|
On February 15 2012 19:48 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others. You can say "marriage is a religious thing" all you want but it simply isn't true. The definition is made up by the state and it's recognized by the constitution which is, through seperation of state and church, a non-religious thing. Don't claim it as something inherently Christian, did people not get married before Jesus came along? Marriage should be the overarching word for matrimony ins general - if you want a sacred Christian subset version of it maybe you guys can give it your own word? Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, This isn't a single point. First you argue evolutionary coherency and then you bring up social merits. The first, ban-same-sex-marriage in the name of evolution doesn't make sense. We don't care about evolution and evolution doesn't care about us. Evolution is just something that happened and we don't live our lives to appease it. I'd go as far to that we've since developed such understanding and moral awareness that we even make choices that would counteract natural selection. On the other side, using evolution to defend marriage as a monogamous institute at all is nonsensical. The social merits is not a good argument either, I have no idea how you say you're not a social conservative but then still bring this up. As to the raising of kids, maybe you can watch this. I found it very inspirational.
The amount of hate that comes towards anyone who expresses doubt in the discussion of gay marriage is boggling to me. It's like the mention of anything other than your perfect harmony instantly marks me as a bigot. You'd think you'd welcome the conversation and explain your side. Hell, I support you gay marriage, and you still tear me down.
First, marriage is not in our constitution. It's statutory. Trust me, I would know.
Now to my first point: The Christians aren't going to change the names of their sacraments. It's far easier to just change the statutory definition of marriage. And I honestly think it would clear up a portion of the angst from the more moderate religious people. Just because humans are generally monogamous (not always the case in history) doesn't mean that the Christians can't be offended by the government terming it marriage. There should be no reason gay couples cannot earn the same rights as hetero couples without pissing off religious moderates.
My response to the second point: I think you severely misread what I wrote. I'm not against gay marriage. I support legalization of drugs. I promote individual liberty. In America, that puts me on the social liberal side, without a doubt. Social merits and evolution go hand in hand - all human civilizations went through tribal periods as far as I know. From the dawn of history to the present day, familial ties play a key role in social structures and the raising of a child. To dismiss my concerns (which, I readily admit, is merely skepticism and not fact or argument), is blatantly dishonest and discredits any rebuttal you might have.
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise).
One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too)
I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable.
|
|
|
On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable.
But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Some, yes, but it's limited to what it can maintain. This also assumes that it's purely biological, which I would disagree with to a certain extent (there is no doubt biology plays a role, but it's not determinative). Can you think of a society that went belly up because it became too gay? I can't think of one.
Your hypothesis is interesting, although I honestly believe that with something like that, the burden of proof would be on your side of the argument.
I concede the point that gay couples provide stable households. That's a big reason I'm not rock solid on this.
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Some, yes, but it's limited to what it can maintain. This also assumes that it's purely biological, which I would disagree with to a certain extent (there is no doubt biology plays a role, but it's not determinative). Can you think of a society that went belly up because it became too gay? I can't think of one. Your hypothesis is interesting, although I honestly believe that with something like that, the burden of proof would be on your side of the argument. I concede the point that gay couples provide stable households. That's a big reason I'm not rock solid on this.
We don't decide morals and ethics on "what would be best for our evolution". Eugenics are not nice.
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution.
Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago).
Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term.
Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing.
|
On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing.
My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
still doesn't counter what he said at all.
|
On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all.
It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement.
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
Who cares if its a 'positive' or 'negative' trait? Being anything short of Chuck Norris fused with Albert Einstein is a 'negative' trait. Being Asian, Khoasian, Bantu, Caucasian, Arabic, Indian, etc. are also not "slowly becoming more prevalent". Um, so? Why should this tell us how we should treat people?
And monkeys are homosexual because of social norms? What evidence do you have for this?
It's also not clear to me that you know how the kin selection hypothesis works. The premise is that a few homosexual individuals assist in raising the children of their heterosexual family members. Their individual genes were passed on through their family members. Homosexuality may be a 'panda's thumb'. That doesn't matter at all.
You still don't touch on the point about evolution being separate from morals and ethics. That's a dangerous slope into the eugenics movement, which argued for social policies based on evolutionary viability. And it wasn't nice at all.
On February 16 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all. It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement.
No. Your entire premise is that this was not 'evolutionary viable', except that it has been in baboons, lemurs, chimapnzees, and guess what? Humans.
It's not clear to me how any of what you're arguing has anything to do with gay parents adopting.
|
edit: condensed into one post.
|
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is.
Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs?
Do you see the fallacies in your thinking?
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution.
Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim.
|
Slowly advancing into the future.
|
On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim.
I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
|
United States42961 Posts
On February 16 2012 11:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim. I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
A lot of gays have biological children. Gays aren't infertile.
|
Arguably, long term evolution is decided not just by advantageous traits, but by traits that increase breeding chances. (See Peacock tails, longer tails mean more breeding, but longer tails also mean easier to spot by predators).
If one were to stereotype homosexuals as males who care about their appearance and social stature, and those are desired traits by females, it gives those damn anti evolutionary gays more chance to.... breed according to natural selection norms! (paradox?)
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
The problem with your statement is simple and obvious: not everything has universal benefits or downsides. Homosexuality, in low numbers may be an overall benefit, but there is an obvious corrective factor that ensures that the numbers remain low. So there's a built-in feedback mechanism.
Also, that doesn't change the fact that it is clearly not a social construct. If it were, it would be unique to humans and to particular human societies. But it isn't.
On February 16 2012 11:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim. I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
By that logic, women should drop dead at menopaus. Or that women should always be fertile. Yet neither is the case. Why?
Because human beings, like our ape ancestors, are social creatures. And having warm bodies around to do work, even if they're not reproductive, are useful. A small percentage of non-reproductive individuals can still serve the overall needs of the species in ways that don't require themselves to reproduce.
It's similar to how among organisms with differentiated cells work. The only cells that actually are involved in reproduction are the gamete cells. All other cells still exist and still do useful work.
Biology and species evolution is about more than just individuals procreating. It's about keeping the group and species going. And if that means that some of the individuals don't get to reproduce... that's fine. Even better if a few of the individuals don't want to reproduce. There's still stuff for them to do.
|
So glad to hear states are passing pro-gay marriage laws. I found out my brother is gay last year, and to think where he lives he can't legally marry who he loves, while I can, is heartbreaking. I can only hope when he finds someone he'd like to marry that the laws in the south have changed.
|
As interesting as the evolution argument is - it is really besides the point... isn't it? This is about fairly basic spousal rights, and to a lesser extent calling it marriage.
If anybody is religious/conservative/homophobic and is concerned about some of the reasons I've heard that we shouldn't allow homosexuals to marry one another, just PM me your email, and I'll be sure to contact you and warn you about signs of the end times, dogs and cats getting along, portals to hell opening up and swallowing children, blood rain, etc. I can also try to warn you about the opening of the concentration camps where 'they' try to convert us to homosexuality after they've taken over our State.
I'm looking forward to June 7th. Shame it isn't sooner. Shame it has taken this long. Shame people are opposed to human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
