Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Defender of Truth]

It's not about what would objectively make the species stronger. Individual traits are selected for merely because the individuals who have them happen to live and pass on their genes to more offspring

Hmm, perhaps your view of morality is different than the one I'm talking about. In the thread, "Morality: Does it have an objective standard?" McCulloch proposed the view that I'm talking about, and he said

Remember that individual survival is unimportant in evolution. It is which genetic traits increase the probability of successfully reproducing.

He said that here.

It's not about what would objectively make the species stronger. Individual traits are selected for merely because the individuals who have them happen to live and pass on their genes to more offspring.

Bold added

So our moral inclinations have no real bindings on anyone else? The only reason I think murder is wrong is because my parents happened to have the traits that murder is wrong and they passed it on?

If that's true, then don't we not only need to kill criminals, but also they're offspring?

Also, I thought you were arguing (like McCulloch said) that we developed our moral sense for the objective gain of the species. But if we developed it for individual gain, then it is nothing more than a subjective standard of morality. Kind of like taste. If I say "Carrots are terrible", I'm not saying anything about carrots, I'm saying something about me. I don't like carrots. If someone else comes along who does like carrots, I can't tell them that carrots are bad and expect them to listen to me.

[ChaosBorders]

It's not about what would objectively make the species stronger. Individual traits are selected for merely because the individuals who have them happen to live and pass on their genes to more offspring

Hmm, perhaps your view of morality is different than the one I'm talking about. In the thread, "Morality: Does it have an objective standard?" McCulloch proposed the view that I'm talking about, and he said

Remember that individual survival is unimportant in evolution. It is which genetic traits increase the probability of successfully reproducing.

He said that here.

No, this is pretty much correct. My apologies if my phrasing is not always clear. I've just started an evolutionary psychology course so in a couple months I'll probably be able to speak in more depth on this subject. But for now my surface understanding of it is that the traits themselves are selected for. As long as the survival of the traits and the underlying genes that cause them are propagated, the survival of the individual is not necessarily relevant. Often though traits that focus on survival of the self are selected for though because it ensures the individual has a higher chance of mating and passing on their traits.

So our moral inclinations have no real bindings on anyone else? The only reason I think murder is wrong is because my parents happened to have the traits that murder is wrong and they passed it on?

I think you may be confusing morality and the underlying biological structures that lead to morality. Your parents likely think that murder is wrong because they were taught it was wrong and also have the empathy necessary to ensure they will not likely disregard that teaching. They likely passed on the biological basis to you through their genes, but in this case (probably more importantly) they also passed on the teaching that murder is wrong.

If that's true, then don't we not only need to kill criminals, but also they're offspring?

Depends entirely on the criminal and crime in question. If the criminal is a psycopath then probably they should be killed, and any offspring tested for psycopathy. You can't cure them, you can't treat them, anything you try to do to get them to be a better citizen will only make them more dangerous.

But most criminals are not nearly so clear cut, and as a result of that there is not rational basis for simply eliminating their offspring. (Or perhaps more accurately, there is not nearly enough basis that we could overrule our own empathy and commit pre-emptive murder against people who could end up innocent).

Though certainly a genetic element often plays a role in increased aggression and criminal activity, more often than not it is environmental factors that shape the soft-wired biological systems in a manner that leads to such behavior. If their offspring is given a better environment, there is no reason to think they will likely end up the same as their parent. Particularly given they only have half their parent's genes anyways.

Also, I thought you were arguing (like McCulloch said) that we developed our moral sense for the objective gain of the species. But if we developed it for individual gain, then it is nothing more than a subjective standard of morality. Kind of like taste. If I say "Carrots are terrible", I'm not saying anything about carrots, I'm saying something about me. I don't like carrots. If someone else comes along who does like carrots, I can't tell them that carrots are bad and expect them to listen to me.

Both are correct to a degree. More often than not, gain for the species translates into gain for the individual, their offspring, and the genetic traits they possess. As a result, most people end up with a fairly similar system of morality because those traits have helped ensure their ancestors survival. However, some people still end up having less of the underlying genetic structures (such as empathy) and may well end up in a harsher environment that does not promote developing the expression of that basis. As a result, they may go the "Carrots are terrible" route, and end up disregarding what most people consider as moral.

[Lux]

For them, but what about the species. It would be better for the species if people were producing more people, because the species would be more powerful and intelligent.

Just because gay couples can't reproduce one with another doesn't mean they are not helping propagate the species.

Many homosexual couples want to have children, and often they opt for either surrogacy or sperm donation, something they might not be so prone on doing if they are not married. They might not be having kids with each other, biologically speaking, but they are having them, and marriage always plays a rol in people's decision to be parents. Gay marriage will mean an increase in births from people in homosexual relationships.

There's also gay adoption. Although those kids had already been born, being adopted dramatically improves their life conditions, therefore granting them higher chances of becoming productive members of society and having viable offspring (kids who won't be a weight on but rather a benefit to their communities) - which is evolutionary desirable.

[Defender of Truth]

Sorry for the delayed reply; I got that new laptop, and it took awhile to transfer all of the files and to get set up. But now I'm good to go.

But for now my surface understanding of it is that the traits themselves are selected for.

Which traits?

As long as the survival of the traits and the underlying genes that cause them are propagated, the survival of the individual is not necessarily relevant.

Which traits?

Often though traits that focus on survival of the self are selected for though because it ensures the individual has a higher chance of mating and passing on their traits.

But homosexual traits are not focused on survival of the self. A person could survive just as well with heterosexual genes as he could with homosexual genes, plus, with the heterosexual genes, they can actually you know, reproduce. It only seems logical to me that the homosexual traits would be eliminated, and that we would develop a moral sense that homosexuality is wrong for those who are gay by choice.

They likely passed on the biological basis to you through their genes, but in this case (probably more importantly) they also passed on the teaching that murder is wrong.

How can I differentiate between what is hereditary and what is value passed on orally?

As a result, most people end up with a fairly similar system of morality because those traits have helped ensure their ancestors survival

How did homosexuals are okay help ensure their ancestors survival?

The Shakers were a religious sect who abstained from sexual activity as a result of the belief that it was immoral.

Despite attracting more than 20,000 converts during the 18th and 19th centuries, they died off (since they couldn't reproduce). There are now only 3 left.
Obviously celibacy is not good for any group that wishes to last very long. Since survival is foremost to natural selection, why didn't we evolve genes that homosexuality is wrong?

Just because gay couples can't reproduce one with another doesn't mean they are not helping propagate the species.

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals, and natural selection would favor the most reproduction.

Second of all, I will propose that homosexuals aren't helping propagate the species. Propagating is natural reproduction. Adoption isn't reproduction, sperm donation is artifical, and surrogacy is not the result of the homosexual couples. So really, homosexual couples do not help propagate the human race.

There's also gay adoption

There was also Shaker adoption. Yet they're are only 3 left. Adoption isn't enough to propagate a species.

[Scotracer]

Often though traits that focus on survival of the self are selected for though because it ensures the individual has a higher chance of mating and passing on their traits.

But homosexual traits are not focused on survival of the self. A person could survive just as well with heterosexual genes as he could with homosexual genes, plus, with the heterosexual genes, they can actually you know, reproduce. It only seems logical to me that the homosexual traits would be eliminated, and that we would develop a moral sense that homosexuality is wrong for those who are gay by choice.

I challenge you to demonstrate that anyone is homosexual by choice. The APA has said that it is not a good idea to try and change someone's sexuality as it may lead to psychological harm of the individual. This is peer-reviewed work.

Also there is research showing that homosexuality is positive for a population. The abstract and an exerpt from the paper can be found here.

They likely passed on the biological basis to you through their genes, but in this case (probably more importantly) they also passed on the teaching that murder is wrong.

How can I differentiate between what is hereditary and what is value passed on orally?

Test on an individual not moulded by a particular culture or creed. Not the easiest thing to do but in theory, it is possible.

As a result, most people end up with a fairly similar system of morality because those traits have helped ensure their ancestors survival

How did homosexuals are okay help ensure their ancestors survival?

Given the poor grammar in this sentence, I can't answer this question...

The Shakers were a religious sect who abstained from sexual activity as a result of the belief that it was immoral.

Despite attracting more than 20,000 converts during the 18th and 19th centuries, they died off (since they couldn't reproduce). There are now only 3 left.
Obviously celibacy is not good for any group that wishes to last very long. Since survival is foremost to natural selection, why didn't we evolve genes that homosexuality is wrong?

False analogy. The issue here is that adopted Shakers would not reproduce themselves as they would be themselves Shakers. This is not the case with adopted children of homosexual couples; they are fully capable of reproducing.

Just because gay couples can't reproduce one with another doesn't mean they are not helping propagate the species.

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals, and natural selection would favor the most reproduction.

Yet they are still helping.

Second of all, I will propose that homosexuals aren't helping propagate the species. Propagating is natural reproduction. Adoption isn't reproduction, sperm donation is artifical, and surrogacy is not the result of the homosexual couples. So really, homosexual couples do not help propagate the human race.

See my explanation above. The adopted/surrogate children can grow in to fully reproductive members of the society. There is no evidence to suggest that children that grow up in homosexual homes are more likely to become homosexual themselves.

There's also gay adoption

There was also Shaker adoption. Yet they're are only 3 left. Adoption isn't enough to propagate a species.

See above.

Ultimately, I fail to see the point of the arguments. As I have explained, homosexual marriage/adoption doesn't hurt society in any discernible way, therefore it should have never been outlawed in the first.

[cnorman18]

If not propagating the species is a valid reason for making gay marriage illegal, then celibacy ought to be prohibited and people should be legally required to marry and have children. Celibate priests and nuns ought to be outlaws.

That makes just as much sense, which is to say, none.

[ChaosBorders]

Which traits?

Any trait that causes an increase in the differential reproductive success on average and propagation of the genes that they are linked to.

But homosexual traits are not focused on survival of the self. A person could survive just as well with heterosexual genes as he could with homosexual genes, plus, with the heterosexual genes, they can actually you know, reproduce. It only seems logical to me that the homosexual traits would be eliminated, and that we would develop a moral sense that homosexuality is wrong for those who are gay by choice.

How did homosexuals are okay help ensure their ancestors survival?

What you're forgetting is that is not just our offspring who carry our genes. So do all members of our immediate family. It has been noted here that homosexuality as observed in nature has the following advantages:

Diffusion of social tensions, better protection of the young, maintenance of fecundity in the absence of opposite sex

Though the homosexual person may not themselves reproduce, they have the capacity to spend resources helping ensure the survival of any of their family's other offspring, which ultimately leads to the propagation of the same genes that are in them.

How can I differentiate between what is hereditary and what is value passed on orally?

Can't always, but if you read some Evolutionary Psychology books you might start sorting through some of them. I would start with Evolutionary Psychology by David Buss. I'm only fifty pages in (a lot of which has been review for me) but I've still already learned quite a bit.

The Shakers were a religious sect who abstained from sexual activity as a result of the belief that it was immoral.

Despite attracting more than 20,000 converts during the 18th and 19th centuries, they died off (since they couldn't reproduce). There are now only 3 left.
Obviously celibacy is not good for any group that wishes to last very long. Since survival is foremost to natural selection, why didn't we evolve genes that homosexuality is wrong?

For any isolated group, this is true. However, being homosexual does not necessitate being isolated. If you have a homosexual sibling, it is entirely possible they will help contribute resources towards raising your children because they have none of their own to take care of.

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals, and natural selection would favor the most reproduction.

Second of all, I will propose that homosexuals aren't helping propagate the species. Propagating is natural reproduction. Adoption isn't reproduction, sperm donation is artifical, and surrogacy is not the result of the homosexual couples. So really, homosexual couples do not help propagate the human race.

Not exactly. Specifically it favors differential reproductive success for those who have the genes related to the traits being expressed, which does not necessarily mean sheer numbers. It can also occur when a trait helps ensure the survival of others who carry the genes related to that trait (but who do not necessarily express it themselves). As such, homosexuals can be beneficial to differential reproductive success by helping take care of other offspring had by their immediate family. Most of the things like adoption are relatively recent and had no bearing on the development of any genetic factors that lead to homosexuality. As such, they also have no bearing on any genetic factors related to any sense of morality regarding homosexuality.

[Lux]

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals, and natural selection would favor the most reproduction.

Bottom line is they are helping, and I have no idea what you are basing this "not nearly as much" on. It is my understanding that homosexual parenting is not uncommon, especially when you take into account the many obstacles they still have to face when deciding to be parents. In 2005, 270,000 children lived in a homosexual household just in the USA.

And what exactly is the most reproduction? Where does it leave heterosexual couples not wanting or not able to have children? Are you planning on having as many kids as you possibly can yourself?

Second of all, I will propose that homosexuals aren't helping propagate the species. Propagating is natural reproduction. Adoption isn't reproduction, sperm donation is artifical, and surrogacy is not the result of the homosexual couples. So really, homosexual couples do not help propagate the human race.

But you just said they ARE helping... just "not nearly as much as heterosexuals". And now you say they aren't

Propagating the species can be through any means of reproduction, "natural" or not. If a homosexual couple decides to use donated sperm, which otherwise would NOT have been used, and a child is born, isn't that a new life, one more human who will hopefully grow up and reproduce too? That is propagation of the species.

You are wrong when you say surrogacy is not a result of homosexual couples. A third party is involved, but the only reason the conception happens is by the request of the homosexual couple. Surrogates are usually women who do that for a living, or in some cases a close friend of the couple who would not be interested in having a child of her own at the time. In either case, as well as for sperm donation, the result is a child who would not have been born if not for the homosexual couple.

There was also Shaker adoption. Yet they're are only 3 left. Adoption isn't enough to propagate a species.

Apples and oranges. The shakers implemented complete celibacy, which they taught to their adopted kids as well. Therefore not only did the parents not have their own biological children, but they taught their adopted ones that they couldn't have them either.
Homosexual adoption is different because, even though the couple adopts their kids, those kids will very possibly grow up to have children the "old fashioned" way. As you probably know, the children of homosexuals are not any more likely to be homosexual themselves.

[cnorman18]

No response to this, so I thought I'd post it again. Never mind whether the allegation is true; suppose for a moment that it is, and that gay couples do not "propagate the species."

Would anyone care to explain WHY "not propagating the species" is a a valid reason for making or keeping gay marriage illegal?

If that's a valid reason for making gay marriage illegal, then celibacy ought to be prohibited as well and people should be legally required to marry and have children. Celibate priests and nuns ought to be outlaws.

That makes just as much sense, which is to say, none.

[Defender of Truth]

I challenge you to demonstrate that anyone is homosexual by choice.

Irrelevant. I made the quote that

we would develop a moral sense that homosexuality is wrong for those who are gay by choice.

just in case ChaosBorders would claim that homosexual traits were eliminated, but people were still gay by choice. He's not, so that part is irrelevant.

How can I differentiate between what is hereditary and what is value passed on orally?

Test on an individual not moulded by a particular culture or creed.

Impossible, since I have already been influenced by a particular culture or creed.

How did homosexuals are okay help ensure their ancestors survival?

Given the poor grammar in this sentence, I can't answer this question

Maybe with some context you'll understand. Chaos Borders said

most people end up with a fairly similar system of morality because those traits have helped ensure their ancestors survival

, and I'm asking how "homosexuals are okay" helped their ancestors survival.

False analogy. The issue here is that adopted Shakers would not reproduce themselves as they would be themselves Shakers. This is not the case with adopted children of homosexual couples; they are fully capable of reproducing.

But homosexual couples only adopt children produced by heterosexuality. If you were to get a closed system of a billion homosexuals, they would eventually die. The point is still that the inability to reproduce is bad for any species. So why would the homosexual traits not be eliminated? Do you agree that homosexual couples cannot help propagate the species?

Yet they are still helping.

How are they still helping?

The adopted/surrogate children can grow in to fully reproductive members of the society

The adopted/surrogate children only come into this world by heterosexuality. So although children adopted by homosexual couples can help propagate the species, the homosexual couples themselves cannot. And if those same homosexuals were to be heterosexual, they could propagate the species as well as whatever children they adopted from another heterosexual couple.

There is no evidence to suggest that children that grow up in homosexual homes are more likely to become homosexual themselves.

I'm not claiming that the above is true. I'm saying that those children that you're speaking of were brought about by heterosexual means, simply adopted by homosexuals. The homosexuals did not help propagate the species in that example.

No response to this, so I thought I'd post it again.

Apologies, I was away for the weekend.

If not propagating the species is a valid reason for making gay marriage illegal, then celibacy ought to be prohibited and people should be legally required to marry and have children.

You're missing the point in question. It's not whether or not propagating the species is a valid reason for making gay marriage illegal, it's why homosexual traits were not eliminated in the first place. Since homosexual couples cannot help propagate the species, it seems that the gay traits would have been eliminated.

Celibate priests and nuns ought to be outlaws

False analogy. Celibate priests and nuns are celibate by choice; they cannot reproduce by choice. According to ChaosBorders, homosexuality is hereditary. There's not much choice in that. If celibacy was hereditary, then I'd be curious as to why that trait wasn't eliminated either.

But you just said they ARE helping... just "not nearly as much as heterosexuals". And now you say they aren't

Actually, what I said was

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals

My point was that even if they were helping, they weren't helping as much as heterosexual couples were, and I went on to say that on top of that, I don't think they're helping at all (since propagation is natural reproduction).

Propagating the species can be through any means of reproduction, "natural" or not

Actually,

Propagation: Multiplication by natural reproduction

Propagating the species can be through any means of reproduction, "natural" or not. If a homosexual couple decides to use donated sperm, which otherwise would NOT have been used, and a child is born, isn't that a new life, one more human who will hopefully grow up and reproduce too? That is propagation of the species.

You are wrong when you say surrogacy is not a result of homosexual couples. A third party is involved, but the only reason the conception happens is by the request of the homosexual couple. Surrogates are usually women who do that for a living, or in some cases a close friend of the couple who would not be interested in having a child of her own at the time. In either case, as well as for sperm donation, the result is a child who would not have been born if not for the homosexual couple.

In none of your examples did you show how propagation was achieved better by a homosexual than a heterosexual.

For example, you said that surrogacy is the result of homosexual couples because the only reason the conception happens is by the request of the homosexual couple. However, if it was a heterosexual couple, they could just go ahead and have the kid instead of having to request for a surrogate. So you haven't really answered the question of why homosexual traits would not be eliminated since reproduction is easier for heterosexuals.

It has been noted here that homosexuality as observed in nature has the following advantages:

Diffusion of social tensions, better protection of the young, maintenance of fecundity in the absence of opposite sex

Alright, I saved you for last ChaosBorders, since you actually answered my question of why homosexual traits would not be eliminated from the gene pool since they can't reproduce. Thanks. You're saying it's because it has advantages besides reproduction. I'll read over the link you posted.