Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[CopticChristian]

I think the argument goes like this:

1. Marriage in the US confers many tangible benefits on those who are married
2. Those benefits were only ascribed to people based on gender.
3. That’s discrimination.

Julia,

Please add…

1. In my opinion

and then note that you are wrong.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

In regards to the above, I think it’s probably genetic. Most of what I’ve read emphasises this, but it’s not my area of expertise.

How about an analogous argument…

1. People are born genetically with tendencies.
2. Experience and genetics are so intertwined that nobody can determine if either is the more determinable cause.
3. Therefore, no argument for or against predetermination can be verified.
4. Corrolary: Therefore discussions concerning predetermination is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

“Gayness” is a trait nature selects for because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species.

This is a stretch. Autism is much more common than homosexuality but it would be odd to hear someone who studies autism arguing that nature selects for autism because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species. But given what you said, do you think it would be wrong for a gay person to leave his family and move to a place where mzny other gay people but no children of siblings (or other relatives) that he could look after? In evolutionary terms, I mean. Also, if what you say is so, shouldn’t gay couples busy themselves with looking after the children of their siblings (or other relatives) rather than adopting the children of unrelated people? Again, isn’t gay—on this line of thinking–nature’s way of providing free child care to the offspring of relatives???

 

[CopticChristian]

9755686]

I want to address the bolded part. You probably have heard the phrase “survival of the fittest.” That doesn’t mean “the biggest and baddest win.” It actually means the ones who have the most offspring who have the most offspring" have the greatest “Darwinian fitness.” That is: they *fit *better into their environments and succeed at living.

Now we add genes to the mix. To have a high fitness level, your genes have to survive and spread through the population. How can that happen if you don’t have offspring? Your genes are the same, in very large part, as your siblings. So,** how does same gender attraction make evolutionary sense so strongly that we see it in almost every vertebrate species we have studied?**

Your genes won’t survive to the next generation if the children that carry them don’t survive. Let’s take a model of a large family living on a farm. In this family there is a “bachelor” uncle. His genes are in every one of the children his sister has. It is to his biological advantage to help those kids survive. Does he know that? Nope. But nature does. It’s his family group. He is an extra hand helping produce more food for everyone. If he has a job, he increases resources in that way. If there is an attack, he is another adult to defend the homestead. If the father dies, he is there to protect and preserve the family and make sure the kids grow up.

But what if he is not a bachelor? What if he marries? If he stays, and she has many children there might not be enough resources. Less food can mean weakness and vulnerability to disease in children and miscarriage in the women. Or he might leave and the family loses the advantages he gives. In socially organized species, like chimps and humans and others, you see this in the successful family clans within the tribe or troop: “gay” members who stay with the family and make it stronger and increase the fitness of the individuals in it. Including themselves.

**“Gayness” is a trait nature selects for because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species./**QUOTE]

Julia,

Gay in your opinion based on imagination and conjecture contributes and you are wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think they do. They think it means “guess.” Maybe I’m wrong, I’ve been fighting this kind of misunderstanding online for almost twenty years now.

OTOH, there was one fundamentalist who was around the old AOL forums and he kept repeating things I knew very well he knew were not true. I PMed him and asked how he could be a Christian and lie on purpose like that. He responded that it’s fine to lie for Jesus Who is the greatest Truth.

How can that possibly relate to the topic? What is the Church doing in this fight over civil law? The social issues are going to include more of a shift away from the Church, and not just ours, if moral decisions aren’t based first and most thoroughly in compassion and charity and not legality.

The social implications of widespread acceptance of same sex union and the integration of the formerly vilified, attacked, marginalized people are staggeringly positive.

We can’t keep being mean and rigid because Jesus is the greatest kindness. WE have to become that, it’s our job.

Julia,

Shall we do evil so that grace may abound…by no means…go read St. Paul…

 

[CopticChristian]

You make some good points, however there is more to add. Some research in Italy, Why Gays don’t go Extinct, has indicated that there are genes, call them “he’s hunky” genes, which tend to result in women having more children and homosexuality in men.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why**, if homosexuality is hereditary**, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

rossum

Ross,

IF…pure conjecture leading to imagination and not truth…

 

[Acrossthedesert]

It makes sense when you know that what is in the DSM is voted on by whoever attends a meeting for that purpose. Those diseases and their descriptions are the result of majority opinion.

Psychology is to physics as Jurassic Park is to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

OK. An analogy can help clarify a point. Sometimes it can also make you laugh.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a stretch. Autism is much more common than homosexuality but it would be odd to hear someone who studies autism arguing that nature selects for autism because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species. But given what you said, do you think it would be wrong for a gay person to leave his family and move to a place where mzny other gay people but no children of siblings (or other relatives) that he could look after? In evolutionary terms, I mean. Also, if what you say is so, shouldn’t gay couples busy themselves with looking after the children of their siblings (or other relatives) rather than adopting the children of unrelated people? Again, isn’t gay—on this line of thinking–nature’s way of providing free child care to the offspring of relatives???

Mark,

Here is that line of thinking from an active Homosexual Christian brother believing that a realtionship with sodomy brings grace…

But one may derive similar goods from alternative family structures, such as those that are less nuclear and/or **those which recognize same-sex attracted members of the family as providers of what some scientists believe to be their evolutionary purpose: an extra pair of hands to provide care giving for the children of siblings. **That means that those siblings may be better equipped to have a few additional children while the fact that the same-sex attracted care-giver is not producing children means, too, that the resources (food, shelter, etc.) which his or her children may have consumed can be more easily allocated (and without too much competition!) to the children that actually exist. That is, these children will have advantages which those in other settings and lacking such caregivers will not have. Larger, multi-generational families living together increase these advantages. So would polygamous families. So would a well-run commune in which its members “didn’t believe in marriage.”

 

[Acrossthedesert]

I think the argument goes like this:

1. Marriage in the US confers many tangible benefits on those who are married
2. Those benefits were only ascribed to people based on gender.
3. That’s discrimination.

They were only ascribed to people who were not presently married (bigomy) as well. Also they were only ascribed to people (now) over the age of 18years. The questions is “Is this about equality?” Since nobody has a natural right to a marriage license, than this is really a question of promoting acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”.

And as stated previously:

Food for thought: Do you know the psychological community was lobbied to remove homosexuality from the list of abnormalities? How can anyone lobby a science? Should we lobby to the physics community that the Earth is flat? Makes no sense at all.

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

1. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.
2. People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits.
3. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.
4. **Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”. **
5. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs.

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. **

“if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt their language”**

 

[Faithdancer]

The distinction between atheist and agnostic is important.

For you to be atheist, as I understand it, is to declare: There is no god.

To be an agnostic is to say: I don’t know if there is a god or not, but so far there is no evidence that compels me to believe.

Now, unless you can say definitively “There is no god!” you must be an agnostic, yes?

(And how is it that you could know this “truth”: “there is no god” unless you were, well, omniscient, right? And if you were omniscient then…
you are a god, and your premise fails. )

This is the point. Someone on another thread explained to me that there are a number of different labels: “hard atheist,” “agnostic atheist” etc. etc. It seems there are denominations, perhaps not the 30,000+ that exist among Protestants, but I was still surprised.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is a stretch. Autism is much more common than homosexuality …

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that between 1 in 80 and 1 in 240—for an average of 1 in 110 children have an autism spectrum disorder.
But a study published Monday in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a much higher rate: about 1 in 38 children.
The study involved testing all the 7- to 12-year-old children, some 55,266 kids, in a single South Korean town.

blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2011/05/how_many_really_people_have_au.html

Compare this to the recent study from the Williams Institute showing that about 3.5 percent of adults (about 9 million Americans) identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And neither number resembles the 10 percent estimate offered by the Kinsey Reports that many refer to.
The increase in perceived LGB populations likely reflects increases in cultural visibility in the media, as well as possibly more people coming out. A 2009 Gallup poll showed that people who know someone who is gay are more likely to support LGBT equality, and recent polling shows that support for marriage equality, as an example, is higher than ever.
Still, it’s also important to remember that the 3.5 percent represents people who openly identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The National Survey of Family Growth (2006-2008) (PDF) showed that as many as 11 percent of Americans admit acknowledging at least some same-sex attraction. It could very well be that the increase in visibility is also shifting the zeitgeist to be more open-minded about sexuality so that individuals are more willing to explore — or at least acknowledge — that their own sexual orientation is more complex than they would previously have admitted.

thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/05/31/231402/just-how-many-gay-people-are-there-and-does-it-matter/?mobile=nc

I found an estimation that only 2% of the population has an IQ that would qualify them for MENSA (130+) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society

but it would be odd to hear someone who studies autism arguing that nature selects for autism because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species.

Of course, we do not argue that genius IQ is not selected-for or that it does not increase fitness because of the rate at which we find the trait n a population.

Genetically-linked traits that are consistent and promote fitness are selected-for. The gene that causes sickle-cell anemia is highly selected-for. But only in certain environments. In those environments, it increases fitness. This isn’t simple science, like chemistry, evolutionary science is the most complex branch of science there is.

The concept of “altruism” in evolutionary biology explains a lot of traits, behaviors and systems that would seem, at first glance, to be contra-survival. Same sex attraction can be considered one of those altruistic traits.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do, and so, the trait, the gene, the behaviors all have to be considered in terms of the population and the forces that drive changes in overall genetic frequencies.

But given what you said, do you think it would be wrong for a gay person to leave his family and move to a place where mzny other gay people but no children of siblings (or other relatives) that he could look after? In evolutionary terms, I mean.

There is no “wrong/right” dichotomy in evolutionary biology or any other natural system or process. There are behaviors that can increase or decrease fitness and survivability.

 

[Julia_Mae]

They were only ascribed to people who were not presently married (bigomy) as well. Also they were only ascribed to people (now) over the age of 18years. The questions is “Is this about equality?” Since nobody has a natural right to a marriage license, than this is really a question of promoting acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”.

And as stated previously:

Do you think heterosexuals want to marry to promote acceptance of their lifestyle? I know two sets of married gay people, one men and the other women. I have to say, I don’t think any of them give a hoot in a holler about what anyone thinks of them.

Does “accept their lifestyle” mean : “let them get married?” Well, then yeah. Why would heterosexuals object if the state suddenly banned marriage? Why would anyone want to be married? Gay folks are not different from straight folks except in the area of who they make their primary emotional attachment to. They want to get married. Not all, but many. That’s it, no big agenda, they are just acting like everyone else.

The “lifestyle” they want accepted, is just like yours.

 

[CopticChristian]

;9756052]

Do you think heterosexuals want to marry to promote acceptance of their lifestyle? I know two sets of married gay people, one men and the other women. I have to say, I don’t think any of them give a hoot in a holler about what anyone thinks of them.

Does “accept their lifestyle” mean : “let them get married?” Well, then yeah. Why would heterosexuals object if the state suddenly banned marriage? Why would anyone want to be married? Gay folks are not different from straight folks except in the area of who they make their primary emotional attachment to. They want to get married. Not all, but many. That’s it, no big agenda, they are just acting like everyone else.
**
The “lifestyle” they want accepted, is just like yours./**QUOTE]

Julia,

Not it is not. I am not hoping to be defined by my behavior as a seperate class.

 

[CopticChristian]

I found an estimation that only 2% of the population has an IQ that would qualify them for MENSA (130+) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society

Of course, we do not argue that genius IQ is not selected-for or that it does not increase fitness because of the rate at which we find the trait n a population.

Genetically-linked traits that are consistent and promote fitness are selected-for. The gene that causes sickle-cell anemia is highly selected-for. But only in certain environments. In those environments, it increases fitness. This isn’t simple science, like chemistry, evolutionary science is the most complex branch of science there is.

The concept of “altruism” in evolutionary biology explains a lot of traits, behaviors and systems that would seem, at first glance, to be contra-survival. **Same sex attraction can be considered one of those altruistic traits. **
Individuals do not evolve, populations do, and so, the trait, the gene, the behaviors all have to be considered in terms of the population and the forces that drive changes in overall genetic frequencies.
There is no “wrong/right” dichotomy in evolutionary biology or any other natural system or process. There are behaviors that can increase or decrease fitness and survivability.

Julia,

In your opinion begging the question that it is a trait and it is not, therefore you are wrong.

 

[Faithdancer]

“Gayness” is a trait nature selects for because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species.

So then why aren’t most people gay, if the trait is so beneficial to the human species? If you are arguing that there is some control that keeps “gayness” at a constant, optimally beneficial rate of occurrence in the population, what exactly is that mechanism?

 

[Faithdancer]

Julia,

In your opinion begging the question that it is a trait and it is not, therefore you are wrong.

I’m curious as well to know her position on absolute morality, since she brought up “altruistic traits.” Unbelievers often bring up the “altruistic trait” rationale to explain away morality grounded in natural law.

 

[markeverett49]

I responded to the ‘extra-pair of hands’ argument on another thread. If you look at it this way, don’t you have to think it is WRONG for a gay person to move away from his own family to live among other gay people, thus not doing his evolutionary duty to provide kin with free baby-sitting?

 

[Julia_Mae]

So then why aren’t most people gay, if the trait is so beneficial to the human species? If you are arguing that there is some control that keeps “gayness” at a constant, optimally beneficial rate of occurrence in the population, what exactly is that mechanism?

Faithdancer, do you know how bumblebees fly? You know, using the theory of aerodynamics we explained how birds and bats and butterflies flew. We created hot air balloons and jetliners and sent people to the moon. But according to the theory of aerodynamics, it was impossible for bumblebees to fly. Know how long it took 'em to figure it out? I think it was about 5 yrs ago!

So, yes, there is a mechanism that keeps “gayness” at a fairly constant level in a large population and there are some pretty good ideas how it works. But that doesn’t mean we have some hard and fast answer right now, like exactly what atoms make up a molecule of distilled water.

In males, this is a nicely written article on the genetics only: livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html

Because there is more than one gene location (multilocal) that is involved, statistically, that is a fairly rare condition. It’s like you have a certain likelihood of driving a blue car and a certain likelihood of having red hair. But the chance of having them both at the same time is much higher than either alone.

But there are also factors in the mother other than what genes she has, which is how many male offspring she has had or at least been pregnant with. This is a wiki article on it which isn’t bad, here’s an excerpt:

.A correlation between fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation has been suggested by research. Ray Blanchard identified the association and referred to it as the fraternal birth order effect. The theory is that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation.[1] It has sometimes been called the older brother effect. It has been estimated that 15 percent of homosexuality is due to fraternal birth order.[2]

If you go to this Google results page and open the very first result by Miller, it’s a PDF file, you’ll find a more c scholarly article, but I couldn’t copy-paste it. Basically there is a biochemical change so that separate from the genes, there are influences in utero that can bring about “gayness” in males. This makes a lot of sense in the evolutionary altruism model because it makes it more likely the same sex orientation offspring will be born when most needed. It also limits the number of those offspring in the general population.

What is hard about these conversation is that we are in the infancy of genetic science and gender orientation is such a complex trait. There are vertebrate species that simply change sex when it is for the good of the group, there are folks happy with either sex, there are social factors that seem to affect how much same sex behavior is seen and in fact, a large number of people who identify as straight who have had one or multiple same sex partners. There are people who don’t seem interested in sex at all.

The scientific community, such as it is, is quite convinced the genetic basis of same sex orientation will be pinned down and with the advent of epigenetics and understanding the controller genes, that might be within 20 years.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Do you think heterosexuals want to marry to promote acceptance of their lifestyle? I know two sets of married gay people, one men and the other women. I have to say, I don’t think any of them give a hoot in a holler about what anyone thinks of them.

Does “accept their lifestyle” mean : “let them get married?” Well, then yeah. Why would heterosexuals object if the state suddenly banned marriage? Why would anyone want to be married? Gay folks are not different from straight folks except in the area of who they make their primary emotional attachment to. They want to get married. Not all, but many. That’s it, no big agenda, they are just acting like everyone else.

The “lifestyle” they want accepted, is just like yours.

Who decides? We decide because a marriage license is not a natural right. And Catholics should oppose Gay marriage for the reasons in the argument below.

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

1. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.

1. People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits.

1. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.

1. Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”.

1. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs.

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law.

“if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt their language”

 

[markeverett49]

The concept of “altruism” in evolutionary biology explains a lot of traits, behaviors and systems that would seem, at first glance, to be contra-survival. Same sex attraction can be considered one of those altruistic traits.

Your rationale lies in assuming that gay men are especially helpful in the raising of children related to them, but you don’t demonstrate that they actually are. (I get the assumption that since they don’t have their own kids, they have time to dote on nieces and nephews, but just because they have the time doesn’t mean that’s how they spend it.) For one thing, many gay men move away from their families, which would reduce the benefit of ‘free gay babysitting,’ or at least, provide to unrelated people, which weakens the altruism argument. For another, many parents don’t want their gay relatives around their children.

But even if you are right, this argument is that homosexuals exist to serve the needs of heterosexuals! (It’s like they’re nature’s eunuchs.) It makes homosexuals a natural (-in the evolutionary sense) servant class. Another one might be sterile heterosexuals, for they can’t have children either. (I’m not sure whether the data shows they are more or less likely to care for the children of relatives…) Still another group might be those heterosexuals who are capable of reproducing but choose not to. They have time to take care of other people’s kids too. I wonder how much of that they’re doing, and how it compares to how much homosexuals and the sterile are doing. (It’s a wonder that day care centers have any customers!)