Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married?

[photon]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Question for the atheists who see homosexuality as no more right or wrong than heterosexuality: How does this idea co-exist with the idea of evolution and natural selection?

Why direct the question at atheists, atheism and evolution aren't the same thing, seeing as most Christians accept evolution and many prominent evolutionary biologists are Christians.

From an evolution point of view, homosexuality is obviously associated with something that confers an evolutionary advantage because it exists and exists in many species with two sexes (meaning it's been around since long before humans). Anything not selected for will eventually go away due to genetic corruption.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Why direct the question at atheists, atheism and evolution aren't the same thing, seeing as most Christians accept evolution and many prominent evolutionary biologists are Christians.

From an evolution point of view, homosexuality is obviously associated with something that confers an evolutionary advantage because it exists and exists in many species with two sexes (meaning it's been around since long before humans). Anything not selected for will eventually go away due to genetic corruption.

Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?

Your right there would be no genetic corruption, because there would be no reproduction and adaptation.

And to further that question, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if Homosexuality was a purely genetic condition that it will eventually die out due to the inability to breed without outside assistance (sperm donation etc)?

So the current question that comes to mind, is homosexuality something thats inherant in all of us as a recessive condition, and in I guess a minority of the species it comes to the forefront based on whatever condition fires it?

Just curious

[Knut]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?

Your right there would be no genetic corruption, because there would be no reproduction and adaptation.

Practice ?

[CaptainCrunch]

Practice huh?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?

It could be nature's way of thinning the herd as it isn't always advantageous for individuals to procreate. I read about a study before than indicated a higher rate of homosexuality among people who were the youngest in families with more than 3 children. I would also love to know if population density effects it.

I know that some mammal species (ex. Richardson Groundsquirrels IIRC) actually become less sexually active when their populations are too high. Many do not even look for mates. Conversely, when their populations are low, they do it like crazy... it's one of the reasons farmers have so much trouble controlling them. It's obviously not a conscious decision to them, but something environmental that triggers a response in sexual behaviour.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

I don't think its "wierd", i think its "wrong". So yeah, I think they should take the child away. I would be furious. Again, this is all just based on how i would feel in that situation, and i know I'd be livid. I wouldn't have wanted it for me, so i don't feel like its something that should be able to be thrust upon young children who may very well grow up to be just like me.

Wow, awesome. You're for the government taking the child away from (in this scenerio) a perfectly capable mother because she chooses to sleep with a women instead of a man. You'd rather this child have a chance to grow up in a broken system, and be forgotten about.

You wouldn't want to be adopted by a gay family now since you've already been raised to dislike homosexuality. Being raised with it from birth is completely different.

I don't want to be raised by a French couple, because I don't speak French. Children born of English parents shouldn't be adopted by French people because they won't have a choice and won't ever be able to understand their parents.

Some of you are acting like those of us that are pro-adoption for gay couples are saying that any gay couple (which of course is an STI-ridden sex-monger, hungry for weekend orgies) should have the right to scoop any child up they see and raise them to eat the flesh of humans and cast spells on those opposed to their way of life. Any couple looking to adopt a child should go through the same extensive background checks as anyone else. The only difference is sexual orientation should not be relevent. Because it's not. The standard of parenting is based on who you are as a person, not who you sleep with.

I'm sure you can be an intelligent person. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement, but I really hope we have less "children who may very well grow up to be just like me." because if we don't, human rights will never take such an important and harmless step forward.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?

I didn't say homosexuality itself conferred an advantage, I said it must be associated with something that confers an advantage. Changes in traits aren't always 100% beneficial or 100% detrimental, things are complicated and have multiple effects and those change depending on the environment that's doing the selecting.

So if there's some trait that confers a strong advantage and is selected for and there's something about it that confers a disadvantage (homosexuality being a disadvantage from the viewpoint of reproduction), if the disadvantage is weak and the advantage strong, it's possible they'll both be selected for.

There might also be some advantage to the population as a whole, so while an individual's genes don't get passed on, the gene pool still selects for a certain percentage of individuals with that trait. Remember it's populations that evolve, not individuals.

Fitness isn't just about reproduction, it's also about surviving to get to reproduction, and as a social species surviving to get to reproduction depends on more than just the individual, so you have to gauge fitness from that point of view.

I don't know if homosexuality specifically fits into either of those as I really haven't read much on it, but I do recall people talking about it from an evolutionary point of view and there being advantages.

That it exists in many animals (including humans) and hasn't been selected out strongly suggests there's an advantage to fitness in some fashion.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am reasonably against gay marriage for relatively good reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. On the subject of homosexuals and society's tolerance, the daily casual abuse that is cast upon homosexuals, especially adolescents or teenagers, is absolutely revolting to me.

It is impossible to be reasonably against homosexual marriage and there are no good reasons to be against it.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Dion

A study from the U.K., however, suggested that 12-year-olds raised by mother-only families (lesbian or heterosexual) scored the same on masculinity factors as sons raised by a mother and a father. Interestingly, though, the mother-only boys also scored higher on femininity scales.

"Mrs. and Mrs. Jenkins, our study showed that your son is partial to beer and salty snacks, burping, farting, and watching contact sports. Our research also revealed a pronounced preference for pink lacey things, throw pillows, and large collections of shoes he's only worn once."

"We also noted that, while he was consuming beer and salty snacks and watching hockey, he regularly nagged himself about each of these things and reminded himself to put the seat back down after peeing."

"Mrs. and Mrs. Jenkins, your son is the most well balanced young man we've seen since explosion of sensitive 90s kind of guys 20 years ago. We expect he'll be single until he's 35, but will have lots of female friends and an unusually well decorated (if rarely used) bachelor pad."

"Or he could turn out gay. It's hard to tell really."

[CaptainCrunch]

I laughed

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

It is impossible to be reasonably against homosexual marriage and there are no good reasons to be against it.

How tolerant of you. You don't even want to know his reasons. I've heard his reasons before, and they probably aren't what you think they are.

Way to show tolerance!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

It is impossible to be reasonably against homosexual marriage and there are no good reasons to be against it.

An informative book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Normal-...0909796&sr=8-1

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by peter12

An informative book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Normal-...0909796&sr=8-1

It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay hard earned money to read a book where the central focus is against something I am in favour of.

People can complicate the issue all they want, trying to justify their reasoning with theoretical hypotheses under the guise of social study. But at the end of the day, the heart of the matter is that they just don't want homosexuals to receive the same rights, freedoms, and privileges that a heterosexual person does.

I cannot tolerate that.

I will not tolerate that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay hard earned money to read a book where the central focus is against something I am in favour of.

People can complicate the issue all they want, trying to justify their reasoning with theoretical hypotheses under the guise of social study. But at the end of the day, the heart of the matter is that they just don't want homosexuals to receive the same rights, freedoms, and privileges that a heterosexual person does.

I cannot tolerate that.

The definition of idiocy. Truly. You have no idea how pathetic this stance really is.

The book was also written by a prominent, extremely gay, American academic in response to the fusillade of pro-marriage books by prominent homosexual writers, such as Andrew Sullivan.

See, I know way more about the discussion of the issue than you do.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay hard earned money to read a book where the central focus is against something I am in favour of.

People can complicate the issue all they want, trying to justify their reasoning with theoretical hypotheses under the guise of social study. But at the end of the day, the heart of the matter is that they just don't want homosexuals to receive the same rights, freedoms, and privileges that a heterosexual person does.

I cannot tolerate that.

I will not tolerate that.

So you're suggesting that it's best to fight intolerance with intolerance?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

So you're suggesting that it's best to fight intolerance with intolerance?

And ignorance of one's opponents. That's also key.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Question for the atheists who see homosexuality as no more right or wrong than heterosexuality: How does this idea co-exist with the idea of evolution and natural selection?

Whether homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage (a problematic term I realize) is of no matter to an atheist because what nature prescribes is no more valuable to humans than what humans decide for themselves. Evolution, for an atheist, is just the way life grew out of chaos, evolution itself is neither right or wrong.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?

Your right there would be no genetic corruption, because there would be no reproduction and adaptation.

And to further that question, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if Homosexuality was a purely genetic condition that it will eventually die out due to the inability to breed without outside assistance (sperm donation etc)?

So the current question that comes to mind, is homosexuality something thats inherant in all of us as a recessive condition, and in I guess a minority of the species it comes to the forefront based on whatever condition fires it?

Just curious

Perhaps when we were monkeys, occasionally mokeys, boy monkeys would hump other boy monkeys for fun and it would create a stronger community as there were more partners around to have a good time with. This larger community survived better because there is strength in numbers, hence the genes of the monkeys who liked to hump other boy monkeys on the side were passed on.

Or, what if in groups where one male mates with most of the females. Perhaps that male expresses his dominance by humping other male monkeys (kind of like prison). By humping other male monkeys against their will, he maintains his position on top of the breeding ladder and passes along his genes that like to hump other boy monkeys.

There you go, without much thought on the issue, I've come up with two viable situations where homsexual behavior (though not strictly) can be bread into a population.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Perhaps when we were monkeys, occasionally mokeys, boy monkeys would hump other boy monkeys for fun and it would create a stronger community as there were more partners around to have a good time with. This larger community survived better because there is strength in numbers, hence the genes of the monkeys who liked to hump other boy monkeys on the side were passed on.

Or, what if in groups where one male mates with most of the females. Perhaps that male expresses his dominance by humping other male monkeys (kind of like prison). By humping other male monkeys against their will, he maintains his position on top of the breeding ladder and passes along his genes that like to hump other boy monkeys.

There you go, without much thought on the issue, I've come up with two viable situations where homsexual behavior (though not strictly) can be bread into a population.

Humans weren't ever monkeys

[afc wimbledon]

I am not sure the existance of a trait means it bestows an advantage.
Many traits have died out because they didn't bestow an advantage, but they existed before hand, food alergies exist, but do not appear to be anything but a disadvantge and in the natural order of things will eventually die out.

That said being gay does not mean you cannot procreate with a woman and many societies that developed along predominantly same sex lines (classical Greek etc) still managed to retain marrige for the purpose of breeding.
I think very few gay men don't have some sexual experiances with women in their lives, Graham Chapman of Monty Python described driving in a cab and realising that he was attracted to 5 men and 2 women as they drove down the street and as such he decided he was gay.

As long as we have booze men will manage to shag women they arn't attracted to that much, whether that is due to same sex preference or the general fugliness of the bird is really neither here nor there.