharmacy that decides that it will not dispense certain drugs, like BC pills, should clearly announce this in writing. There is no need to waste people's time.
I am not sure of the legal obligations of pharmacies, but most of them do not refuse to dispense anything on religious grounds.
-
I am not sure of the legal obligations of pharmacies, but most of them do not refuse to dispense anything on religious grounds.
So many Doctors and Pharmacological suppliers have refused to supply deadly drugs to States that execution by injection has become difficult.
-
Looks like refusing service due to religion is not just one issue. It may cover more things.
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
-
Is death penalty really that big a concern to prolifers? Seriously i got the impression nobody here has a problem with it
-
Is death penalty really that big a concern to prolifers? Seriously i got the impression nobody here has a problem with it
That is a splitter.
Some think life sacred, so the State should not kill.
Some think life sacred, so the State should kill murderers.
Some think human life not sacred, but none like that in anti abortion.
-
Is death penalty really that big a concern to prolifers?
To be honest, its not about being pro-life, its being anti-abortion
Seriously i got the impression nobody here has a problem with it
Personally, it has to do with guilt vs innocence, Kimba. The unborn child has done nothing to warrant a death sentence. A person, who's motive is clear and DNA is all over the murder weapon has forfeited their right to life. That said, I no longer support a death penalty on eye witness or circumstantial evidence alone. There must be solid hard evidence that places the person at the crime scene, with both motive & means.
-
All the people who get the death penalty in the US have one thing in common: they are poor. They depend on public defenders who are overworked and often incompetent.
The Boston Marathon bomber deserved the death penalty, as there was no question of his guilt.
Louisiana has a lot of poor Black people who are on death row because they have killed their children, and there is little proof of intent or guilt in some cases.
-
hmm
that's different. I normally heard from conservative when convicted to death row they are 100 % guilty no matter if it`s circumstantial or otherwise. the thinking leans toward their guilty of something and that's enough.
is this because recently thiers been proof some of the executed have been found innocent ? I think I only recall one time this happened but that was years ago so likely thiers been more dna testing of bodies by now
-
The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal organization that is committed to exonerating wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing and to reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.[1] The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. To date, the work of the Innocence Project has led to the freeing of 329 wrongfully convicted people, including 18 who spent time on death row.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project)
-
I like the innocence project.
Getting the real truth is worthwhile.
There are some who don't want any execution to ever happen, that is different.
-
hmm
that's different. I normally heard from conservative when convicted to death row they are 100 % guilty no matter if it`s circumstantial or otherwise. the thinking leans toward their guilty of something and that's enough.
I can only speak for myself Kimba. It's never been that black & white for me. Evidence needs to be pretty overwhelming for me to support the death penalty. That saying, I do support it, in those instances. I'd argue that's the case with most conservatives as well
is this because recently thiers been proof some of the executed have been found innocent ?
Examples please, and no that's not because, since I'm not aware of any mistakenly put to death. Only hearsay
-
I think it was the johnny garret case but not really sure it was a long time ago.
http://www.thelastworddocumentary.com
But now that i looked it up thier really is no investigation to find out depending on the case if the executed are in fact innocent. You would think with the fact that a percentage of deathrow inmate been exonerated with modern techniques nows.
-
In other words, there is no actual hard evidence of any innocent person being put to death. Is that correct?
-
There was a guy in Texas who was accused of burning his family to death in a fire.
There was an hour long PBS documentary on how the evidence used to convict him was bogus and the "experts" were ignorant of any sort of scientific evidence of arson.
He was tried and executed.
And he was not the only one.
-
actually no
it was quite a stir but I can`t find the case . the internet can really be tough to find old stories. it happened in texas and the killer confessed afterwards. I somebody here said confessions don`t count or something.
so to address no hard evidence I say their is a resistance to find evidence if the executed has been innocent . I want to know if some inmates on deathrows have been found innocent how is it different from executed inmates.
-
So again, just hearsay
-
So again, just hearsay
Doesn't seem unlikely tho.
The standard of proof needs to be strict when the penalty is harsh.
-
My point exactly.....which is why I only favor the death penalty when the evidence is overwhelming. Like, with OJ
-
ok
I can`t find it and concede to the hearsay charge. but I also can`t find any post investigation of executed inmates. you at least would agree the release of deathrow inmates should cast some doubts (depending on the case of course) to find out.
standard of proof didn`t seem to stopped people from getting to deathrow.
-
Lets admit that every human designed process has a failure rate.
The process of finding truth at trial has a failure rate , there is an effort to err on the side of caution.
But there is going to be a failure rate.
Is the better solution to make the punishment less deadly so that the innocent who get punished can tolerate it , or to make all possible use of science and skill to make the rate of failure small?
-
I think its ruben cantu but not really sure since that case didn`t mention the killer confessed
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html
-
its the belief thiers no failure rate for executions that got me to think abut it. everythings has an exception but not executions? what got me to really doubt it the fact in a radio dj show he talked about he didn`t care if a man got wrongfully executed and later on I notice that opinion was not exactly rare. so I started to have doubts that maybe people are not really giving their best to make sure the right folks are getting executed.
If a wrongfully convicted person gets as far as deathrow .is it really more difficult that some will get executed.
-
If a wrongfully convicted person gets as far as deathrow .is it really more difficult that some will get executed.
That's why there's an appeals process. Until someone has actually been wrongly executed, based on hard evidence, and not just hearsay or even someone else "confessing" after the fact, I have no problem with people on deathrow, if the court and jury came to that decision.
-
This illistration seems to fit this discussion.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2995
(http://i1.wp.com/lawcomic.net/guide/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pt05pg07.png?resize=700%2C850)
The whole thing is a description of how memory works and how the justice system uses it.
-
That's why eye witness testimony alone doesn't warrant a death penalty for me for a convicted murderer
-
I agree, one witness is insufficient.
If the accused gets a jail sentence, he can be set free.
If he is dead, all they can do is try to keep their mistake out of the media and play dumb.
Since most death sentences are given to people who are insignificant and perhaps guilty of lesser crimes, it is easy to avoid a big fuss being made.