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?

[cnorman18]

I'll respond only to the replies to my own post:

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.

Except that homosexuality clearly isn't, or isn't only, inherited. It arises in families that have no homosexuals on the family tree. Organic causes for involuntary traits are not limited to heredity. If homosexuality were only caused by heredity, it WOULD be extinct.

YOU are missing the point. The title of this thread is "Gay Marriage," the salient aspect of which is that it is ILLEGAL. How is "not propagating the species" relevant to gay marriage?

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.

Therefore you have no problem with those who are homosexual by choice "not propagating the species"?

[ChaosBorders]

Except that homosexuality clearly isn't, or isn't only, inherited. It arises in families that have no homosexuals on the family tree. Organic causes for involuntary traits are not limited to heredity. If homosexuality were only caused by heredity, it WOULD be extinct.

YOU are missing the point. The title of this thread is "Gay Marriage," the salient aspect of which is that it is ILLEGAL. How is "not propagating the species" relevant to gay marriage?

I think the twin studies have assessed that about 20-40% of homosexuals are such due to genetic factors, so do not think it would be extinct even if environment were not a factor. That being said, if environment were not a factor there would be at most two-fifths the number of homosexuals as currently exists.

And this conversation sprung up because of an assessment of why so many people consider homosexuality immoral, which is what causes them to be against gay marriage.

[cnorman18]

Except that homosexuality clearly isn't, or isn't only, inherited. It arises in families that have no homosexuals on the family tree. Organic causes for involuntary traits are not limited to heredity. If homosexuality were only caused by heredity, it WOULD be extinct.

YOU are missing the point. The title of this thread is "Gay Marriage," the salient aspect of which is that it is ILLEGAL. How is "not propagating the species" relevant to gay marriage?

I think the twin studies have assessed that about 20-40% of homosexuals are such due to genetic factors, so do not think it would be extinct even if environment were not a factor. That being said, if environment were not a factor there would be at most two-fifths the number of homosexuals as currently exists.

And this conversation sprung up because of an assessment of why so many people consider homosexuality immoral, which is what causes them to be against gay marriage.

I agree. As I said, homosexuality is not, or not only, inherited.

If "not propagating the species" isn't in and of itself a reason to ban gay marriage, then its illegality has nothing to do with that issue at all; "not propagating the species" is merely a cover for the REAL reason for opposing it that opponents are trying to avoid admitting - the conviction that homosexuality is sinful.

Straight-up fag-bashing is at least honest. Pretending to be all worried about children and the species while secretly thinking "those disgusting faggots" is not only intellectually indefensible, it's hypocritical.

I don't claim to read anyone's mind; but I suspect that there's a lot more of that kind of hypocrisy and hidden agendas than there is actual logic here.

[ChaosBorders]

Except that homosexuality clearly isn't, or isn't only, inherited. It arises in families that have no homosexuals on the family tree. Organic causes for involuntary traits are not limited to heredity. If homosexuality were only caused by heredity, it WOULD be extinct.

YOU are missing the point. The title of this thread is "Gay Marriage," the salient aspect of which is that it is ILLEGAL. How is "not propagating the species" relevant to gay marriage?

I think the twin studies have assessed that about 20-40% of homosexuals are such due to genetic factors, so do not think it would be extinct even if environment were not a factor. That being said, if environment were not a factor there would be at most two-fifths the number of homosexuals as currently exists.

And this conversation sprung up because of an assessment of why so many people consider homosexuality immoral, which is what causes them to be against gay marriage.

I agree. As I said, homosexuality is not, or not only, inherited.

If "not propagating the species" isn't in and of itself a reason to ban gay marriage, then its illegality has nothing to do with that issue at all; "not propagating the species" is merely a cover for the REAL reason for opposing it that opponents are trying to avoid admitting - the conviction that homosexuality is sinful.

Straight-up fag-bashing is at least honest. Pretending to be all worried about children and the species while secretly thinking "those disgusting faggots" is not only intellectually indefensible, it's hypocritical.

I don't claim to read anyone's mind; but I suspect that there's a lot more of that kind of hypocrisy and hidden agendas than there is actual logic here.

Though I agree it is a silly reason, the issue of whether that would lead to a bias against it for evolutionary reasons is a valid question. As I've tried to point out though, there is reason to believe that is not at all the case and as such the main reason people developed a bias against it is almost certainly the same as why they develop a bias against any group they are not a part of. And the solution will ultimately be the same as how we have (at least in part) overcome prejudices against many of those groups.

[Scotracer]

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.

Conceded.

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.

Not impossible...just very difficult.

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.

Because as far as we can tell, being for or against it makes no difference as it appears to be genetic.

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?

If we had a closed system of a billion females, we'd die out. That argument just doesn't work. The percentage of homosexuals seems to be fairly consistent across time and culture.

Homosexual couples can and do help propagate the species through being able to adopt children and raise them.

Yet they are still helping.

How are they still helping?

You said it yourself

See:

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.

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.

Your argument is irrelevant as the percentage of a society that is homosexual is pretty consistent. They are there whether you like it or not. Even if they weren't adopting they aren't actively harming the propagation of the species so your entire argument is mute.

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.

But they didn't harm it.

[Lux]

Actually, what I said was

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

"They aren't helping as much as heterosexuals" implies that they are helping.

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).

Well, that's not what you said. Point taken now.
How do you define natural reproduction? Can you explain how a baby being born of a surrogate is not helping propagate the species? It is a newborn human being, isn't it?

Actually,

Propagation: Multiplication by natural reproduction

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

reproduction or multiplication, as of a plant or animal

1. The act of propagating; continuance or multiplication of the kind by generation or successive production; as, the propagation of animals or plants.

With surrogacy or sperm donation the numbers go up, the population increases, the species propagates.

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

Define better, please. Faster? In larger numbers? With more genetically desirable offspring as a result?

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.

If that is what you're going by, are you also advocating against reproductively challenged heterosexual men and women getting married? If not, you're applying a double standard, since it's also more complicated for them to have kids.

So you haven't really answered the question of why homosexual traits would not be eliminated since reproduction is easier for heterosexuals.

Homosexual traits can't be eliminated, since homosexual kids are very often born of heterosexual parents.

[ChaosBorders]

Because as far as we can tell, being for or against it makes no difference as it appears to be genetic.

20-40% genetic. The rest seems to be triggered by environmental causes such as exposure to hormones, trauma, etc. And he's actually asking a fair question, given aggression can be genetic too but few people are of the opinion "murderer's are okay". If homosexuality had not increased relative differential reproductive success of those carrying their genes at all, the 20-40% of them caused by genetics would not be expected to exist at levels more than a fraction of a percent if at all. Those caused by environmental triggers would still exist because there would be no expectation for evolution to have weeded them out.

[Scotracer]

Because as far as we can tell, being for or against it makes no difference as it appears to be genetic.

20-40% genetic. The rest seems to be triggered by environmental causes such as exposure to hormones, trauma, etc. And he's actually asking a fair question, given aggression can be genetic too but few people are of the opinion "murderer's are okay".

Because it is obvious that murder is detrimental to both the individual and society.

If homosexuality had not increased relative differential reproductive success of those carrying their genes at all, the 20-40% of them caused by genetics would not be expected to exist at levels more than a fraction of a percent if at all. Those caused by environmental triggers would still exist because there would be no expectation for evolution to have weeded them out.

Except there is evidence linking homosexuality with increased fertility of female siblings.

Here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014

This is something evolution can select for.

[ChaosBorders]

Because as far as we can tell, being for or against it makes no difference as it appears to be genetic.

20-40% genetic. The rest seems to be triggered by environmental causes such as exposure to hormones, trauma, etc. And he's actually asking a fair question, given aggression can be genetic too but few people are of the opinion "murderer's are okay".

Because it is obvious that murder is detrimental to both the individual and society.

If homosexuality had not increased relative differential reproductive success of those carrying their genes at all, the 20-40% of them caused by genetics would not be expected to exist at levels more than a fraction of a percent if at all. Those caused by environmental triggers would still exist because there would be no expectation for evolution to have weeded them out.

Except there is evidence linking homosexuality with increased fertility of female siblings.

Here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014

This is something evolution can select for.

My argument has been that is beneficial, and your link continues to confirm that, but I do think his question was a fair one to ask. Perhaps I was merely misreading it, but it seemed like your phrasing was such that you were stating whether people were for or against homosexuality makes no difference due to it being genetic. But my qualification on that is that just because something is genetic doesn't mean people being for or against makes no difference. If it is not beneficial to the differential reproductive success of those carrying the same genes as the homosexual, and if it were harmful to others, people being against it would most likely have resulted in homsexuality's eventual reduction and near elimination from the gene pool. Similarly, those genetically predisposed towards murder are a very tiny percentage of the population because society has an anti-homicide bias that decreases such people's differential reproductive success.

[Baron von Gailhard]

20-40% genetic. The rest seems to be triggered by environmental causes such as exposure to hormones, trauma, etc. And he's actually asking a fair question, given aggression can be genetic too but few people are of the opinion "murderer's are okay". If homosexuality had not increased relative differential reproductive success of those carrying their genes at all, the 20-40% of them caused by genetics would not be expected to exist at levels more than a fraction of a percent if at all. Those caused by environmental triggers would still exist because there would be no expectation for evolution to have weeded them out.

What rot!!

If it were genetic, the gene would have been weeded out a long time ago as it has been banned for nearly two thousand years, and homosexuals don't reproduce. Furthermore it would preclude the sizeable number of people who experiment in their youth and turn their back on it.

Environment is also ludicrous: more likely, how an individual elects to respond to the environment.

Your statement is simply a denial of personal responsibility for conduct.