Washington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 29

1Eris1

United States5797 Posts

February 16 2012 05:16 GMT

#561

On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.

Nor should it. I advocate gay rights as much as the next guy, but the church is not a government faction and thus should not be subject to such laws. Can't see why a gay couple would want to get married there in the first place either.

Stratos_speAr

United States6959 Posts

February 16 2012 07:15 GMT

#562

On February 16 2012 11:29 BluePanther wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 16 2012 07:10 SerpentFlame 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.

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:

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:

But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution.

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.

Numbering response by your paragraph because I'm lazy right now:

1. When I say "postive" I'm referring to the fact that it assists in reproduction and survival of a speciest (talking evolution here). I'm not using it to say it's "preferrable."

2. One POSSIBLE explanation is that people are only "gay" when their surroundings enable it. In other words, it's more about an act of opportunity. I'm not saying this is the case, we really don't know enough about this. I'm just throwing out an alternative hypo.

3. I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's interesting. But at the same time I'm not jumping into it without hesitation. My conscience says "that'd be really cool if that were true", but my brain is saying "I'm not sure that fully makes mathematical sense."

4. I'm not sure how hesitating at the idea of gay adoption constitutes eugenics. I'm not saying "Gays shouldn't reproduce" or "Gays should be massacred". I'm saying that I have reservations about them raising and nurturing kids which are not theirs. It's more social commentary than anything. I have no idea how you pulled eugenics out of that.

About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future.

5/6. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself... there is a lot we don't know (surpisingly, given how long it has been around). Is it nurture? Is it nature? Is it a combination? How is it relevant? How does it affect the children?

In short, I support gay marriage because it's two consenting individuals... If they want that for themselves, all the power to them. However, I hesitate when a third party gets dragged into something like this when they have no say in it.

Your hesitancy for letting gay couples adopt is completely unfounded. There's a large amount of psychological studies on the issue and they all overwhelmingly point to the fact that gay couples can raise children just as well as (if not better than) heterosexual couples.

Alay

United States660 Posts

February 16 2012 07:16 GMT

#563

On February 16 2012 11:58 ikl2 wrote:
It is unclear to me how 'x is not natural' (which is obviously false, but whatever) entails 'x is not good'. Does the opposite relationship hold? If x is natural, is x necessarily good? Also, your notion is 'natural' is mighty nebulous. It's not just things produced by nature, it's things produced by nature that are, uh, in line with your odd notion of 'proper world order'; you've suggested lots of things that are produced by nature are not necessarily good.

Computers aren't natural. I think they're pretty swell.

Good on Washington! Surprised there hasn't been a federal law on the deal yet, kind of depressing as an American.

Whitewing

United States7483 Posts

February 16 2012 17:50 GMT

#564

On February 16 2012 13:52 GhandiEAGLE wrote:

Show nested quote +

*high-fives fellow Washingtonian*

Let it be noted that Seattle played a huge part in this

Oh I'm from Massachusetts, but I'm still proud of my fellow awesome state.

Signet

United States1718 Posts

February 18 2012 01:40 GMT

#565

On a related note, the Maryland legislature voted to legalize gay marriage today. Their governor has already said he supports it, so MD will become the next state to have marriage equality.

New Jersey's legislature also voted to legalize gay marriage, but today their governor vetoed it.

FIStarcraft

United States154 Posts

February 18 2012 01:54 GMT

#566

On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:

Show nested quote +

You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.

I'm sorry, but no.

You cannot pick and choose which verses of your holy book you accept, if you choose to "defend your religion" or whatever.

Signet

United States1718 Posts

February 18 2012 04:03 GMT

#567

With WA and MD counted, there are now 8 states + DC where gay marriage is legal, totaling 16% of the US population.

Long ways to go, but 7 years ago when something like 11 of 11 state ballot amendments banning gay marriage all passed, I never would have guessed that much progress would be made in a relatively short turnaround.

BluePanther

United States2776 Posts

February 18 2012 07:52 GMT

#568

On February 18 2012 10:54 FIStarcraft wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'm sorry, but no.

You cannot pick and choose which verses of your holy book you accept, if you choose to "defend your religion" or whatever.

You can when you're not taking the translations literal. It's when you take it literal that picking your verses is extremely dangerous and ignorant. To take the bible metaphorically, you HAVE to pick and choose as there are contradictions all over.

BluePanther

United States2776 Posts

February 18 2012 08:03 GMT

#569

On February 16 2012 16:16 Alay wrote:

Show nested quote +

Computers aren't natural. I think they're pretty swell.

Good on Washington! Surprised there hasn't been a federal law on the deal yet, kind of depressing as an American.

Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to control this issue.

Prev 1 27 28 29 All

Please or register to reply.

Washington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 29

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming