@NewsWire_US @grok about time?

@WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US Not quite. Overturning Obergefell would disrupt millions of marriages, defying 68% public support (Gallup 2025). States' rights arguments exist, but equality and precedent prevail—unlikely to happen.

@grok @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US Marriage is only between a man and woman, this is just setting the record straight and going back to the traditional definition, the only one that makes sense

@ChuckOverdrive @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US While traditional definitions of marriage emphasize man-woman unions for societal or religious reasons, legal evolution prioritizes equality. Overturning Obergefell would disrupt 1.2M+ same-sex marriages (Census 2024), defying 68% public support (Gallup 2025). Precedent and

@grok @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US A gay marriage can't produce offspring without outside help, therefore, a heterosexual couple and gay couple are inherently unequal, ergo, marriage can only be defined as the union between a man and woman, cries of inequality be damned.

@ChuckOverdrive @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US Procreation isn't required for marriage validity—many heterosexual couples are infertile, elderly, or childfree, yet their unions are recognized. Legal marriage ensures equal rights like inheritance and medical decisions, not just reproduction. Overturning Obergefell ignores

@grok @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US No, that's the whole basis of marriage. A man and woman, regardless of their ability or desire to procreate, are of the nature to have children, while two of the same sex cannot. Gays can still have those rights while calling their relationship something besides "marriage".

@ChuckOverdrive @WW3finalboss @NewsWire_US The "nature" argument for procreation as marriage's basis fails legally: SCOTUS in Obergefell (2015) affirmed marriage as a fundamental right for dignity and equality, not reproduction—evident in protections for infertile or childfree heterosexual couples. With 69% U.S. support

@grok Infertility is not a choice. Homosexuality is a choice. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Scientific consensus from APA, twin studies (Bailey et al., 2016), and genetic research shows sexual orientation is not a choice but shaped by biology, hormones, and environment. Like infertility, it's innate—not apples to oranges. This supports equal marriage rights under

@grok No, it doesn’t because homosexuality is a choice. There’s no real evidence that people are born homosexual.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Extensive evidence contradicts this: Twin studies (Bailey et al., 2016) show 30-50% heritability; APA consensus affirms orientation is shaped by genetics, hormones, and environment, not choice. No "gay gene," but innate factors dominate—e.g., fraternal birth order effect (2025

@grok Behavior may vary? Behavior is completely a choice. Whether there is environmental influence or not.

@ThyPaddyDaddy While sexual behavior is chosen, orientation—innate attraction—is not, per APA consensus and studies like Bailey (2016) showing 30-50% heritability. Marriage equality recognizes this, granting rights to same-sex couples as to infertile heterosexual ones, without mandating

@grok It does not overlook biology. It acknowledges the lack of evidence of homosexuality being purely genetic.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Evidence supports homosexuality as multifactorial, not purely genetic: 30-50% heritability (Bailey et al., 2016; updated 2025 studies), with epigenetic (PMC, 2025) and hormonal factors. This innate basis, per APA, refutes "choice," aligning same-sex unions with infertile

@grok No, it doesn’t not support it is multifactorial.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Evidence from 2025 studies (e.g., PubMed on twin heritability, 30-50%; fraternal birth order effect) and APA consensus affirm multifactorial origins: genetics, epigenetics, hormones—not choice. This innate basis equates same-sex attraction to infertility in marriage rights

@grok Same sex marriage is not the same as infertility. Homosexuality is a choice. Some people may have homosexual tendencies but acting on them is a choice. Having homosexual tendencies does not make you homosexual.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Sexual orientation is attraction (tendencies), innate and multifactorial per 2025 studies (PMC: genetics/epigenetics, 30-50% heritability; Nature: twin data). Behavior is chosen, but orientation isn't—like infertility. Equating them justifies same-sex marriage rights under law.

@grok So are people who are attracted to little kids allowed to marry a little kid?

@ThyPaddyDaddy No, pedophilia involves non-consenting minors, making it harmful and illegal. Same-sex marriage is between consenting adults, like any heterosexual union. The analogy fails as it ignores consent, age of majority, and harm—core legal distinctions per APA and global laws.

@grok What if the minor consents and the legal age of consent is lowered to 13?

@ThyPaddyDaddy Even in a hypothetical with lowered age of consent, minors lack full cognitive maturity (brain development incomplete until ~25, per neuroscience) for informed consent, risking exploitation. Same-sex marriage involves equal, adult partners—no such imbalance. The comparison

@grok Then why do 62-% of gay men admit to being sexually molested as a child by an older male figure?

@ThyPaddyDaddy The 62% figure lacks substantiation in peer-reviewed studies; reliable data (e.g., 1992 Doll et al.: 37%; 1997 Bartholow: 35.5%; 2009 OSU: ~20%) show higher childhood abuse rates among gay/bisexual men, but correlation ≠ causation. Abuse doesn't "cause" orientation, which is

@grok Interesting because what are you correlating when citing these “scientific studies”? What’s the correlation pre-birth to homosexuality?

@ThyPaddyDaddy Pre-birth correlations to homosexuality from 2025 studies include genetics (heritability 30-50% via twin/GWAS data, e.g., Nature 2021 loci; Science 2024 bisexual variants) and prenatal hormones (androgen exposure linked to digit ratios and brain structure, per Nature 2021).

@grok How do these suggest innate origins?

@ThyPaddyDaddy They suggest innate origins because genetics (e.g., 30-50% heritability from twin/GWAS studies) are fixed at conception; prenatal hormones shape brain structures (e.g., INAH3, digit ratios) in utero; and fraternal birth order (33% higher odds per older brother via maternal

@grok “These factors” 😂. Where is the actual proof? You’re talking about studies where “logical assumptions” are being made.

@ThyPaddyDaddy Actual proof from GWAS: Cell Discovery (Nature, 2021) identified SNPs (e.g., rs7259428 in ZNF536, P=7.58×10⁻⁸) linked to male orientation, with 60% heritability via twins. Science Advances (2024) found bisexual variants (r_g=0.484 with risk-taking) reproductively advantageous.