Marriage

[IglooDame]

I was thinking about this on the drive home. It's counter productive for procreation to be the reason behind marriage. Biologically speaking, it's better to pass your genes on to the next generation with as much variance as possible. So you'd want to have kids with as many different people of the opposite sex as possible in order to get the variance. So all marriage does is limit the gene pool, not expand it.

But, what's ultimately better - widening the gene pool, or bringing up younglings in more stable environments?

 

[Turner]

You can argue that one round and round and get the same results as arguing Creation vs. Evolution here.

On the one hand, you have a handful of children that are raised in a (relatively) stable environment. On the other hand, you have lots and lots of kids. Statistically speaking, some will survive. The more you have, the more your genes get passed on.

 

[croxis]

From what I read, gay couples (or individuals) adopt children who have been orphined. This greatly increases the child's chance of survival. Homosexual couples, especally male, often adopt. A stable house hold will step up a child for success far better than remaining in the system.

 

[Sidhe]

Here's some snippets from New Scientist which suggest reasons for why homosexulaity persists in humanity despite it seemingly being unfit to if it were a genetic trait. Thought it might be of interest.

BACK in 1993, when Dean Hamer discovered what appeared to be a gene that predisposed men to homosexuality, he created a paradox. According to Darwinian thinking, if homosexual men have fewer children than straight men the "gay gene" should quickly disappear from the population. Yet we know that homosexuality persists.

Another idea espoused by Hamer and others is that a gene which predisposes men to homosexuality might also increase a woman's chances of having more children. In this way, the reduced likelihood of gay men passing on the gene would be more than compensated for by women carrying the same gene. This is precisely what a group of researchers from Italy have found. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men had more children than those of straight men (see "Gay genetics"). And this difference does not appear in the father's family.

That the extra children should appear in the mother's side of the family fits with the idea of a gay gene passing from mother to son on the X chromosome. However, no simple pattern of inheritance can account for the Italian findings: the only model that fits is one where several genes, at least one of which is on the X chromosome, combine in some way to influence sexual orientation. So, as has been suggested before, it may not be one gene we are searching for but several.

While the Italian team supports the idea that genes influence homosexuality, they also caution that genetics is not the whole story. Their findings confirm that gay men are less likely to be firstborn children than later-born, and are more likely to have older brothers than sisters. They also back up previous results that gay men have more male homosexual relatives on their mother's side of the family. Yet these factors account for only a fifth of the variance seen in male sexual orientation. So a boy's experiences are still critical in deciding whether on not he becomes gay.

These findings, assuming they can be repeated, will not satisfy gay groups who want homosexuality to be seen as purely a genetic trait. Nor will they please commentators who see homosexuality as a choice made by "sinful" people. What they do show is human sexual behaviour in all its splendid complexity.

I can find no reason to think that the gay trait is not beneficial to the gene pool if this were so it would not exist, yes it's a complicated subject but putting it all down to one factor would be very naive be it genetics, nurture or hormonal development in the womb, I've always suggested it is a result of a complex number of factors.

 

[blargh]

Please answer the question. I'm interested too.

Oh no my mistake, no... no such thing as 'tina', orgies, gay bathhouses, prmoiscuity and HIV and what not.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Yankee]

From what I read, gay couples (or individuals) adopt children who have been orphined. This greatly increases the child's chance of survival. Homosexual couples, especally male, often adopt. A stable house hold will step up a child for success far better than remaining in the system.

I don't see people objecting if a family member or friend of the same gender takes on a large role of raising a child in the case of a single parent or a widow/widower. So I do agree with your statement. Broken homes of homosexual couples or unstable one-parent homes most likely take a greater toll than two people sharing the duties and care.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Oh no my mistake, no... no such thing as 'tina', orgies, gay bathhouses, prmoiscuity and HIV and what not.

Your exact statement was:

...the almost norm for the gay community seems to have become bathhouses and meth encrusted sex parties.

Bold by me.

The term "almost norm" implies normal or regular behavior. Gay/lesbian people claim that they are 10% of the population. Let's say that's badly inaccurate and the figure is only 5%. Of 300 million Americans that's still 7 million gay men and 7 million lesbian women.

Time to check if your claim is valid. How many bathhouses are there in America? Are there enough to support an "almost norm" lifestyle of bathhouses as you claim for that many millions of people? That would require far more bathhouses than actually exist. Sorry, but the math just doesn't add up. Do you have a link to any actual data for the number of bathhouses and the frequency and percentage of the homosexual population that participates in this "almost norm" behavior?

Lets look at your second claim of "meth encrusted sex parties". Do you somehow claim that homosexuality promotes drug use? Do you have any actual data to support your claim or is it just based solely on your conjecture?

Are you an expert on homosexual behaviors and lifestyles? Do you practice a homosexual lifestyle and would therefore be able to speak from personal experience? What qualifies your opinion as anything but pure speculation?

Promiscuous behavior and illegal drug usage are practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If your objective is to prevent marriage by immoral people then why not have STD screening, HIV tests and urine tests for drug use as the pre-requisite for marriage, no matter what the applicant's sexual preference? Shouldn't the test be based on any specific individuals actual behavior and not some kind of group discrimination? Are you against the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Come now, is that really the best argument you can make up to justify your effort to hide your bias and prejudice against homosexuals sharing the same rights the rest of us already enjoy?

 

[Sidhe]

These sort of arguments always come from ignorance, and I'm beginning to think the only anti arguments are due to the eeek factor, the feeling that it is worng and counter productive despite evidence to the contrary, what is wrong is driving it underground, persecution and intolerance, this leads to all the things you adomonish; and yet making it open a part of society leads to a better place where gays can live in peace and do what they want without the need of such back alley practices, how counterpoductive do you want to get?

I am widely coming to believe that those who speak agianst the homosexual minority are served by making the problem worse by intolerance,and that they honestly believe that an attitude of you are wrong and we shall put you in such a place will be the best way to solve the situation. Grow up, think on, and move your idignation to issues that actually matter, I've never seen such concern in issues that should not matter since I posted on this forum, in fact I've never posted on homosexual issues despite being a member of a few forums, never felt I had the need to before.

Your arguments are based on phobia and hate, regardless of how many silk dresses you care to throw on them, they are also irrelevant and devoid of any sort of understanding because you have no knowledge of those who you decry, in fact you don't want knowledge because that might weaken your position. Should you ever come to ignore this issue and let it play out in the way it should you'll understand this, fighting against it is simply making it worse and creating division where none should exist. I noticed my attempts at compromise went unnoticed and unread, this above all else shows that you have no argument against equality, and no reasoned belief to hate.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

As for homosexual men having more promiscuous sex than heterosexual men: I can believe it. The reason is not that homo* men are more promiscuous than hetero men, but their partners are; ie homo men want to have more sex than hetero women. If women wanted sex as much as men, then hetero men would get as much sex as homo men.

*This is an abbreviation, not a slur.

As for procreation: It may one day be possible to remove the DNA from an unfertilized egg and place it in another unfertilized egg, thereby making one woman the father of another woman's child. When that happens, lesbian couples will be able to have children together (rather than one getting pregnant from somewhere else). What will this do to the argument that marriage is only for procreation?

 

[GenMarshall]

As for procreation: It may one day be possible to remove the DNA from an unfertilized egg and place it in another unfertilized egg, thereby making one woman the father of another woman's child. When that happens, lesbian couples will be able to have children together (rather than one getting pregnant from somewhere else). What will this do to the argument that marriage is only for procreation?

That would boggle the Cardinals and the Pope's minds when they hear about this. I have no doubt that they would be against this sort of procreation since it sounds too much like IVF.

Then well come to an argument that Jesus never had two mothers with the religious saying that Jesus had a mother (Mary) and a Father (God).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Does it matter what Jesus' parentage was, though? I mean, he had a Divine father and we only have human fathers. And his mother was a virgin. So right off the bat no one has the same family history as Jesus and that can't be used as a basis for anything.

(Remember, of course, that my view of homosexual activity is similar to that of the Catholic Church. We seem to be disagreeing on how to apply it, though.)

 

[GenMarshall]

(Remember, of course, that my view of homosexual activity is similar to that of the Catholic Church. We seem to be disagreeing on how to apply it, though.)

If I may ask, how do you apply the view of homosexual activity? (Apologies if my question is not clear)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If I may ask, how do you apply the view of homosexual activity? (Apologies if my question is not clear)

I mean that basically, there should be no laws restricting it any more than there should be laws against adultery or any other immoral behavior that harms only the participant. (I of course feel that such activity can cause moral harm, but no other kind.) Gay marriage is trickier because it is not about outlawing anything but about giving privileges to a certain type of relationship I can't condone. Which is why I always said I could neither support nor oppose recognizing SSM's, which is why the "civil union" thing seems to be a good compromise.

 

[GenMarshall]

...which is why the "civil union" thing seems to be a good compromise.

I guess this is the part that we have a disagreement in regards to SSMs and such. As a Catholic I cannot support "civil unions" because to me it means that society is approving a sexual act which is immoral. However thats just my feelings and beliefs and fail to see how "civil unions" as a good compromise.

 

[Tycoon101]

Ugh... If you pledge your lives together in marriage then you pledge that you will keep your sexual conduct with them alone for life. That is how I view it. Some of my other views might get me kicked out of here, but IMHO I believe that homosexuality is degrading our culture, making us soft, and opening us to unsavory things.

 

[Tycoon101]

I guess this is the part that we have a disagreement in regards to SSMs and such. As a Catholic I cannot support "civil unions" because to me it means that society is approving a sexual act which is immoral. However thats just my feelings and beliefs and fail to see how "civil unions" as a good compromise.

I mostly agree with you except for the "Catholic" part. Civil unions for homosexuals ARE immoral, and tell people that we do not care about the institutions of marriage by opening it to homosexuals.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, what is worse, in your view: people having long-term homosexual relations, with all that involves, or them calling it marriage? I would say the first. But As a rule I find it a bad idea on both secular and religious grounds to have the government defining or enforcing morality. They cannot and should not stop the former, and realistically they can't do much about the latter. Society, not the government, defines what marriage really is. There are already gay people in de facto same sex marriages, and we shouldn't stop them no matter how wrong we may think it is.

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly, I dont want my religion to be forced by the government of the United States to conduct same-gender marrages if my faith opposes same-sex marrages. Bad enough there are discrimination laws that strips our priests and ministers of their consitutional right of free speach to tell their congregation and parish members that homosexuality acts are wrong and sinfull.

I do acknowlage that there are some priests and ministers that abuse the freedom of speach such as that crazy guy from the Westburo Baptist Church.

 

[Tycoon101]

Well, what is worse, in your view: people having long-term homosexual relations, with all that involves, or them calling it marriage?

They are equally evil. They are horribly bad things that must be discouraged. We must tell people that they should stop wanting to be homosexual.
I have heard enough stories about homosexuals that indicate that they did not have a tendency to liking members of the same sex until they chose to. Thus it seems that their argument that all sexuality is genetic is folly.

Again: Gay marriage and polygamy should be banned to stop the corruption of the world's values.

 

[GenMarshall]

They are equally evil. They are horribly bad things that must be discouraged. We must tell people that they should stop wanting to be homosexual.

I agree that homosexual acts should be discuraged. However, I feel that homosexual persons should be treated with respect and with dignity and any unjust discrimination should be avoided. Unjust discrimination means denying them a job because of their sexual orientation and denying them medical help because of their sexual orientation.

Telling a homosexual that they should stop wanting to be homosexual is both disrespectfull and impossible. This is why I think many homosexuals are not fond with Evangical Fundamentalist Christians is because they are told to "stop being homosexual because your an abomination". I feel that sexual orientation in itself is not a sin, but acting out on lust is a sin. I feel that the homosexual individual should live a life of chasity the best he or she could.