Homosexual Marriage

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind Thank you very much. I need the practice.

So do I

Quote by: Winter wind I can't say underpopulation is a real problem right now. I mean, we have an overpopulated globe. All the more reason to have homosexuals.

Over population is an issue that needs to be addressed of course, the problem is that the de population has to be gradual, 10% of couples not reproducing is far too much, we already have problems with too many pensioners and not enough workers to support them.

Quote by: Winter wind Sexual behavior is the hardest to change. However just because it isn't genetic, doesn't mean it isn't biological. The reason why the younger brothers are more likely to be gay is because the mother's womb "feminine-izes" the child as it is inside the mother. This cannot be changed by conditioning. Homosexuality is proven to be biological and not really behavioral (it is slightly but not entirely)

Citation would be nice, in any case you've provided one causational factor, it is naive to say that there is only one and because it's a " more likely" it is not a particuarly major cause. Homosexuality can be changed because you admit yourself that homosexuality is environmentally affected in the most part, these factors can be changed and our perceptions can be changed, therefore homosexuality can be changed, if you're right about the womb idea then it doesn't contradict this, merely adds another causational factor.

Quote by: Winter wind That is attributed to the idea that the married couples would be less likely to go through the devorce process since it entails much more then just breaking up. Homosexuals don't have as much obligation or social pressure to stay together.

What exactly does it entail more then "just breaking up"?
Nobody has an obligation to stay together, though I grant that heterosexuals with children will try harder to make it work for the sake of the child, I just don't think this has such a massive effect.

Quote by: Winter wind You can't say heterosexual marriages are stronger because we haven't seen a heterosexual couple in the united states (actually, I think we have, but I'm too tired to grab stats.)

By your own figures heterosexual marriages are stronger, I'm using your data, it supports my arguement and contradicts yours, feel free to provide more statistics that will contradict me any time you like.

Quote by: Winter wind What kind of major issues would the child face?

Predominantly bullying, if children at school found out the child has homosexual foster parents the child would face sever bullying over a lengthy period of time, this is terrible for emotional development and may cause a rift between parent and child because the child may blame the homosexual parents for their bullying.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster Predominantly bullying, if children at school found out the child has homosexual foster parents the child would face sever bullying over a lengthy period of time, this is terrible for emotional development and may cause a rift between parent and child because the child may blame the homosexual parents for their bullying.

I will get to the rest of the post, but past midnight, this is all I can do.

That's the same argument they made about my parents. I'm half Chinese half American. People said it would be damaging to my psyche. You know what? Kids did tease me. It actually made me a much better person as I could sympathize more easily with people. But that's not the point, the point is, everyone grew up and I was stronger at the end of the day.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind I will get to the rest of the post, but past midnight, this is all I can do.

S'fine

Quote by: Winter wind That's the same argument they made about my parents. I'm half Chinese half American. People said it would be damaging to my psyche. You know what? Kids did tease me. It actually made me a much better person as I could sympathize more easily with people. But that's not the point, the point is, everyone grew up and I was stronger at the end of the day.

That may be true, but that does not make bullying good, because it toughens people up does not make it right, a cause of major bullying should be avoided if it can. The bigger issue here though is not the direct effect of bullying, it's the chance that a child may turn on his/her foster parents and blame them as the cause of their suffering. Catastrophic to say the least, how can you claim a relationship in which a child hates his/her parents to be worthwhile at all?
For your information this is the one part of the arguement I believe to be true, I will never foster because I couldn't put a child through that.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Mast Over population is an issue that needs to be addressed of course, the problem is that the de population has to be gradual, 10% of couples not reproducing is far too much, we already have problems with too many pensioners and not enough workers to support them.

But banning gay marriage isn't going to result in homosexuals suddenly becoming heterosexual and deciding to have kids. They'll simply remain unmarried homosexuals and still be child-less.

And Wind's point about the homosexual adoption is an important one, I think, since money saved in state-run orphanages could be put into pensions.

Quote by: Mast That may be true, but that does not make bullying good, because it toughens people up does not make it right, a cause of major bullying should be avoided if it can. The bigger issue here though is not the direct effect of bullying, it's the chance that a child may turn on his/her foster parents and blame them as the cause of their suffering. Catastrophic to say the least, how can you claim a relationship in which a child hates his/her parents to be worthwhile at all?

You could use the same argument to ban interracial marriages as well or to ban Hindus or the disabled or the physically unattractive from having children. It's true that having homosexual parents may lead to bullying, but then there are a myriad of other factors which could also lead to bullying, It' not fair to single out just one of them.

[yourmaster]

Just fyi I'm gay and all for gay marriage so please don't take this as me being a bigot or anything.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But banning gay marriage isn't going to result in homosexuals suddenly becoming heterosexual and deciding to have kids. They'll simply remain unmarried homosexuals and still be child-less. And Wind's point about the homosexual adoption is an important one, I think, since money saved in state-run orphanages could be put into pensions.

Heterosexual married couples recieve tax benefits, denying this to homosexuals is merely a way of balancing out the poor economic effects of not having children.
Of course they will remain homosexuals, but as above, them not marrying will save money which will help counter the financial issues with suddenly depopulating.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You could use the same argument to ban interracial marriages as well or to ban Hindus or the disabled or the physically unattractive from having children. It's true that having homosexual parents may lead to bullying, but then there are a myriad of other factors which could also lead to bullying, It' not fair to single out just one of them.

True, but with the case of interracial conception then the child will be of the same orientation so will not blame his parents as the cause of his bullying, but instead his/her unchangeable difference, in this case race/skin colour. The same goes for the physically unnattractive.

[italiangm]

Quote by: yourmaster You cannot deny it is harmful to the reproductive system that the human race is based upon, fecundicity is the prominent evolutionary heuristic and as homosexuals refute this they are contradicting the healthy development of the human race

I *can* deny your so-called claim of 'harm' until you provide proof there's *ever* been a reduction in fecundity due to homosexual expression throughout history.

There's evidence that homosexual expression does exactly the opposite of 'harm' which, by observation, is demonstrated through individual selection for reciprocal altruism.

Same-sex alliances have repeatedly shown to have reproductive advantages, and homosexual behavior can serve to maintain these alliances. Same-sex alliances help opposite-sex individuals survive and subsequently reproduce.

Even nonhuman primates use homosexual behavior in same-sex alliances, and such alliances appear to have been key in the expanded distribution of human ancestors during the Pleistocene era. Homosexual emotion and behavior are, in part, emergent qualities of the human propensity for same-sex association.

No one questions the fact that heterosexual behavior serves non-conceptive functions such as the maintenance of long-term bonds. If homosexual behavior also serves non-conceptive functions, such as the maintenance of same-sex alliances (long-term supportive relationships) that aid in resource competition and cooperative defense, homosexual behavior would be considered a positive selection. Homosexual behavior is therefore a survival strategy, supporting the propagation of a species' reproductive strategy.

Given the context cited above, homosexuality survived thousands of years because it is genetically favored within a fairly narrow and consistent percentage of the general population.

Quote by: yourmaster I do not deny that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, yet if it is enviromentally affected then homosexuality can be averted and recovered from. Change the environmental factors or attempt to change your perceptions of them and it may be possible to change sexuality.

Your proof for this assertion? And how, specifically, does this relate to the topic?

Quote by: yourmaster There is no solid evidence of a gay gene and there is a lot to contradict it, so we shall leave that for another day on the grounds of lack of information.

Then why speak of it? And who says there's a "lack of information". There's a significant body of evidence that suggest certain behaviors attributed to heterosexual females is also part of the biological make-up of homosexual males. Take the fairly recent discovery about scent detection and behavior similarities between heterosexual females and homosexual males, for instance.

Quote by: yourmaster Simple mathematics suggest from those figures that heterosexual couples are 7% less likely to split up, this causes less damage to society and it's knockon effects, it is in society's best interests to have lasting marriages, as gay marriages are not so strong then they should not be allowed to legally marry.

Considering how little data has been collected on same-sex marriages compared to opposite-sex marriage, I'd say your math is defective. Further, the short length of time that same-sex marriages have been effect have no predictive ability to address the 'strength' of them. They have not had the same amount of time to develop into the more defined and predictable behavior as their hetero counterparts have.

Quote by: yourmaster Heterosexual marriages are stronger, they have the ability to procreate, they provide a stable base for rearing a child, where as a child raised by homosexuals will face major issues in later life because they have homosexual foster parents.

That's a function of a xenophobic society, not a function of a family structured with same-sex parents. A similar xenophobic behavior still exists when opposite sex couples of different races are observed. Please keep your argument intellectually honest by correctly identifying the cause for such behavior.

Quote by: yourmaster Homosexuality though it's members do contribute to society they do not contribute as much as heterosexuals, I think they should be allowed to marry, but with less rights and privellages for the above reasons.

The only privilege opposite-sex couples should be granted is assistance in raising any offspring they produce. Everything else is on equal footing when it comes to privilege.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Mast Just fyi I'm gay and all for gay marriage so please don't take this as me being a bigot or anything.

No worries; I'm actually against gay marriage myself.

Quote by: Mast Heterosexual married couples recieve tax benefits, denying this to homosexuals is merely a way of balancing out the poor economic effects of not having children. Of course they will remain homosexuals, but as above, them not marrying will save money which will help counter the financial issues with suddenly depopulating.

In that case, the benefits should be given to couples when and if they have children; not simply when they marry. Using sexuality to determine who is going to have children and therefore who gets tax benefits is an unsound generalisation which doesn't apply wholly to either heterosexuals or homosexuals. A lot of married heterosexuals never have kids and a lot of unmarried homosexuals do have kids.

Quote by: Mast True, but with the case of interracial conception then the child will be of the same orientation so will not blame his parents as the cause of his bullying, but instead his/her unchangeable difference, in this case race/skin colour. The same goes for the physically unnattractive.

But the child's difference is still the result of his parents' decision to have him. There isn't really a difference between the interracial couple and the gay couple: the specifics may be different, but both have chosen to have a child who has an extra reason to be bullied.

[yourmaster]

Of course you are right, I completely agree with 90% of the points you have just made, as I've said many times I'm homosexual and all for gay marriage, but for the sake of debate I'm taking the other side.

Quote by: italiangm I *can* deny your so-called claim of 'harm' until you provide proof there's *ever* been a reduction in fecundity due to homosexual expression throughout history.

Not a reduction in fecundicity, merely in the use of it. You have not refuted that fecundicity is a major evolutionary heuristic and that not using that fecundicity is going against natural selection and damaging the human race's ability to survive healthily.

[quote=italiangm;501877]
There's evidence that homosexual expression does exactly the opposite of 'harm' which, by observation, is demonstrated through individual selection for reciprocal altruism.[/qutoe]
what altruistic benefits do homosexuals provide to heterosexual couples that could not be provided by another heterosexual exactly?

Quote by: italiangm Same-sex alliances have repeatedly shown to have reproductive advantages.

How exactly?

Quote by: italiangm and homosexual behavior can serve to maintain these alliances. Same-sex alliances help opposite-sex individuals survive and subsequently reproduce

I do not deny that homosexuals contribute to society and help society's improvement, the man that cracked the enigma code was gay, he certainly helped a lot of heterosexuals to survive.

Quote by: italiangm Even nonhuman primates use homosexual behavior in same-sex alliances, and such alliances appear to have been key in the expanded distribution of human ancestors during the Pleistocene era. Homosexual emotion and behavior are, in part, emergent qualities of the human propensity for same-sex association.

There are indeed homosexual animals, I fail to see quite how homosexuality helped the distribution of the human race, yet the pleistocene era isn't quite my area of expertees.

Quote by: italiangm No one questions the fact that heterosexual behavior serves non-conceptive functions such as the maintenance of long-term bonds. .

Indeed nobody does.

Quote by: italiangm If homosexual behavior also serves non-conceptive functions, such as the maintenance of same-sex alliances (long-term supportive relationships) that aid in resource competition and cooperative defense, homosexual behavior would be considered a positive selection. Homosexual behavior is therefore a survival strategy, supporting the propagation of a species' reproductive strategy

No same sex co-operation is a survival strategy, humans interacting with each other and working together to a goal is a survival strategy, homosexuality does little to contribute to this, given the discrimination aimed the way of homosexuals I would say that homosexuality has inhibited same sex co-operation due to the reactions of their peers.

Quote by: italiangm Your proof for this assertion? And how, specifically, does this relate to the topic?

My proof stretches as far as my own experiences and the experiences of my gay counterparts, it would be seen as immoral to choose to be homosexual in the eyes of most people.

Quote by: italiangm Then why speak of it? And who says there's a "lack of information".

Me, as any research I have done into homosexual genetics has drawn a blank.

Quote by: italiangm There's a significant body of evidence that suggest certain behaviors attributed to heterosexual females is also part of the biological make-up of homosexual males. Take the fairly recent discovery about scent detection and behavior similarities between heterosexual females and homosexual males, for instance.

Citation?

Quote by: italiangm Considering how little data has been collected on same-sex marriages compared to opposite-sex marriage, I'd say your math is defective. Further, the short length of time that same-sex marriages have been effect have no predictive ability to address the 'strength' of them. They have not had the same amount of time to develop into the more defined and predictable behavior as their hetero counterparts have.

My math is not defective, there is merely a lack of information provided.

Quote by: italiangm That's a function of a xenophobic society, not a function of a family structured with same-sex parents. A similar xenophobic behavior still exists when opposite sex couples of different races are observed. Please keep your argument intellectually honest by correctly identifying the cause for such behavior.

We live in a largely xenophobic society and measures must be taken to counter it, for now it is in the best interests of young orphans up for adoption to keep them out of harms way, no?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster Over population is an issue that needs to be addressed of course, the problem is that the de population has to be gradual, 10% of couples not reproducing is far too much, we already have problems with too many pensioners and not enough workers to support them.

The imbalanced population. However, the simple fact is that gay people would not be reproducing regardless of whether marriage was legal or not. The actual act of marriage does nothing to the population.

Citation would be nice

fair enough.
Blanchard and Klassen (1997). H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 373-378.

The above is where Blanchard and Klassen reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%

Below is a New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/he...70&oref=slogin

This is probably the most reliable variable identified.

Homosexuality can be changed because you admit yourself that homosexuality is environmentally affected in the most part,

Is there data on how non-biological factors play a role?

What exactly does it entail more then "just breaking up"? Nobody has an obligation to stay together, though I grant that heterosexuals with children will try harder to make it work for the sake of the child, I just don't think this has such a massive effect.

My family has two divorces in it an maybe one on the way (my own parents). Every single time, the parents stay together for maybe five or more years before finally separating. Always, it is done for the kid's sake.

By your own figures heterosexual marriages are stronger, I'm using your data, it supports my arguement and contradicts yours, feel free to provide more statistics that will contradict me any time you like.

I'm saying that the mere 7% difference is due to lack of social necessity for homosexual couples to stay together.

I also I have better data.

# ^ Darren Spedale, William Eskridge and Hans Ytterberg Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, Journals of Legal Scholarship:Issues in Legal Scholarship i.5, The Berkeley Electronic Press, January 2004

linkFreedom To Marry | Error

In the Scandinavian countries. The legalization of homosexual marriage has seen an increase in heterosexual marriage, and more importantly, a decrease heterosexual divorce.

You also see the same in Boston where divorce has decreased since making homosexual marriage legal.

Allowing homosexual marriage actually simulates traditional marriage.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster That may be true, but that does not make bullying good, because it toughens people up does not make it right, a cause of major bullying should be avoided if it can. The bigger issue here though is not the direct effect of bullying, it's the chance that a child may turn on his/her foster parents and blame them as the cause of their suffering. Catastrophic to say the least, how can you claim a relationship in which a child hates his/her parents to be worthwhile at all? For your information this is the one part of the arguement I believe to be true, I will never foster because I couldn't put a child through that.

I'm not saying the bullying was good, but that's sociaty's fault, not the homosexual couple.
We can't ban something because people are unfair about it.

Quote by: the bacon guy No worries; I'm actually against gay marriage myself.

Maybe you and yourmaster should switch sides now.

[italiangm]

Quote by: yourmaster Of course you are right, I completely agree with 90% of the points you have just made, as I've said many times I'm homosexual and all for gay marriage, but for the sake of debate I'm taking the other side.

Well, I don't need to sharpen my debate skills, but I'll help you sharpen yours.

Quote by: yourmaster Not a reduction in fecundicity, merely in the use of it. You have not refuted that fecundicity is a major evolutionary heuristic and that not using that fecundicity is going against natural selection and damaging the human race's ability to survive healthily.

I don't need to refute the heuristic because you haven't cited how it's changed. I assert there's been no substantial change, thus the argument that humankind is in some kind of danger is *yours* to prove.

Quote by: yourmaster what altruistic benefits do homosexuals provide to heterosexual couples that could not be provided by another heterosexual exactly?

Humans have difficulty controlling their sexual impulses. In the case of heterosexuals, the resulting emotional damage often distracts them from functioning optimally in society, disrupting the family unit they've created, often causing uncertainty and distress among their offspring. Homosexuals aren't competing for mates in the heterosexual sandbox. Thus they are available to pick up the slack while hetero couples bicker, separate, and divorce. Have you ever wondered why homosexuals often gravitate toward service/support industries? They help keep the world running. One merely needs to glance at today's headlines (or know by practical experience as a homosexual) to know heterosexuals sometimes turn to homosexuals as a no-strings-attached outlet for their sexual impulses.

Quote by: yourmaster There are indeed homosexual animals, I fail to see quite how homosexuality helped the distribution of the human race, yet the pleistocene era isn't quite my area of expertees.

Hint: Primate evolution.

Quote by: yourmaster No same sex co-operation is a survival strategy, humans interacting with each other and working together to a goal is a survival strategy, homosexuality does little to contribute to this, given the discrimination aimed the way of homosexuals I would say that homosexuality has inhibited same sex co-operation due to the reactions of their peers.

Again, I recommend you review the occupational distribution of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

Quote by: yourmaster Citation?

See The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Scent study suggests difference in brains of gay, straight men

Quote by: yourmaster My math is not defective, there is merely a lack of information provided.

No, your math *is* defective because you're drawing a conclusion based on insufficient sample size.

Quote by: yourmaster We live in a largely xenophobic society and measures must be taken to counter it, for now it is in the best interests of young orphans up for adoption to keep them out of harms way, no?

With that logic, there will never be any progress. Children who could flourish under the guidance and nurturing of one or more loving parents will instead continue to suffer and be abused as wards of the state.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: italiangm Well, I don't need to sharpen my debate skills, but I'll help you sharpen yours.

Modesty.

Again, I recommend you review the occupational distribution of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

cite please

No, your math *is* defective because you're drawing a conclusion based on insufficient sample size.

where do you draw the line?

Hint: Primate evolution.

Pretend that we are stupid. At least give us a link.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind The imbalanced population. However, the simple fact is that gay people would not be reproducing regardless of whether marriage was legal or not. The actual act of marriage does nothing to the population.

True, you have got me on that front.

Quote by: Winter wind fair enough. Blanchard and Klassen (1997). H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 373-378. The above is where Blanchard and Klassen reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33% Below is a New York Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/he...70&oref=slogin This is probably the most reliable variable identified.

In the womb, the body of a developing fetus is female by default and becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene,

It is primary school biology that the dominant gene will not mix, it will dominate, hence the name, if SRY is present then the child will be male, levels of the gene are irrelevant. This article is also full of "may" and "might", all the more adding to that fact that sexual genetics is mostly an unexplored science.

Quote by: Winter wind Is there data on how non-biological factors play a role?

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/gender-studie...%20Fishman.pdf

Lesbian tendencies were a result of 1) hypersexuality due to automasturbation, 2) lack of access to heterosexual intercourse, 3) dissatisfied wives and 4) disgust with the perversion of the male gender. These four fundamental causes of lesbianism,

Quote by: Winter wind I'm saying that the mere 7% difference is due to lack of social necessity for homosexual couples to stay together.

This may be true, but it still remains that homosexual relationships last longer.

Quote by: Winter wind linkFreedom To Marry | Error

Your link is broken.

Quote by: Winter wind In the Scandinavian countries. The legalization of homosexual marriage has seen an increase in heterosexual marriage, and more importantly, a decrease heterosexual divorce.

I fail to see how this is any more then coincidence, how does one persons marriage have an effect on another?

Quote by: Winter wind Allowing homosexual marriage actually simulates traditional marriage.

I have to agree with this statement, as a lot of the articles I have read from reliable sources support this.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: italiangm
There's a significant body of evidence that suggest certain behaviors attributed to heterosexual females is also part of the biological make-up of homosexual males. Take the fairly recent discovery about scent detection and behavior similarities between heterosexual females and homosexual males, for instance.

Your own citation contradicts this.

Quote: