Gay marriage

[Spytait]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

[makerowner]

Sorry, I didn't see a question. I guess you're looking for arguments against gay marriage (other than the two you mentioned)?

[Hartke]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman, as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc. The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code. If there is no objective definition of marriage, then it follows that any two or more compacts or covenents between those entities will count as a 'marriage'. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum.

[Sabine Grant]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes: Welcome to IIDB!:) The two arguments you have brought up reflect a strong religious source. IMO you will not have that many posters in MF&P defending an anti gay marriage position from a religious perspective. I am even doubtful as to secular humanists being able to construct rational arguments against gay marriage based on a moral principle.

Which specific questions do you have in mind?

[PyramidHead]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman, as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc. The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code. If there is no objective definition of marriage, then it follows that any two or more compacts or covenents between those entities will count as a 'marriage'. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum.

1. Naturalistic fallacy, both in invoking "most legal documents" and "the animal kingdom" (in which, by the way, homosexuality is rampant, not that it matters).
2. Reproduction "etc." (what could this etcetera mean?) is not taken into account, as many couples make no secret of their inability/unwillingness to have children and are not denied marriage as a result.
3. Candidate for objective definition of marriage: two consenting individuals who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. We had no problem tinkering with it to allow members of different races to marry, because it was determined that the definition all along had nothing to do with skin color. Now we are learning that it had nothing to do with sex either. You can't extend it to children or goats (and you're summoning an avalanche of criticism by mentioning it) because consent is not available in either case.
4. In any case, the federal government should have zero authority over who gets married to whom. I'm with Jesse Ventura on this one: abolish state-recognized marriage, replace it with civil unions (which are purely legal and most people have no problem with), and let couples pursue their own ceremonies at their behest.

[Sabine Grant]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman, as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc. The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code. If there is no objective definition of marriage, then it follows that any two or more compacts or covenents between those entities will count as a 'marriage'. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum. Reproduction is not a requirement to obtain a marriage license in the US. Thus the "reproduction" argument is moot. The current definition is NOT objective by the way. It relies on the subjective and rather prejudicial argument that only heterosexual relationships should be recognized as functional and healthy. Which is strongly and rationally challenged by pro same gender relationships advocates.

[figuer]

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman Except where polygamy and polyandry are legal (many, many societies).as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc.Therefore women shouldn't be allowed to marry after menopause.The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code.The 'animal kingdom' (which includes humans), includes homosexual behaviour. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum.So?? What is that to you??

Marriage is fundamentally about property rights and similar.

I am homo...I don't like being discriminated...I think monogamy is sexy...but I have my doubts about marriage, even for heteros.

[general_koffi]

Therefore women shouldn't be allowed to marry after menopause.

Likewise, couples should be tested for fertility before they are allowed to get married.

Perhaps their marriage should be declared null and void if they don't produce children after a certain amount of time?

[Civil1z@tion]

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman, as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc. The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code. If there is no objective definition of marriage, then it follows that any two or more compacts or covenents between those entities will count as a 'marriage'. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum.

Monogamy is excedingly rare in the animal kingdom so by this argument we shouldn't even have marriage (as very few species mate for life and even those that do can have "divorces").

Really one could objectively stop marriage as any group of two or more people within the human species (there is no logical need to involve animals) and I see no problem with that so long as its voluntary to enter and leave.

[djrafikie]

I'm bisexual, I find the idea that it would be fine for me to fall in love with and marry a man, but if I were to fall in love with a woman it would not be okay for me to marry her, very odd

I am still the same person in either circumstance, and my desires are exactly the same in either circumstance, for a committed, loving relationship, with children of my own, be they genetic or adopted.

The same for the adoption argument, why is it okay for me to adopt with a man, but not okay if I am with a woman? I have a kid and am a good parent, I love her deeply.
I would not cease to love her or parent her if I were with a woman, it would not financially disadvantage her, she would not have less.

[apatura_iris]

What I don't understand is why gay marriage should be legal and not ploygamy? We currently have polygamists being rather viciously persecuted in Texas, and while yes I find them to be religious nuts, they do have the right to sleep and procreate with whomever they want, as long as it's consensual and of legal age (which contrary to a lot of sensationalized reporting, it usually is).

Do you feel the gay marriage / polygamy comparison is apt in any way?

[fast]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

I believe his question is, "Why should gays not marry?" He wants the answer to that question, but he also wants a response that is better than 1) It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!, and 2) It would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

[Spytait]

Sorry, I forgot to clearly state what I was asking. What are some possible reasons why gays should'nt be married apart from the two reasons I mentioned above?:cool: Cheers everyone!

[fast]

Here’s an argument:

1. Allowing gay marriage supports sinful behavior.
2. We shouldn’t support sinful behavior.
Therefore, 3. We shouldn’t allow gay marriage.

PS: I am not prepared to defend the argument. I’m simply presenting one like you asked. Anyhoots, it's something to chew on.

[djrafikie]

I can give a number of reasons why gay people should not marry, unfourtunately I can also bebunk them in as many sentences, but shant bother as it is not what the poster has asked for.

1 - it offends religious nuts who feel they have the right to impose their morals (if they could be called that) on people who have little or nothing to do with them.

2 - marriage is a failure as an institution, one only has to look at the divorce rate to see this, why buy into a pointless institution?

3 - The word marriage is a red herring, that refers to a religious ceremony, most religions don't allow for this, so it is better to have a civil partnership, bestowing the same rights legally as a straight couple. This allows the partners to support the other person in the event of their death, and for the bereaved party to be spared unfair tax liability.

4 - It means they have to put up with divorce. Which sucks.

[nermal]

Homosexuality is icky, and homosexuals are reprobates and allowing marriage would be tantamount to approving of the homosexual lifestyle, which, as has been said, is icky.

That's it. Distill any argument against homosexual marriage down to its pure form, and the above is what you are actually being told.

Ed

[Unbeatable]

I'm for gay marriage. As I see it, discriminatory restrictions like the current situation need especially strong justifications, and the anti-gay-marriage lobby does a poor job of providing them.

So of course, I can't argue against your position. However, coincidentally, I happened the other day while Googling to run across this article written from the opposing perspective. I was considering starting a thread on it, but as it seems just the sort of thing you're looking for, I figure I might as well post it there. The author basically thinks legitimizing things like gay marriage and polygamy will impact the culture in ways that negatively impact the status of women, the character of children, the birth rate, etc. What kept my interest was that he's an apparent conservative anthropologist arguing from evidence. I don't know what to make of his claim that the evidence points to the conclusions he makes, but I found his approach-- basing predictions on the analysis of patterns observed in various societies-- a refreshingly reasonable alternative to the sort of vague argument-by-assertion scaremongering and religious nonsense (and as nermal points out, the arguments from ick) usually coming from his side of the debate. Once again, though, I'm not prepared to play devil's advocate for him.

I'll quote his intro. The rest is at http://www.amconmag.com/2003/07_28_03/cover.html

Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other arrangements.

Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.

The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences.

Let’s take an anthropologically informed look at two of these proposed changes to the family: gay marriage and polygamy.
...

[anders]

I liked this:
Therefore women shouldn't be allowed to marry after menopause.

Likewise, couples should be tested for fertility before they are allowed to get married.

Perhaps their marriage should be declared null and void if they don't produce children after a certain amount of time?

I'm as hetero and right-wing as they come in Sweden. The last Swedish male-male couple I read about in the papers (actually, this morning) is raising two children. I don't even keep goldfish. From a procreation or any other point of view, who is/are the better citizens?

[general_koffi]

I can't think of any good arguments for why every single person should be doing their utmost to breed anyway... Aren't there enough of us?

[juergen]

I'm hetero, but I support gay marriage. I can't possibly see anything negative in extending the right for gays or lesbians to make vows in love to each other which they intend to keep out of love for each other. Having said that, I haven't read the above linked-to article yet.

I'm not up to speed with current statistics, but I think heterosexual couples have done a fine job diminishing the value of marriage considerably already, so I would see no need to try to blame people who haven't been allowed to get married for some future downfall of something already halfway ruined.

[nermal]

[...]-- basing predictions on the analysis of patterns observed in various societies-- a refreshingly reasonable alternative to the sort of vague argument-by-assertion scaremongering and religious nonsense (and as nermal points out, the arguments from ick) usually coming from his side of the debate. Once again, though, I'm not prepared to play devil's advocate for him.

I'll quote his intro. The rest is at http://www.amconmag.com/2003/07_28_03/cover.html


Let’s take an anthropologically informed look at two of these proposed changes to the family: gay marriage and polygamy.
...


His treatise as written here amounts to nothing more than Legitimized homosexual marriage will weaken [how?] existing marriages and bring about institutionalized debauchery...


The anthropological record, as I read it, shows that if a society treats male homosexual behavior as a fully legitimate option, it will end up not with a more expansively defined system of marriage, but with a dual-track system in which “marriage” is reduced to a bare transactional relationship, while male homosexuality will flourish according to its own dynamic.

The anthropological record as he reads it may show this, but he certainly makes no effort to outline exactly how in this article, nor does he outline where this has ocurred. He just does a lot of handwaving, and talks about the Etoro ritually ejaculating in the mouths of boys (Then admitting as an aside that such has no bearing on the debate at hand) and leaps to the conclusion that homosexual marriage would weaken marriage as we know it. More, even perhaps, than Elvis impersonating ministers in Las Vegas who will marry anyone, drunk or sober.

Sorry...this is just more of the "If you allow homosexual marriage, the ickiness index will increase dramatically." Sure, he dresses it up with nonsequitor anthropological mumbo jumbo, but that doesn't change what it is.

Ed

[s-o-i-d-p]

I'm for it (I'm not gay). Here are 2 lame arguents I've heard:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
It would ruin the sanctity of marriages (yeah, the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55 hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!)
Please answer my question-- without these 2 arguments! LOL :rolleyes:

The standard definition in most legal documents refer to one man and one woman, as the consequences are taken into account, i.e. reproduction, etc. The animal kingdom follows this same pattern without a written code. If there is no objective definition of marriage, then it follows that any two or more compacts or covenents between those entities will count as a 'marriage'. For example, a son could marry his mother, a man could marry a goat, ad infinitum.

But a contract, to be legally valid (and obviously this would depend on a specific jurisdiction's laws), both parties have to sign it on their own volition and without duress and be mentally competent to sign a contract (which means children, mentally retarded, etc. cannot sign contracts).

In that sense then why should gay marriage matter? A man and a man or a woman and a woman can easily sign contracts. A man and a goat wouldn't seem feasible since goats couldn't consent to legal relations.

[ahdenai]

I can think of more reasons to ban marriage between celebrities than between homosexuals.

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm against state sanctioned gay marriage.

This is because I am against all state sanctioned marriage.

To me this is a separation of church and state issue. The state has no business telling people who they may enter a spiritual union with, live with, and raise children with. Likewise, the church has no business directing tax breaks or succesorship rights etc to particular groups of people.

The obvious solution is to separate marriage into marriage and civil union, for ALL "married" people, homosexual or heterosexual.

Civil Union would carry legal rights and standing and be enterable by any two (or more) people who want to contract for it. This could include man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and multiple women, woman and multiple men, brothers and sisters, parents and children, perfect strangers, whatever.

Marriage would have no legal rights or standing attached to it but be something spiritual, recognized or not by the various religions (or not entered into at all). Then one religion may recognize "gay marriage" or "poligamy" and another religion may declare it abomination.

[general_koffi]

"Marriage" is a civil construct.

Religion hijacked it from civil society. The Catholic Church did not invent it.

[makerowner]

I'm against state sanctioned gay marriage.

This is because I am against all state sanctioned marriage.

To me this is a separation of church and state issue. The state has no business telling people who they may enter a spiritual union with, live with, and raise children with. Likewise, the church has no business directing tax breaks or succesorship rights etc to particular groups of people.

The obvious solution is to separate marriage into marriage and civil union, for ALL "married" people, homosexual or heterosexual.

Civil Union would carry legal rights and standing and be enterable by any two (or more) people who want to contract for it. This could include man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and multiple women, woman and multiple men, brothers and sisters, parents and children, perfect strangers, whatever.

Marriage would have no legal rights or standing attached to it but be something spiritual, recognized or not by the various religions (or not entered into at all). Then one religion may recognize "gay marriage" or "poligamy" and another religion may declare it abomination.

Wow, that's exactly my thoughts on the subject, but expressed 10x better than I could come up with. Thanks.
The one problem I see with it is the possibility of using civil unions as a tax dodge, eg. everyone in company X is civil-unioned to each other, so they can give "gifts" to each other without paying taxes on it. Or to not have to testify against each other in court.

[Agnostic_and_Proud]

I can't see any reason to ban Same Sex Marriage. You'd think people would have better things to do then to stick their noses in other peoples business.

Some people seem to think the world revolves around them and their beliefs.

[figuer]

Spain recently legalized homo marriage....

The homo marriage of a t.v. celebrity was covered by all society magazines.

The duchess of Medina-Sidonia married her lesbian lover in 'articulo mortis'...she inherited the title of dowager duchess.

So civilized...

[curby]

I'm against gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the issue:


Homosexuality is icky, and homosexuals are reprobates and allowing marriage would be tantamount to approving of the homosexual lifestyle, which, as has been said, is icky.

That's it. Distill any argument against homosexual marriage down to its pure form, and the above is what you are actually being told.


Yes, I think that there is a lot of truth to this, but I think this is not as childish an argument as you make it seem.

I'm not a painter, but I don't find people who paint to be "icky". I don't skateboard, but I don't find people who skateboard to be "icky". I play chess, but non-chess players don't see this as "icky". I'm not homosexual, yet I do find homosexuals and homosexuality itself "icky". This is known as "homophobia", but it's not a word I like since it's not a fear of homosexual(s)(ity), so I'll use the childish word "icky" which I think captures the essence of the emotion better.

So why is homosexuality different from other activities? Why does it engender this disquiet, this "ickiness"? I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes:

1. The taboo against homosexuality seems to transcend most cultures and most time periods (it usually only appears during the latter, decadent times of a civilization). It doesn't seem to be a cultural construct. If it were, then why would it be shared so consistently across so many different cultures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

2. It doesn't really make much sense for homosexual urges to evolve. If you think about it, none of our ancestors were exclusively homosexual. So none of the genes I carry have ever been in an exclusively homosexual body. It's possible that homosexuals would care for their family members (who carried the dormant homosexual-urge-inducing genes) who were heterosexual and thus indirectly increase the survival of their genes, but this seems a bit far-fetched to me (though it would be interesting to do a study to see whether homosexuals cared more for sibilings than heterosexuals). The homosexual couple would have to devote themselves to their siblings to make up for the fact that they are not producing offspring in order for this to be an evolutionarily viable strategy. But which siblings (from which family)? There would be a conflict between the partners in the homosexual relationship, each wanting to devote themselves to only their family. A better reproductive strategy would be to be a spinster, not pair-bond at all, and spend all your time at home caring for your siblings.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for heterosexual urges and anti-homosexual urges to evolve. They're there to make sure you bond with a partner of the opposite sex so that you can produce offspring and pass on your genes.

3. Homosexuality seems to be very environment dependent. If you put people of the same sex in close confinement for extended periods of time, the rate of homosexuality skyrockets. Compare the rate of homosexuality in the general population to that in prisons, the army, the navy, etc. If homosexuality is controlled strictly by the genes, why is it so environment dependent?

I think the observational and experimental evidence (though it isn't conclusive by any stretch of the imagination) points to the fact that anti-homosexual urges are probably evolved and hard-wired to our genes, and homosexual urges themselves are probably mostly environmental.

I think that homophobia, the "icky" feeling associated with homosexuality is very similar to other social taboos such as incest or cannibalism. Both of which engender similar feelings of disquiet, both of which are shared in most cultures, both of which are undoubtedly genetically based, and for both of which there is no real philosophical/moral reason (ignoring our evolutionary heritage) against.

Our "natural habitat" (the environment in which our genes have spent the most time in) is roaming the African savanna in small (50-200) bands of hunter-gatherers. Imagine such a tribe of unsophisticated but essentially modern people who are all kinsmen. There would be no privacy in such a tribe and no way to hide your relationships. Can you imagine a homosexual relationship taking place? It's possible, but it really stretches my imagination that such primitive people would tolerate homosexuality.

So my first argument against homosexual marriage is that it is "unnatural". I can argue why homosexuality being "unnatural" is reason to oppose homosexual marriage, but my post is getting a bit long-winded as is, so I'll put that in a later post if anyone's interested.

------------------

My second argument is related to the first one. As I argued above, we all have a genetically induced desire to form a stable, pair-bond with the member of the opposite sex, procreate, and raise our offspring (of course the environment is important for the expression of these genes). Marriage is a recognition of this. Recognizing homosexual marriage which, as I argued above, is an environmentally driven misfiring of the same genes, dilutes the meaning of what marriage is "supposed" to be. I'll give you an example of what I mean:

If you ignore our evolutionary heritage, then there is no real reason to deny homosexuals marriage. But then there is no reason to deny marriage between a son and his mother (assuming he has had a vasectomy, etc), between a father and his daughter, between brother and sister. But then there is no reason to stop at relationships involving only two people. Why not have a 3-way marriage? Or a 4-way marriage? But why stop at fully-connected graphs, why not have a 4 person "chain" (e.g. A is married to B, B is married to C, C is married to D, but D isn't married to A)? Your imagination is the limit, and there's no reason to deny any of these marriages. So marriage ends up being a legal contract about people's finances and essentially loses its meaning. I think this is what people intuitively feel when they say that homosexual unions destroy the sanctity of marriage.

-------------------------


1. Naturalistic fallacy, both in invoking "most legal documents" and "the animal kingdom" (in which, by the way, homosexuality is rampant, not that it matters).


Really? Rampant? Could you provide links/papers/etc showing this? I would be very interested to read about this since I can't figure out how this kind of behaviour could evolve. I guess it could happen in some social species as a means of bonding within the tribe, but this should really be the exception among species, not the rule.

[Sabine Grant]

I'm against gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the issue:


Homosexuality is icky, and homosexuals are reprobates and allowing marriage would be tantamount to approving of the homosexual lifestyle, which, as has been said, is icky.

That's it. Distill any argument against homosexual marriage down to its pure form, and the above is what you are actually being told.


Yes, I think that there is a lot of truth to this, but I think this is not as childish an argument as you make it seem.

I'm not a painter, but I don't find people who paint to be "icky". I don't skateboard, but I don't find people who skateboard to be "icky". I play chess, but non-chess players don't see this as "icky". I'm not homosexual, yet I do find homosexuals and homosexuality itself "icky". This is known as "homophobia", but it's not a word I like since it's not a fear of homosexual(s)(ity), so I'll use the childish word "icky" which I think captures the essence of the emotion better.

So why is homosexuality different from other activities? Why does it engender this disquiet, this "ickiness"? I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes:

1. The taboo against homosexuality seems to transcend most cultures and most time periods (it usually only appears during the latter, decadent times of a civilization). It doesn't seem to be a cultural construct. If it were, then why would it be shared so consistently across so many different cultures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world I suppose the same question could be asked of religious beliefs of all sorts who rely on the notion of a deity's will to have created two genders. Male and female. That the purpose of unions between human beings is to procreate. An argument easily defeated as same gender male couples may use a surrogate and one may be biological parent and same gender female couples may use artificial insemination, one becoming a biological parent.


2. It doesn't really make much sense for homosexual urges to evolve. If you think about it, none of our ancestors were exclusively homosexual. How do you know that ?

So none of the genes I carry have ever been in an exclusively homosexual body. Even if anyone had claimed that homosexuality is genetic, (which as a reminder research on that topic has not concluded that homosexuality is a matter of genetic transmission), you would have to provide evidence to support your earlier claim that "none of our ancestors were exclusively homosexual".

It's possible that homosexuals would care for their family members (who carried the dormant homosexual-urge-inducing genes) who were heterosexual and thus indirectly increase the survival of their genes, but this seems a bit far-fetched to me (though it would be interesting to do a study to see whether homosexuals cared more for sibilings than heterosexuals). The homosexual couple would have to devote themselves to their siblings to make up for the fact that they are not producing offspring in order for this to be an evolutionarily viable strategy. But which siblings (from which family)? There would be a conflict between the partners in the homosexual relationship, each wanting to devote themselves to only their family. A better reproductive strategy would be to be a spinster, not pair-bond at all, and spend all your time at home caring for your siblings.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for heterosexual urges and anti-homosexual urges to evolve. They're there to make sure you bond with a partner of the opposite sex so that you can produce offspring and pass on your genes. Evolution with a goal to "make sure that..."?

3. Homosexuality seems to be very environment dependent. If you put people of the same sex in close confinement for extended periods of time, the rate of homosexuality skyrockets. Compare the rate of homosexuality in the general population to that in prisons, the army, the navy, etc. If homosexuality is controlled strictly by the genes, why is it so environment dependent? From which source did you draw the assumption that homosexuality has been defined as genetic? I appreciate your efforts here but you are relying on quite a few assertive claims. Further, there is no such thing as "homosexuality in prisons" but sexual assaults on inmates by other inmates. Males do not become homosexual because they are in close confinement with other males. You seem to define homosexuality as a sexual rapport when it encompasses mental and emotional compatibility between two persons of the same gender.

What numbers can you provide of males and females who joined the Armed Forces and became homosexual? Probably none. And that because of the DNADNT policy. So I am not sure how you can (again) draw such conclusions.

Will you please define for me what you understand homosexuality to be?

I think the observational and experimental evidence (though it isn't conclusive by any stretch of the imagination) points to the fact that anti-homosexual urges are probably evolved and hard-wired to our genes, and homosexual urges themselves are probably mostly environmental.

I think that homophobia, the "icky" feeling associated with homosexuality is very similar to other social taboos such as incest or cannibalism. Both of which engender similar feelings of disquiet, both of which are shared in most cultures, both of which are undoubtedly genetically based, and for both of which there is no real philosophical/moral reason (ignoring our evolutionary heritage) against. The "icky" one experiences towards cannibalism is based on the reality that there must be a victim (the human who will end up as dinner). Harm is inevitable. How does that compare with two adults involved into a mutually consenting relationship based on mental and emotional harmony? There is no harm resulting (to either party) from a same gender relationship. Have you considered that?

Our "natural habitat" (the environment in which our genes have spent the most time in) is roaming the African savanna in small (50-200) bands of hunter-gatherers. Imagine such a tribe of unsophisticated but essentially modern people who are all kinsmen. There would be no privacy in such a tribe and no way to hide your relationships. Can you imagine a homosexual relationship taking place? It's possible, but it really stretches my imagination that such primitive people would tolerate homosexuality. Do you have data based on anthropology supporting your evaluations? I was born and raised in Africa. Bi sexuality is not uncommon among "primitive" cultures.

So my first argument against homosexual marriage is that it is "unnatural". I can argue why homosexuality being "unnatural" is reason to oppose homosexual marriage, but my post is getting a bit long-winded as is, so I'll put that in a later post if anyone's interested. Dolphins would disagree with you as it is perfectly natural for them to engage in same gender foreplays. And ones they do not have to contend with other members of their communities frowning at them.

------------------

My second argument is related to the first one. As I argued above, we all have a genetically induced desire to form a stable, pair-bond with the member of the opposite sex, procreate, and raise our offspring (of course the environment is important for the expression of these genes). Marriage is a recognition of this. Non it is not. Marriage does not require procreation. There is no requirement in our culture for any couple applying for a wedding license to procreate. And no we are not "all" genetically driven to procreate. In fact many of us have made the choice to not procreate yet have a mate. The socialization needs of our species is not to be reduced to procreation. Such "procreation" reasoning echoes religious notions.


Recognizing homosexual marriage which, as I argued above, is an environmentally driven misfiring of the same genes, dilutes the meaning of what marriage is "supposed" to be. But your arguing relies on the assertion that science has declared homosexuality to be related to a genetic phenomenon.


I'll give you an example of what I mean:

If you ignore our evolutionary heritage, then there is no real reason to deny homosexuals marriage. But then there is no reason to deny marriage between a son and his mother (assuming he has had a vasectomy, etc), between a father and his daughter, between brother and sister. But then there is no reason to stop at relationships involving only two people. Why not have a 3-way marriage? Or a 4-way marriage? But why stop at fully-connected graphs, why not have a 4 person "chain" (e.g. A is married to B, B is married to C, C is married to D, but D isn't married to A)? Your imagination is the limit, and there's no reason to deny any of these marriages. So marriage ends up being a legal contract about people's finances and essentially loses its meaning. I think this is what people intuitively feel when they say that homosexual unions destroy the sanctity of marriage. Same gender relationships do not harm or destroy anything. But they do challenge the notion that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. And that heterosexuality is the sole acceptable and natural sexual identity. Which as it was mentioned earlier, homosexuality is not exclusive to our species.

-------------------------


1. Naturalistic fallacy, both in invoking "most legal documents" and "the animal kingdom" (in which, by the way, homosexuality is rampant, not that it matters).


Really? Rampant? Could you provide links/papers/etc showing this? I would be very interested to read about this since I can't figure out how this kind of behaviour could evolve. I guess it could happen in some social species as a means of bonding within the tribe, but this should really be the exception among species, not the rule. Ah... you envision homosexuality as a "behavior". There we go. That is the problem. Have you considered that it is an identity and not a "behavior"? If you accept the notion that ethnic groups are not behavioral groups but identity groups, why do you single out homosexuals as behavior groups? Here are a couple of links demonstrating the occurrence (quite frequent in fact) of same gender rapports in other species:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

(note that we are speaking here of 1500 species)

[AtheistVirus]

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398

http://www.amazon.com/Homosexual-Behaviour-Animals-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0521864461/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_1_txt/102-3481686-0680924?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_r=06CDXMF8BT252W7HYGG6&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_i=0312192398

[curby]

I suppose the same question could be asked of religious beliefs of all sorts who rely on the notion of a deity's will to have created two genders. Male and female. That the purpose of unions between human beings is to procreate. An argument easily defeated as same gender male couples may use a surrogate and one may be biological parent and same gender female couples may use artificial insemination, one becoming a biological parent.


That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying that there is some cosmic purpose to the union of two humans and that homosexuality is somehow violating the "rules".

The point of the first part of my post was to make an argument that homosexual pair-bonding is not a naturally evolved trait in humans. Or more correctly, that there was no positive selection pressure for the evolution of homosexual pair-bonding in humans (nor probably for most animals).



2. It doesn't really make much sense for homosexual urges to evolve. If you think about it, none of our ancestors were exclusively homosexual.


How do you know that ?

Even if anyone had claimed that homosexuality is genetic, (which as a reminder research on that topic has not concluded that homosexuality is a matter of genetic transmission), you would have to provide evidence to support your earlier claim that "none of our ancestors were exclusively homosexual".


I think this is an issue of miscommunication. By "ancestors" you mean forebears, while I meant it in the literal sense: the people directly in my (or your) line of descent.

What I was saying was that if anyone traces their genetic history back through their ancestors they will never find anyone who was exclusively homosexual (if they were, then they wouldn't have produced any offspring and so wouldn't be an ancestor!).

This is a powerful if slightly misleading mental image. A better way to think about it is in terms of evolutionarily stable strategies: is an evolutionarily stable strategy where a gene induces (or increases the likelihood) of homosexual pair-bonding likely or even possible? I wouldn't rule it out, but it seems unlikely to me (I'll address the issue of homosexual behaviour in animals later in my post).


Evolution with a goal to "make sure that..."?


Not quite sure what you mean here.


From which source did you draw the assumption that homosexuality has been defined as genetic? I appreciate your efforts here but you are relying on quite a few assertive claims.


It's not really a source; it's just that some people think that homosexuality is a normal evolved trait like brown hair or green eyes or whatever. I was just making an argument that it's not.


Further, there is no such thing as "homosexuality in prisons" but sexual assaults on inmates by other inmates. Males do not become homosexual because they are in close confinement with other males. You seem to define homosexuality as a sexual rapport when it encompasses mental and emotional compatibility between two persons of the same gender.

What numbers can you provide of males and females who joined the Armed Forces and became homosexual? Probably none. And that because of the DNADNT policy. So I am not sure how you can (again) draw such conclusions.

Will you please define for me what you understand homosexuality to be?


You're right. Upon reflection, I think I was confusing homosexual behaviour with homosexual pair-bonding. Two quite different things. Since this thread is about homosexual marriage, only homosexual pair-bonding is relevant to the discussion. So I would like to withdraw my comment about prisons and the armed forces.

The homosexuality I'm talking about and that is relevant to this thread is homosexual pair-bonding: the formation of a stable, homosexual couple that is analogous to a stable, heterosexual couple.


The "icky" one experiences towards cannibalism is based on the reality that there must be a victim (the human who will end up as dinner). Harm is inevitable. How does that compare with two adults involved into a mutually consenting relationship based on mental and emotional harmony? There is no harm resulting (to either party) from a same gender relationship. Have you considered that?


What I meant was cannibalism of a person who was already dead (from natural causes for example). No one is harmed. The person being eaten is already dead, and the people cannibalizing the person get a good meal. Yet most people feel profoundly uncomfortable when considering such an option. Except for a few cultures in the world, people only resort to cannibalism during extreme hunger (e.g. siege of Leningrad, siege of Stalingrad, artificial famine in the Ukraine, etc.). I don't think you can explain the "ick" factor by saying the person being cannibalized is harmed. People are still uncomfortable when the person is already dead.

Incest is another good example of what I'm talking about. Assuming that there is a guarantee that no offspring are produced (vasectomy, tubes tied, etc.) and that the act is mutually consensual, it's hard to find anyone harmed by this. Yet people still feel the "ick" factor about incest between son and mother for example.


Do you have data based on anthropology supporting your evaluations? I was born and raised in Africa. Bi sexuality is not uncommon among "primitive" cultures.


They weren't "evaluations", more like speculations. The thing is that there really isn't any anthropological data for societies in the "natural" state. It's hard to find a hunter-gatherer society with Stone Age technology leading a nomadic life over the African savannah where the population density is as it was when there were only several million people in the whole world, during a time when reliable records were kept.


Dolphins would disagree with you as it is perfectly natural for them to engage in same gender foreplays. And ones they do not have to contend with other members of their communities frowning at them.


I'll address the issue of homosexual behaviour in animals later in my post


Non it is not. Marriage does not require procreation. There is no requirement in our culture for any couple applying for a wedding license to procreate. And no we are not "all" genetically driven to procreate. In fact many of us have made the choice to not procreate yet have a mate. The socialization needs of our species is not to be reduced to procreation. Such "procreation" reasoning echoes religious notions.


There seems to be some confusion here. Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not trying to say that marriage requires procreation. What I was saying is that the desire to procreate is hard-wired in our genes and it is this desire that underlies the concept of marriage. Here's a more concrete example of what I mean:

Our genes "want" to use us to spread copies of themselves into future generations. They can't directly encode this goal into our brains as it is far too complex and abstract. Instead, they encode simple goals/preferences such as: sex is good, a stable heterosexual partner is good, family is good, having children is good, having successful children is good, etc. Because these simple goals are only an approximation of the genes' "goal" there is a discrepancy between what the genes want and what the brain wants. An example of such a conflict is the genes "wanting" procreation and the brain only wanting sex resulting in such inventions as condoms.

What I was saying is that marriage stems from our hard-wired desire to find a partner which stems from the genes' "goal" to procreate. (I know that genes aren't conscious and don't actually want anything. Anthropomorphizing genes is just a convenient shorthand).


But your arguing relies on the assertion that science has declared homosexuality to be related to a genetic phenomenon.


What I was arguing for is that the desire to heterosexually pair-bond is hard-wired in our genes, while the desire to homosexually pair-bond is not (on the contrary, that the desire NOT to homosexually pair-bond is hard-wired in us). I think that homosexual pair-bonding is a result of the genes for heterosexually pair-bonding misfiring.


Same gender relationships do not harm or destroy anything. But they do challenge the notion that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. And that heterosexuality is the sole acceptable and natural sexual identity. Which as it was mentioned earlier, homosexuality is not exclusive to our species.


I agree that a homosexual relationship isn't harmful to heterosexual relationships. But the concept of homosexual marriage may be harmful to the concept of heterosexual marriage.

We don't marry to procreate (usually). We marry because we want to. But we want to because our genes want to procreate.

You dodged my question of where one should draw the line of what kind of marriage should be allowed and what kind shouldn't. Incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? Arbitrary relationships? There's an important problem here. I see only 3 possible options:

1. There is no line because no marriages should be allowed.
2. There is no line because all possible kinds of marriages should be allowed.
3. There is a line somewhere along the spectrum.

Option 1 isn't palatable to most people because the concept of marriage is precious to them.

Option 2 isn't much better because in this case the concept of marriage becomes nothing more than a bureaucratic, legal formality that has no real meaning.

So I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. But where? I think the only sensible place to put it is where it was genetically "intended" (sorry, couldn't come up with a better word). If you draw the line elsewhere, then you have to justify why you exclude one group of people versus another group.


Ah... you envision homosexuality as a "behavior". There we go. That is the problem. Have you considered that it is an identity and not a "behavior"? If you accept the notion that ethnic groups are not behavioral groups but identity groups, why do you single out homosexuals as behavior groups? Here are a couple of links demonstrating the occurrence (quite frequent in fact) of same gender rapports in other species:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

(note that we are speaking here of 1500 species)

I don't think it's controversial to consider pair-bonding a behaviour. It's the homosexual pair-bonding behaviour that I'm interested in/am talking about.

Thank you for the links; they were quite interesting.

Some social animals engage in homosexual behaviour to manage/reinforce/change the relationships/bonds within the social group. For example, conflict resolution via sex in Bonobo chimpanzees. But note that the animals that engage in such homosexual behaviour are not exclusively homosexual. Essentially the animals have evolved a secondary use for sex other than for procreation. I don't think that humans ever used sex in this way (for at least the last several hundred thousand years). If we did, then there probably wouldn't be such a taboo against it. Besides, humans like to resolve their conflicts with weapons.

Anyway, this kind of homosexual behaviour is beside the point because it's not the pair-bonding kind.

In the case of homosexual pair-bonding behaviour in animals, I think that this is a case of heterosexual pair-bonding genes misfiring. I'm really struggling to figure out an evolutionarily stable strategy where such behaviour could evolve. The best I could come up with was the black-headed gulls (where two "lesbian" gulls pair-bond and care for the eggs/young of one of the gulls):

The foster mother gull loses out (genetically) in this relationship because she is caring for the unrelated offspring of another gull. The only way this could work is if there were a quid pro quo arrangement (I'll help take care of your offspring this year if you help me with mine next year). But the gull whose turn it is to be the foster mother is better of reneging on the deal, pair-bonding with a male, and raising her own offspring again. The only way this kind of deal would be stable is if there were a significant chance that there would be no male available next year. This could only happen if there were proportionally fewer males than females in the population. But then in such a case, the best strategy for the mother to employ would be to have only sons (e.g. by laying an excess of eggs and killing all the female chicks/not feeding them) who do better reproductively in such a situation than females. But then the balance of males and females would be restored back to 50/50 and the quid pro quo arrangement would again not be worth it.

I think it's far more likely that the female gull has hard-coded into her genes the desire to pair-bond with a male, mate, and take care of her offspring. And though she was unable to find a suitable mate, the strong drive to pair-bond and raise offspring remains. To satisfy this drive, the gull finds the closest substitute and pair-bonds with another female gull. She pair-bonds homosexually because of a misfiring of her natural drive to pair-bond heterosexually.

---------------------------

Sorry for the long post. Let me just summarize my points:

1st part of argument 1:
- Heterosexual pair-bonding behaviour is hard-wired in our genes
- Homosexual pair-bonding behaviour is not hard-wired in our genes
- Anti-homosexual pair-bonding behaviour is probably hard-wired (the "ick" factor)
- Homosexual pair-bonding is due to misfiring of Heterosexual pair-bonding genes

argument 2
- A line needs to be drawn between what kind of marriage is allowed and what kind isn't
- The natural place to put the line is what the genes for pair-bonding actually code for
- If the line is drawn to include mis-firings of said genes, then it raises the question of why other mis-firings such as incestuous relationships are not included

[figuer]

The point of the first part of my post was to make an argument that homosexual pair-bonding is not a naturally evolved trait in humans. Or more correctly, that there was no positive selection pressure for the evolution of homosexual pair-bonding in humans (nor probably for most animals).You seem to be forgetting that in many, many animal species not all members reproduce, but rather their reproductive function is helping in the rearing of those members who do. Thus evolving homosexuality would be helpful in that kind of animal society, since it would reduce the stress of competition, and facilitate adjustment to non-reproductive roles.

To claim, that 'homosexual pair-bonding is not a naturally evolved trait' is simply absurd. If individuals have such a trait (as I do since as far as I can remember), then it is certainly 'naturally evolved', as no other possibility exist, since 'social indoctrination' was towards heterosexuality.

[general_koffi]

I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes:

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

It's a cultural disease, just like racism, xenophobia or anti-semitism. When Hitler was stirring up hatred against Jews, was he appealing to nordic genetics, or centuries of Christian hate and persecution?

I don't know if you're really from Greece, but you should know that homosexuality was virtually embraced in Hellenic culture, and the Romans weren't particularly adverse to either until the cult of Christianity infected their Empire.

There is absolutely no evidence for biological homophobia. It's a cousin of any other cultural hatred.

[Acetylhexene]

I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes
Tell that to the homosexuals. :rolleyes:

I've liked looking at naked men since I was about 4 years old.

[figuer]

I've liked looking at naked men since I was about 4 years old.Me too.

[seanc]

<snip>
They weren't "evaluations", more like speculations...

So you're basing your objection to the lifestyle of hundreds of millions of people on speculations backed up by no evidence?

Also, even if homosexuality was an exclusively genetic trait (which it most likely isn't... check the APA's (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses) research into it), there are countless instances of homosexuals marrying with the opposite sex and procreating to avoid discrimination, and in many cases, punishment. People going through the "ex-gay" ministries now would be an excellent example. Once again, that only matters if it was purely a genetic trait.

Oh... it wasn't until 8 or 9 for me. I was mesmerized by the cover art (http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/af/da/6a021363ada076a66728f010.L.jpg) on A Wrinkle In Time.

[Vampyroteuthis]

abolish state-recognized marriage, replace it with civil unions (which are purely legal and most people have no problem with), and let couples pursue their own ceremonies at their behest.

:notworthy:

[Vampyroteuthis]

What I was saying was that if anyone traces their genetic history back through their ancestors they will never find anyone who was exclusively homosexual (if they were, then they wouldn't have produced any offspring and so wouldn't be an ancestor!).


Are you serious about this comment?! Here is only one instance of where that statement is completely wrong.

My uncle was married to a woman for 25 years and they had 3 children when my uncle decided he was tired of living a lie and ran off to live with another man. So if my cousins trace their ancestory they will find homosexual ancestors.

I'm sure my uncle is not the only instance of this happening in the universe.

[enoch007]

the tide is quietly turning



Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.
By MICHAEL GORMLEY – 7 hours ago

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Like all puritan crusades (may the gods damn all puritans] this one is slowly turning on issues of common sense and tolerance.

does anyone else recognize the great debt of thanks the west owes radical islam?? If they did not push religious zealotry to an extreme the home grown american fundamentalists and their fringe terror outfits might still appear reasonable to some. Jihad works (just not the way they imagined)

[Nice Squirrel]

I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes
Tell that to the homosexuals. :rolleyes:

I've liked looking at naked men since I was about 4 years old.

Yucky Icky... Boys are gross. It's not a choice. It is a fact. Judicial robes are the best attire for them. :Cheeky:

Seriously, for straight people it is often not a choice.

[figuer]

What I was saying was that if anyone traces their genetic history back through their ancestors they will never find anyone who was exclusively homosexual .
... that statement is completely wrong....I'm sure my uncle is not the only instance of this happening in the universe.Well said...this curby is a rather ignorant fellow...my last two (homo)sexual liasons have been with married men...with children. Yes, he says "exclusively homosexual", but having sex with a women is not that difficult even if there is no real attraction...it is equivalent to masturbating (except that there is a vagina involved).

[Zenaphobe]

I found this article pretty interesting, it argues that sexuality is not an "either/or" thing, but exists on a continuum. It looked pretty reasonable.

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20Do%20Gays%20Have%20a%20Choice%20-%20SciAm%20MIND%20-%203-06.pdf

[purple_kathryn]

Were Adam & Eve even married? What with there being no priests etc?

[jess]

NY news. (http://www.wgrz.com/MyWGRZ/Email_article.aspx?storyid=58261)

[Vampyroteuthis]

Were Adam & Eve even married? What with there being no priests etc?


They were married by bible god and snake devil. :devil1:

[enoch007]

Were Adam & Eve even married? What with there being no priests etc?



Adam could not formally marry Eve because Eve was a clone.

[djrafikie]

I'm bisexual, and love looking at and sleeping with other women, I have had, and could have in the future, deeply loving and rewarding relationships with other women.

Same for men.

reproduction doesn't come into this at all. I am equally happy to adopt or raise my own kids. It's more accurate to describe any instinct to procreate as an instinct to parent, and some people who are perfectly straight don't have any instinct to parent.not all people are as easily threatened or as simple as homophobes.

[Archimedes]

That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying that there is some cosmic purpose to the union of two humans and that homosexuality is somehow violating the "rules".

The point of the first part of my post was to make an argument that homosexual pair-bonding is not a naturally evolved trait in humans. Or more correctly, that there was no positive selection pressure for the evolution of homosexual pair-bonding in humans (nor probably for most animals).Even if it's granted that what you say here is correct, how exactly is it an argument against gay marriage?

Do you think that anything deemed to be "unnatural" should be illegal? I'm sure you can think of all sorts of weird and wonderful things that humans do that weren't positively selected for, but that you don't think should be illegal as a result.

The "unnatural" argument against homosexuality seems to hinge on the idea that if something is unnatural it is therefore immoral or to be frowned upon. And when argued against, it quickly becomes a case of special pleading where other "unnatural" behaviours are excused for a variety of ad-hoc reasons.

What I was saying was that if anyone traces their genetic history back through their ancestors they will never find anyone who was exclusively homosexual (if they were, then they wouldn't have produced any offspring and so wouldn't be an ancestor!).Yeah, but so what? If I trace back all my ancestors I'm pretty sure I won't find a single one that had an artificial pacemaker installed, but that's no reason to declare them illegal or to frown upon them. Or are you going to diss pacemakers as well for being completely "unnatural"?

It's not really a source; it's just that some people think that homosexuality is a normal evolved trait like brown hair or green eyes or whatever. I was just making an argument that it's not.I think it's irrelevant. Too much time is spent on debating whether it's purely genetic, partly genetic, determined in the womb, determined by cultural factors, your position in your family, or it's simply "chosen", etc. etc. Who cares? To me, homosexuality is no more or less moral than heterosexuality, regardless of the reasons why someone might be gay.

Incest is another good example of what I'm talking about. Assuming that there is a guarantee that no offspring are produced (vasectomy, tubes tied, etc.) and that the act is mutually consensual, it's hard to find anyone harmed by this. Yet people still feel the "ick" factor about incest between son and mother for example.Yes, but the "ick" factor should never be an issue when deciding whether or not something should be illegal. I think incest is weird and creepy, but I can't think of an outright reason to declare it immoral or that it should necessarily be illegal. Just because I find it yucky and disgusting is no reason for a legal ban on it.

Is extending any legal rights that go with heterosexual couples getting married to homosexuals going to negatively affect hetero couples other than the fact that a lot of them just don't like the idea?

[Godless11]

My opinion: With so much hate in the world why would anyone be against love? Yeah, that sounds kinda hippie-ish but seriously, as long as both parties are consensual then what else matters?

[Acetylhexene]

Seriously, for straight people it is often not a choice.

And you think it's in any way different for gay people? :Cheeky:

[curby]

You seem to be forgetting that in many, many animal species not all members reproduce, but rather their reproductive function is helping in the rearing of those members who do. Thus evolving homosexuality would be helpful in that kind of animal society, since it would reduce the stress of competition, and facilitate adjustment to non-reproductive roles.

To claim, that 'homosexual pair-bonding is not a naturally evolved trait' is simply absurd. If individuals have such a trait (as I do since as far as I can remember), then it is certainly 'naturally evolved', as no other possibility exist, since 'social indoctrination' was towards heterosexuality.


Well, I did address this in my post. I realize that not all animals reproduce, but instead increase their genetic fitness by caring for siblings who do. This kind of strategy only works if the animal in question cares for close relatives (e.g. siblings). What I said before was that although this may be a viable genetic strategy, it does not provide positive selection pressure for homosexual pair-bonding (there would be a genetic conflict between the two pair-bonded partners, each wanting to care exclusively for their own family; the selection pressure, if any, would be for spinsterhood/not pair-bonding at all rather than for homosexual pair-bonding).

"Reducing the stress of competition" in an animal society is a group selection explanation, and I don't think it holds water. The genes coding for "reducing the stress of competition" would quickly get selected out of the population.

What I was saying was that homosexual pair-bonding results not from genes that directly code for it, but rather from a misfiring of heterosexual pair-bonding genes (which evolved for obvious reasons).


Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

It's a cultural disease, just like racism, xenophobia or anti-semitism. When Hitler was stirring up hatred against Jews, was he appealing to nordic genetics, or centuries of Christian hate and persecution?

I don't know if you're really from Greece, but you should know that homosexuality was virtually embraced in Hellenic culture, and the Romans weren't particularly adverse to either until the cult of Christianity infected their Empire.

There is absolutely no evidence for biological homophobia. It's a cousin of any other cultural hatred.


Strictly cultural prohibitions tend to be localized to only specific cultures. For example, the taboo against eating beef is only really present in India, while the taboo against eating pork is only really present in Islamic countries (Middle East, North Africa), etc. But the taboo against homosexuality, like the taboos against incest or cannibalism seems to be present in most cultures across the world.



I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes

Tell that to the homosexuals.


Not everyone has children. That doesn't make the fact that the desire to have children is hard-wired in our genes untrue.


I've liked looking at naked men since I was about 4 years old.



Me too.



Oh... it wasn't until 8 or 9 for me. I was mesmerized by the cover art on A Wrinkle In Time.


I find it interesting that sexual orientation would become apparent before the onset of puberty. But this is all off topic anyway.


So you're basing your objection to the lifestyle of hundreds of millions of people on speculations backed up by no evidence?

Also, even if homosexuality was an exclusively genetic trait (which it most likely isn't... check the APA's research into it), there are countless instances of homosexuals marrying with the opposite sex and procreating to avoid discrimination, and in many cases, punishment. People going through the "ex-gay" ministries now would be an excellent example. Once again, that only matters if it was purely a genetic trait.


I'm not objecting (yet). Right now I'm trying to argue that homosexual pair-bonding was not evolutionarily selected for. Let's deal with what's objectively true/not true before we get to right/wrong, good/bad, what should/should not be done.

It seems obvious to me that a pair-bonded homosexual has to be genetically less fit than a pair-bonded heterosexual. On average, they would have to produce fewer offspring than the heterosexual. This means that there is a negative selection pressure against homosexual pair-bonding, and hence my assertion that homosexual pair-bonding was not selected for, anti-homosexual pair-bonding impulses (homophobia) would be positively selected for, and homosexual pair-bonding must be a result of heterosexual pair-bonding genes misfiring.


Are you serious about this comment?! Here is only one instance of where that statement is completely wrong.

My uncle was married to a woman for 25 years and they had 3 children when my uncle decided he was tired of living a lie and ran off to live with another man. So if my cousins trace their ancestory they will find homosexual ancestors.

I'm sure my uncle is not the only instance of this happening in the universe.



Well said...this curby is a rather ignorant fellow...my last two (homo)sexual liasons have been with married men...with children. Yes, he says "exclusively homosexual", but having sex with a women is not that difficult even if there is no real attraction...it is equivalent to masturbating (except that there is a vagina involved).


Let me rephrase what I said. If anyone looks back at their ancestors, they will never find one who only had homosexual sex (not counting modern times where artificial fertilization can happen). I don't know why you're so hung up on this minor aspect of my post. This really wasn't the main point of the post.


Even if it's granted that what you say here is correct, how exactly is it an argument against gay marriage?

Do you think that anything deemed to be "unnatural" should be illegal? I'm sure you can think of all sorts of weird and wonderful things that humans do that weren't positively selected for, but that you don't think should be illegal as a result.

The "unnatural" argument against homosexuality seems to hinge on the idea that if something is unnatural it is therefore immoral or to be frowned upon. And when argued against, it quickly becomes a case of special pleading where other "unnatural" behaviours are excused for a variety of ad-hoc reasons.


I haven't gotten there yet. Right now I just want to focus on establishing that homosexual pair-bonding was not positively selected for.

------------------

I'll restate the points I'm trying to make it easier to respond to my post (rather than nitpicking unimportant parts of it):

- A homosexually pair-bonded individual is genetically less fit than a heterosexually pair-bonded one. This means that homosexual pair-bonding was not selected for while anti-homosexual pair-bonding impulses (homophobia) was. Furthermore I contend that homosexual pair-bonding is a misfiring of heterosexual pair-bonding genes.

- The second, more important point, that everyone has avoided answering is the question of where to draw the line between what kind of marriages are allowable and what kind aren't.

If all possible marriages are allowed, then incestuous, 3-way, 4-way, arbitrary graph-way marriages are all possible. In this case marriage becomes a meaningless, legal contract. If no marriages are allowed then the result is pretty much the same.

So it seems that a line needs to be drawn between what kind of marriage is allowable and what isn't in order to preserve any kind of meaning to what marriage is. But then where should the line be drawn? I contend that this should be based on our genetic heritage. If you want to ignore our genetic heritage, then where would the line be drawn and why? Why exclude incestuous marriages (assuming no reproduction is possible)? Polygamous marriages? etc.

[Acetylhexene]

I think it's because distaste for homosexuality is hard-wired into our genes
Tell that to the homosexuals.
Not everyone has children. That doesn't make the fact that the desire to have children is hard-wired in our genes untrue.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what comment you're replying to?

I find it interesting that sexual orientation would become apparent before the onset of puberty.
When did you first realise you were heterosexual, then?

[curby]

Not everyone has children. That doesn't make the fact that the desire to have children is hard-wired in our genes untrue.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what comment you're replying to?


What I thought you were saying is that not everyone feels distaste/ickiness/homophobia/whatever you want to call it about homosexuality. This includes at least homosexuals themselves. And I pointed out that the fact that not everyone expresses this distaste does not invalidate my claim that it is genetically based, and I gave an analogous example of wanting to have children.


I find it interesting that sexual orientation would become apparent before the onset of puberty.
When did you first realise you were heterosexual, then?


Children don't really show much sexual interest before puberty. Sexual orientation is determined by which sex you show sexual interest in/are sexually attracted to. So I would guess that this would be hard to determine before puberty when there is little sexual interest at all. But I really don't want to de-rail the thread by discussing this particular issue.

[AtheistVirus]

I knew I was gay long before puberty as well as all gay persons I ever met and talked about that.

Saying homosexuality is not genetic is insane gibberish.

Sexual orientation is determined by which sex you show sexual interest in/are sexually attracted to. So I would guess that this would be hard to determine before puberty when there is little sexual interest at all.

And this doesn't make any sense,<edited>

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I knew I was gay long before puberty as well as all gay persons I ever met and talked about that.


I didn't feel it until puberty. That was really confusing. But I never ever felt heterosexual urges at any period of my life.


Saying homosexuality is not genetic is insane gibberish.


I don't think it's insane. What I do find insane is insisting on it because the person in question doesn't stand it, and worse, if s/he puts a god to vouch for thier homophobia, especially if they select which god commands to follow according to thier cultural hatreds.

[Sabine Grant]

What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what comment you're replying to?


What I thought you were saying is that not everyone feels distaste/ickiness/homophobia/whatever you want to call it about homosexuality. This includes at least homosexuals themselves. And I pointed out that the fact that not everyone expresses this distaste does not invalidate my claim that it is genetically based, and I gave an analogous example of wanting to have children. But you keep building arguments and counter arguments based on the unsupported claim that homosexuality is genetically induced. If it were so, there would be statistics showing that homosexual biological parents produce homosexual children. Which is FAR from being the truth.

The only way your reasoning may make any valid point is through epigenetics to where markers activate or silence genes. Those markers would have the blue prints of how our ancestors reacted to specific environmental conditions while becoming trans generational. In such manner, if your great grand father was exposed to famine conditions, even though you would not face famine conditions today, you could be displaying ailments related to malnutrition. But such research does not even claim to be applied to sexual identity. It would only relate to your claims as it brings about how trans generational traits may occur through those markers.



When did you first realise you were heterosexual, then?


Children don't really show much sexual interest before puberty. It is correct that puberty is the stage of human development when one becomes aware of his/her sexual identity. Note I wrote "becomes aware". Meaning it does not mean that sexual identity/orientation is not already present prior to puberty. And such stage is revealing to the person because of the extensive release/output of sexual hormones at puberty. Contrary to you, I would argue that bisexuality and homosexuality are normal sexual VARIANTS caused by different hormonal profiles. Rather than a DEVIANCE caused by evolution. Note how specific I am in my choice of terms and why I capitalized them for the purpose of emphasis.


Sexual orientation is determined by which sex you show sexual interest in/are sexually attracted to. So I would guess that this would be hard to determine before puberty when there is little sexual interest at all. But I really don't want to de-rail the thread by discussing this particular issue. It would be an interesting topic to debate in the Science Forums. However, I would like for you to address the noted absence of evidence that homosexual biological parents produce homosexual children.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I agree with epigenetics being the possible answer. Nevertheless I must disagree with this you say, Sabine:

If it were so, there would be statistics showing that homosexual biological parents produce homosexual children.

The phenotype involved could be recessive and/or additive. Since there is a spectrum of sexual orientation that includes bisexuality, I believe additivity of the characteristic is plausible. Social pressure can keep the homosexual component suppressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_suppression) or even repressed.

So in short, recessivity, epigenetics and additivity are all possible with social pressure additionally as a factor to further complicate things.

[Sabine Grant]

I agree with epigenetics being the possible answer. Nevertheless I must disagree with this you say, Sabine:

If it were so, there would be statistics showing that homosexual biological parents produce homosexual children.

The phenotype involved could be recessive and/or additive. Since there is a spectrum of sexual orientation that includes bisexuality, I believe additivity of the characteristic is plausible. Social pressure can keep the homosexual component suppressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_suppression) or even repressed.

So in short, recessivity, epigenetics and additivity are all possible with social pressure additionally as a factor to further complicate things. I am well pleased to see that someone knows what I was referring to as "epigenetics":). Nonetheless, none of the three possible factors would justify defining homosexuality as a deviance from the "norm" (meaning heterosexual). IMO it is quite assuming to envision evolution as meaning to create a norm. That is why I do not buy Curby's arguments based on genetics.

If we consider both bisexuality and homosexuality as variants resulting from hormonal variances(rather than "freak accidents" which then allow for defining them as "abnormal"), it seems to me that the genetic argument is irrelevant.

But thanks for pointing me to my error.:)

[blue_haired_devil]

I certainly don't find male or female homosexuality "icky". I wonder if the posters that do are including female homosexuality in their statements.

I think people should marry if they want, but agree with previous posters that civil unions would be better for all sexes, not just same sex. I'm married but would rather have had a civil union.

[curby]

But you keep building arguments and counter arguments based on the unsupported claim that homosexuality is genetically induced. If it were so, there would be statistics showing that homosexual biological parents produce homosexual children. Which is FAR from being the truth.

The only way your reasoning may make any valid point is through epigenetics to where markers activate or silence genes. Those markers would have the blue prints of how our ancestors reacted to specific environmental conditions while becoming trans generational. In such manner, if your great grand father was exposed to famine conditions, even though you would not face famine conditions today, you could be displaying ailments related to malnutrition. But such research does not even claim to be applied to sexual identity. It would only relate to your claims as it brings about how trans generational traits may occur through those markers.


I'm not saying homosexual pair-bonding is genetically induced. I'm saying heterosexual pair-bonding is genetically induced and homosexual pair-bonding is a misfiring of the very same genes.

The strong drive to pair-bond, the pair-bonding itself, the strong feeling of love and commitment one feels to ones' partner; are you trying to tell me that this is all cultural or learned somehow? I find that really hard to believe, especially since homosexual pair-bonding is similar to heterosexual pair-bonding.

Either homosexual pair-bonding has been selected for (which I strongly doubt, given that this greatly reduces the individual's genetic fitness), or it's a misfiring of heterosexual pair-bonding genes.


Contrary to you, I would argue that bisexuality and homosexuality are normal sexual VARIANTS caused by different hormonal profiles. Rather than a DEVIANCE caused by evolution. Note how specific I am in my choice of terms and why I capitalized them for the purpose of emphasis.


Yes! I think you hit the nail on the head. Your statement captures our disagreement very nicely. You believe homosexual pair-bonding to be a variation on pair-bonding, while I think it's a deviation from normal heterosexual pair-bonding.

An example of variation is height (height may not be the best example as much of it is determined by the environment [the food you eat when growing]. You can replace it with hair colour if you want). There's a reasonably wide spectrum of normal heights where no major selective disadvantage is incurred (a shorter person would be disadvantaged in a fight, but would have an advantage during a famine). Our other genes have spent a large amount of time in both short and tall bodies, so they have had to evolve to work more or less equally well in both short and tall bodies.

An example of deviation is comparative leg length. Most people have legs that are the same length. A person who has a right leg of different length from their left leg is evolutionarily disadvantaged, and the greater the difference, the greater the negative selection pressure against it. Our other genes have spent very little time in bodies that have had legs of significantly different lengths (our forebears who were born with significantly different leg lengths were likely to be selected out [die] before producing offspring), so our other genes have had little to no selection pressure to work well in a body that has a left leg that is twice as long as the right leg (e.g. in order to walk upright in such a body, the knee joint would have to work differently).

I contend that homosexual pair-bonding is a deviation. A person who homosexually pair-bonds is strongly genetically disadvantaged, and the greater the tendency to homosexually pair-bond, the greater the negative selection pressure against it. Our other genes have spent very little time in bodies that have homosexually pair-bonded (our forebears who homosexually pair-bonded were less likely to produce offspring).


The phenotype involved could be recessive and/or additive. Since there is a spectrum of sexual orientation that includes bisexuality, I believe additivity of the characteristic is plausible. Social pressure can keep the homosexual component suppressed or even repressed.

So in short, recessivity, epigenetics and additivity are all possible with social pressure additionally as a factor to further complicate things.


Yes, this is all possible, but such a gene would face a large amount of negative selection pressure, and would disappear quickly from the population.

---------------

This thread is about arguments against homosexual marriage, yet no one has addressed the argument of where to draw the line between what kind of marriage is acceptable and what kind isn't:


- The second, more important point, that everyone has avoided answering is the question of where to draw the line between what kind of marriages are allowable and what kind aren't.

If all possible marriages are allowed, then incestuous, 3-way, 4-way, arbitrary graph-way marriages are all possible. In this case marriage becomes a meaningless, legal contract. If no marriages are allowed then the result is pretty much the same.

So it seems that a line needs to be drawn between what kind of marriage is allowable and what isn't in order to preserve any kind of meaning to what marriage is. But then where should the line be drawn? I contend that this should be based on our genetic heritage. If you want to ignore our genetic heritage, then where would the line be drawn and why? Why exclude incestuous marriages (assuming no reproduction is possible)? Polygamous marriages? etc.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Yes, this is all possible, but such a gene would face a large amount of negative selection pressure, and would disappear quickly from the population.

Unless, of course, homosexuality betters the chances of suvival in the individual's nephews/nieces who would be the carriers of the recessive characteristic. My idea is that childless aunts and uncles have more time to look after their siblings' offspring, therefore increasing their chances for survival and in turn the chances to pass the characteristic (or epigenetic susceptibility of acquiring the characteristic) to successive generations.

[Zoe Brain]

Saying homosexuality is not genetic is insane gibberish.
Point of Order:

It's unlikely to be genetic. It is, however, set in the neurology long before birth. Whether due to hormones, genes, or something that is inherent in the way mammals gestate is unknown.

It's about as changeable as skin colour. Something you're born as. Something innate. That's what the evidence says, from experimentation on transgendered kids. They can change gender about 30% of the time, but sexual orientation less than 10%. See A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Drummond KD, Bradley SJ, Peterson-Badali M, Zucker KJ. Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):34-45. Link to Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194003?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

[Archimedes]

More to the point, what difference does it make whether it's genetic or not? How would it affect the morality of gay marriage if homosexuality was genetic or not?

[figuer]

But the taboo against homosexuality...seems to be present in most cultures across the world.But homosexuality has been accepted by most societies at some point. Also, the subjugation of women to men has been present in most societies, thus it could be argued misogyny like homophobia is genetic...do you support this?


- The second, more important point, that everyone has avoided answering is the question of where to draw the line between what kind of marriages are allowable and what kind aren't. If all possible marriages are allowed, then incestuous, 3-way, 4-way, arbitrary graph-way marriages are all possible. In this case marriage becomes a meaningless, legal contract.
The line is drawn by individuals, not by society. Marriage would not become a "meaningless, legal contract" because marriage has specific legal/financial connotations for individuals involved, and these are not related to the gender or quantity of those involved.

[linwood]

Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other arrangements.

Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.

The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences.

Let’s take an anthropologically informed look at two of these proposed changes to the family: gay marriage and polygamy.
...

This essay is nothing more than a seriously long winded strawman supported by a strong rant on the "ick" factor.

[anders]

I'm as hetero as they come, childless despite serious efforts in marriage and in other relationships, but would like to offer my views on
Unless, of course, homosexuality betters the chances of suvival in the individual's nephews/nieces who would be the carriers of the recessive characteristic. My idea is that childless aunts and uncles have more time to look after their siblings' offspring, therefore increasing their chances for survival and in turn the chances to pass the characteristic (or epigenetic susceptibility of acquiring the characteristic) to successive generations.
Having managed to avoid begetting children of my own, now living single, I agree.

My not intended or imagined or even dreamt of solution that just happened was that besides closely looking for how to assist nephews and nieces (my two sister's offspring are admirably taking care of themselves, and still lack no level of parental support, should it be needed). Myself, I stumbled on the ideal daughter, fully formed at the age of ca. 25, having had no three months' colics, teething probs, no teenage love crises. If I had had the opportunity of designing a daughter, my wildest fantasies couldn't have imagined a product that even approached her qualities.

I suppose that could be compared to the many same gender couples that in a way gamble when adopting a child, but through their wish to find a common project not only support that one child for finding a better life than otherwise possible but also foster yet another person to spread their equality and generally humnanitarian ideals in a way that ultimately might make this world a better place to live for all of us.

[premjan]

So you adopted a 25-year old? Or rather just treated her like your child?

[curby]

Unless, of course, homosexuality betters the chances of suvival in the individual's nephews/nieces who would be the carriers of the recessive characteristic. My idea is that childless aunts and uncles have more time to look after their siblings' offspring, therefore increasing their chances for survival and in turn the chances to pass the characteristic (or epigenetic susceptibility of acquiring the characteristic) to successive generations.

Yes, but you've got to remember that in a homosexually pair-bonded couple there are TWO people. Here are the possibilities:

1. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of one of the pair. In this case, the homosexual pair-bonding and caring for relatives (HPBCR) reproductive strategy has a 50% failure rate.

2. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, spending half of the time caring for one family and the other half of the time caring for the other. In this case, the HPBCR reproductive strategy is ineffective 50% of the time.

3. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, with each member of the pair devoting all or most of their time and effort to caring for their own relatives. In this case, with both members spending most of their time and effort separately with their relatives, the two aren't really pair-bonded any more.

The reproductive strategy of not pair-bonding at all and devoting 100% of time and effort to the care of close relatives would out-compete the HPBCR reproductive strategy.


It's about as changeable as skin colour. Something you're born as. Something innate. That's what the evidence says, from experimentation on transgendered kids. They can change gender about 30% of the time, but sexual orientation less than 10%. See A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Drummond KD, Bradley SJ, Peterson-Badali M, Zucker KJ. Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):34-45.


If you have XY chromosomes, then you're male. If you have XX chromosomes, then you're female. If you have XY chromosomes and you identify yourself as female (and vice versa for XX chromosomes), then this is a pathology (e.g. genetic/hormonal disorder, psychiatric disorder, etc).

I don't understand this:

A man walks into a hospital and says that he feels that he is a woman and he wants the doctors to do something about it. Then, rather than being referred to an endocrinologist or a psychiatrist, he is referred to a plastic surgeon who castrates him, and mutilates his genitalia, and then pumps him full of hormones.

I see no difference between the above scenario and the following one:

A man walks into a hospital and says that he feels that he is Napoleon and he wants the doctors to do something about it. Then, rather than being referred to a psychiatrist, he is referred to a plastic surgeon who breaks and shortens his bones, and cuts up his face to make it look like Napoleon's. The man is then given a suitable uniform and sent on a course to learn French and military tactics as part of his identity reassignment therapy.

If a person believes something that does not conform to reality, then that person is delusional. I think it's extremely harmful when doctors try to alter reality to suit the delusions of their patient rather than treating the delusions themselves.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is just something that makes me really angry; we take emotionally vulnerable and confused people and subject them to this irreversible surgery just so that we can pat ourselves on the back on how enlightened, tolerant, and open-minded our society is.


Also, the subjugation of women to men has been present in most societies, thus it could be argued misogyny like homophobia is genetic...do you support this?


This is a very good point, and one for which I don't have a good answer. I don't doubt that homophobia is genetically based. Its wide spread and positive selection pressure for are compelling reasons. I'm not so sure about misogyny. I can't think of any selection pressure favouring it. It may be a consequence of the agricultural revolution (and so not genetic) where the man became the primary bread winner (via the plow), rather than a co-bread winner (as a hunter) with the woman (as a gatherer, providing up to 60% of the food for the tribe). But I don't know.


The line is drawn by individuals, not by society. Marriage would not become a "meaningless, legal contract" because marriage has specific legal/financial connotations for individuals involved, and these are not related to the gender or quantity of those involved.


So what you're saying is that marriage would not be a "meaningless, legal contract", but a contract with "specific legal/financial connotations"? I don't see the difference.

The way I see it is that pair-bonding occurs between individuals. Marriage is a recognition of this pair-bonding by the community/state. If any and all possible marriages are recognized as valid by the community, then the concept of marriage will become diluted out of existence. To encompass all the possible marriages I mentioned in a previous post, the meaning of marriage will need to be "a bunch of people who have gotten together and agreed to live in some form of relationship".



...
Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy?
...


This essay is nothing more than a seriously long winded strawman supported by a strong rant on the "ick" factor.


If anyone is interested the link to this essay is: http://www.amconmag.com/2003/07_28_03/cover.html

My knowledge about anthropology is quite limited so I don't really know if the data he's quoting is accurate. But I did notice the emotional, almost strident tone of the essay showing that the author is probably strongly biased. This makes me a bit cautious about accepting his conclusions at face value.

But he did raise an interesting point which I would like to develop:


We probably don’t want to embrace a system that shunts young girls into motherhood before they have an opportunity to get an education or that leads to fathers arranging the marriages of their teenage daughters.

...

It is more definite than that, since we know for a fact that everywhere and at every time human societies have made plural marriage an option, this is what happens. Given a free market and no rules against plural marriage, human beings will find themselves in a hierarchy dominated by older men with multiple younger wives.

But why? ... The answer lies in something anthropologists don’t like to talk about: human nature. The human sexes accommodate fairly easily to a dominant male hierarchy; human males are biologically primed to seek sexual variety; and the systems of reciprocity on which all human societies are based lend themselves very easily to dominant males consolidating their status by taking young wives.


Here's an analogous example. If an adult person wants to hire another adult person to do some work for them, and both parties are fully aware of the situation and the agreement is mutually consensual, then it is hard to find a reason to prevent them from doing so. However, this kind of laissez-faire approach means no labour laws and nothing to prevent 15 cents per hour for 16 hours a day jobs. Labour laws (encroaching on the freedoms of individuals) are necessary to prevent unpleasant consequences if complete economic freedom is given.

I'm not sure I buy this theory, but it is an interesting point.

[figuer]

This is a very good point, and one for which I don't have a good answer. I don't doubt that homophobia is genetically based. Its wide spread and positive selection pressure for are compelling reasons. I'm not so sure about misogyny. I can't think of any selection pressure favouring it. It may be a consequence of the agricultural revolution (and so not genetic)....Female subjugation by males is found in many other animal societies...according to your line of argument it would be in born...if you don't support the continuation of this inborn behaviour in humans, then I don't see how you could justifiy inborn homophobia.
So what you're saying is that marriage would not be a "meaningless, legal contract", but a contract with "specific legal/financial connotations"? I don't see the difference.
:huh: Think before you post. How can a contract with 'specific legal/financial connotations' be 'meaningless'?

[Sabine Grant]

Unless, of course, homosexuality betters the chances of suvival in the individual's nephews/nieces who would be the carriers of the recessive characteristic. My idea is that childless aunts and uncles have more time to look after their siblings' offspring, therefore increasing their chances for survival and in turn the chances to pass the characteristic (or epigenetic susceptibility of acquiring the characteristic) to successive generations.

Yes, but you've got to remember that in a homosexually pair-bonded couple there are TWO people. Here are the possibilities:

1. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of one of the pair. In this case, the homosexual pair-bonding and caring for relatives (HPBCR) reproductive strategy has a 50% failure rate.

2. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, spending half of the time caring for one family and the other half of the time caring for the other. In this case, the HPBCR reproductive strategy is ineffective 50% of the time.

3. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, with each member of the pair devoting all or most of their time and effort to caring for their own relatives. In this case, with both members spending most of their time and effort separately with their relatives, the two aren't really pair-bonded any more.

The reproductive strategy of not pair-bonding at all and devoting 100% of time and effort to the care of close relatives would out-compete the HPBCR reproductive strategy. But such strategy is not what the majority of same gender couples seek to achieve. What they seek to achieve is a family unit and if inclusion of children, by relying on medical technology for one of them to become a biological parent or through adoption.



If you have XY chromosomes, then you're male. If you have XX chromosomes, then you're female. If you have XY chromosomes and you identify yourself as female (and vice versa for XX chromosomes), then this is a pathology (e.g. genetic/hormonal disorder, psychiatric disorder, etc). The exact term recognized by the APA and reflected in the DSM is "Gender Identity Disorder or GID". A claim which is now contested by various psychiatrists and psychologists as confusing the anxiety and stress resulting from a conflicting Gender Identity for a pathology when they are the consequences and not the cause of such conflict. The conflict itself based on the research conducted by Dr. Zhou, Goreen, Swaab and Hofman reveals the presence of a smaller Bed Nucleus Stria terminalis in MTF transsexuals not related to chromosomes. In fact a BSTC size similar to females.

We will see the removal from the DSM of transgenderism as a "disorder" as the APA is now evaluating it as a VARIANT rather than a deviance caused by any psychiatric issue.

I don't understand this:

A man walks into a hospital and says that he feels that he is a woman and he wants the doctors to do something about it. Then, rather than being referred to an endocrinologist or a psychiatrist, he is referred to a plastic surgeon who castrates him, and mutilates his genitalia, and then pumps him full of hormones. You are misrepresenting the process of physical transition MTF transsexual individuals willingly undertake.

For starters, they do not "just walk into a hospital". They have been experiencing and often from pre pubescent stages a strong sense of being a female rather than a male. They have been seeking to exercise a gender role in society compatible with their gender identity, which is female not male. As a reminder the gender identity is not dictated by the presence of male genitalia But indeed by the structure and organization of the upper brain.

Secondly, they do seek specialized counseling from mental health care professionals who are equipped to comprehend the dynamics of Gender Identity and can evaluate whether their patient is in fact mentally and emotionally a female.

Third : their decision to transit into physical alteration and modification to harmonize their body with their true gender identity (female) is based on their determination to assume a female gender role in our society. Which if they were to abide to your limited understanding and perception of transgenderism, they would be condemned to assume a male gender role. The GI rules the GR. Not the other way around. Suggesting that the GR is to comply with social prejudice and ignorance while ignoring scientific evidence of sexual ID variances within our species would be reprehensible.

I see no difference between the above scenario and the following one:

A man walks into a hospital and says that he feels that he is Napoleon and he wants the doctors to do something about it. Then, rather than being referred to a psychiatrist, he is referred to a plastic surgeon who breaks and shortens his bones, and cuts up his face to make it look like Napoleon's. The man is then given a suitable uniform and sent on a course to learn French and military tactics as part of his identity reassignment therapy.

If a person believes something that does not conform to reality, then that person is delusional. I think it's extremely harmful when doctors try to alter reality to suit the delusions of their patient rather than treating the delusions themselves. But the current GID definition does not imply or even suggest any state of mental delusion. Your comparison is invalid. The only reason why it is listed in the DSM as a "disorder" is because of transgendered individuals who face social rejection suffer of various symptoms such as depression, anxiety etc... You are drawing once more arguments based on assuming beliefs which are contradicted by scientific data.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is just something that makes me really angry; we take emotionally vulnerable and confused people and subject them to this irreversible surgery just so that we can pat ourselves on the back on how enlightened, tolerant, and open-minded our society is. You are wasting your personal energy getting angry since you are getting angry over assumed beliefs and quite a bit of ignorance on the topic of transgenderism.


It is more definite than that, since we know for a fact that everywhere and at every time human societies have made plural marriage an option, this is what happens. Given a free market and no rules against plural marriage, human beings will find themselves in a hierarchy dominated by older men with multiple younger wives. In a patriarchal system, yes. But certainly not in a culture such as ours where women will even run for a presidential nomination! I can easily see the scenario in our culture of a woman having multiple male spouses and males who are going to have to meet such female's expectations. One where "being the bread earner" as a male has been defeated by the increasing economical and financial independence of females and their academic and intellectual achievements. The expectation will not be "bring the bacon" but you'd better be equipped to be mentally and emotionally compatible with me.

But why? ... The answer lies in something anthropologists don’t like to talk about: human nature. The human sexes accommodate fairly easily to a dominant male hierarchy; human males are biologically primed to seek sexual variety; and the systems of reciprocity on which all human societies are based lend themselves very easily to dominant males consolidating their status by taking young wives.
What a stereotyping generalization you just made! "dominant males" are more and more dismissed as royal pains in the neck and control freaks by younger females who are educated and intellectually solid. We are not in a tribal pattern any longer where younger females were demeaned as creatures to be told what to do by a dominant male. In fact we have progressed to where juvenile females can and will decide what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. And that without being dependent on their boy friend or father telling them what to do.

It is mostly in fundamentalist religious circles that you still find that dominant male notion affecting young females (even older ones by the way). Without that religious influence ( I should say indoctrination of females), secular minded females do not settle for being evaluated as necessitating a male's intervention to pursue their happiness. Whether he be older or same age or younger.

Here's an analogous example. If an adult person wants to hire another adult person to do some work for them, and both parties are fully aware of the situation and the agreement is mutually consensual, then it is hard to find a reason to prevent them from doing so. However, this kind of laissez-faire approach means no labour laws and nothing to prevent 15 cents per hour for 16 hours a day jobs. Labour laws (encroaching on the freedoms of individuals) are necessary to prevent unpleasant consequences if complete economic freedom is given. You are describing here an exploitative intent on the part of one party. How does that compare to two consenting adults same gender or not sharing equal benefits resulting from a contract of mutual spousal agreement involving social and financial benefits? Once more you are drawing fallacious analogies as you did earlier by comparing mental delusion to transgenderism.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Unless, of course, homosexuality betters the chances of suvival in the individual's nephews/nieces who would be the carriers of the recessive characteristic. My idea is that childless aunts and uncles have more time to look after their siblings' offspring, therefore increasing their chances for survival and in turn the chances to pass the characteristic (or epigenetic susceptibility of acquiring the characteristic) to successive generations.

Yes, but you've got to remember that in a homosexually pair-bonded couple there are TWO people. Here are the possibilities:

1. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of one of the pair. In this case, the homosexual pair-bonding and caring for relatives (HPBCR) reproductive strategy has a 50% failure rate.

2. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, spending half of the time caring for one family and the other half of the time caring for the other. In this case, the HPBCR reproductive strategy is ineffective 50% of the time.

3. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, with each member of the pair devoting all or most of their time and effort to caring for their own relatives. In this case, with both members spending most of their time and effort separately with their relatives, the two aren't really pair-bonded any more.

The reproductive strategy of not pair-bonding at all and devoting 100% of time and effort to the care of close relatives would out-compete the HPBCR reproductive strategy.




About:
"The reproductive strategy of not pair-bonding at all and devoting 100% of time and effort to the care of close relatives would out-compete the HPBCR reproductive strategy."

Correct me if I'm not getting your idea: I understand you are comparing "old-maid -type strategy" versus "homosexual uncle/aunt -type strategy" for helping the survival/success of nephews/nieces. Am I right?

If so, the question would be if we can find such a phenotype expression in reality. The "old maid" phenomenon is more situational than phenotypical IMV. And since natural selection only works upon existing characteristics, there is no competition.

Perhaps a reason for this is that producing asexual individuals is more evolutionarily complicated than producing homosexual ones, or that homosexuality has its added benefits, such as the fact that loved animals are consistently healthier than unloved ones. If someone cares for me (my significant other), I may be better at caring for others (my niece/nephews).

About:
"2. The homosexually pair-bonded couple cares for the relatives of both pairs, spending half of the time caring for one family and the other half of the time caring for the other. In this case, the HPBCR reproductive strategy is ineffective 50% of the time."

I believe you're getting carried away by your maths. Just a 10 or 20% more time to take care of your siblings' offspring when you're in a childless relationship versus when you're in a reproducing relationship, will give homosexual or epigenetic homosexual genes a greater probablity IMO.

[Anat]

curby, why is the question if a tendency towards homosexual pair-bonding is entirely genetic and selected for (under certain conditio