Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Religion" does not "own" the word marriage.

The constitution surely does not allow the United States to reserve a word for religious use.

The trouble is, I think, not over words but the things to which words refer.

I am sure you are right.

The fact that a subset of religious people is attacking the concept on the rather specious grounds of nomenclature shows that the "moral" fight is already lost, though.

Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

Then why do humans place such heavy emphasis on monogamy?

 dogma wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

Why, that's not sexist at all!

Not sure where you are going with that. I was speaking in broad strokes of the entire mammal class. Human beings, being the lone truly sentient creatures on this planet, are capable of ignoring the natural drives we have. However, if we have such power could we not then use it to purposely remove unwanted traits from the gene-pool?

Edit overlap... As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

Except for the fact that human civilization has largely invalidated natural selection. Or are you trying to say individuals like Steven Hawking are inferior to you somehow?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

Except for the fact that human civilization has largely invalidated natural selection. Or are you trying to say individuals like Steven Hawking are inferior to you somehow?

He is inferior in some ways. I can out perform him physically any day of the week. The man is brilliant in his field, but that does not make him perfect.
Civilization is what we make it. The world we live in is shaped by the winners of history. Change that and our civilizations are vastly different.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Not sure where you are going with that.

I edited it because I thought it was overly confrontational. But if you want the rationale behind the comment: you initial statement denies male agency.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

I was speaking in broad strokes of the entire mammal class. Human beings, being the lone truly sentient creatures on this planet, are capable of ignoring the natural drives we have.

All motivations affecting any creature are natural.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

However, if we have such power could we not then use it to purposely remove unwanted traits from the gene-pool?

One would imagine that, were homosexuality purely genetic, it would no longer exist. Natural selection would have long ago done away with it. The other problem you're running into here is the assumption that the distinction between hetero and homosexuality is binary. It isn't. Those terms are labels that people use to reinforce certain parts of their identities, but it is quite rare for someone to be purely heterosexual or homosexual.

Granted, heterosexual males generally will not admit to this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.

The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.

Well, Dogma, I am not saying that it is an infallible reason to oppose gay marriage. I am merely saying that for the heterosexual there can be a natural biological reaction of "Eww Gross" that shapes or affects their reasoning.

Granted that homosexuals (themselves being thus unaffected) will not understand this.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Well, Dogma, I am not saying that it is an infallible reason to oppose gay marriage. I am merely saying that for the heterosexual there can be a natural biological reaction of "Eww Gross" that shapes or affects their reasoning.

Granted that homosexuals (themselves being thus unaffected) will not understand this.

Why wouldn't homosexuals be subject to an "Ewww Gross" response?

 dogma wrote:


The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.

Absolutely true, and they did contribute to western civilization. I don't claim that monogamy is exclusively christian. However, if Christianity had not been so violently enforced in Europe and the so called pagan beliefs thrived, western civilization could have been less monogamous.

How are we defining monogamy? Cause ancient Greeks certainly had relations with more than one individual depending on the city state being discussed, and only one of them may have been their wife (this is specifically men).

 dogma wrote:


Why wouldn't homosexuals be subject to an "Ewww Gross" response?

We are talking about homosexual attraction. I stated that homosexuals would not have the "Eww Gross" reaction to seeing homosexuals that heterosexuals could have.
And you ask why they would not have it?

I assume that if they had that reaction, they would not be homosexual. It is not a perfect assumption as a person could force themselves to have relations that they find revolting, but it is unlikely.

 LordofHats wrote:
How are we defining monogamy? Cause ancient Greeks certainly had relations with more than one individual depending on the city state being discussed, and only one of them may have been their wife (this is specifically men).

Social monogamy, not biological. That is, the social expectation is that each person will have only one partner, though not necessarily an exclusive sexual partner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

We are talking about homosexual attraction. I stated that homosexuals would not have the "Eww Gross" reaction to seeing homosexuals that heterosexuals could have.
And you ask why they would not have it?

I assume that if they had that reaction, they would not be homosexual. It is not a perfect assumption as a person could force themselves to have relations that they find revolting, but it is unlikely.

Why make that assumption? Many people do not enjoy viewing sexual relations of any kind, which is the root of the phrase "Get a room!"

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.


One thing that I'm concerned about is the potential rise of polygamy after gay marriage is passed as a law. I don't have anything against polygamy (in fact I think it is actually quite sensible), but the issue is that most arguments which are used to further the cause of gay marriage can be equally used to further the cause of polygamy, especially if the law does get changed. Polygamy is also still currently accepted practice in a number of countries around the world (many Islamic countries) whereas homosexual marriage is not. The only thing different is that public opinion is not yet on the side of polygamy. And it would be a pain in the ass to write tax + ownership laws for.

Why polygamy is a bad thing?

Frankly, any man marries more than one chick is crazy... but, that's just me.

 dogma wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.

The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.

The ancient greeks also said that our ability to be homosexual set us apart from and above the animals:
"All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals"
(source)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why polygamy is a bad thing?

Frankly, any man marries more than one chick is crazy... but, that's just me.

I did say that I don't think it is a bad thing... just an observation that culturally the western world is probably not ready for polygamy but all the gay marriage arguments can be equally used for polygamy (and especially so when gay marriage laws are passed).

Trasvi wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.

I am not sure we are on the same wave length. You are saying that "an enormous" amount of the animal kingdom would choose to engage in sexual actives even when there are females available? Really? There are examples of animals "mounting" but that is usually accepted as a display of dominance not actual homosexuality as we apply it to humans. In other words, a dog may mount another dog as a display of dominance, but it would much rather have a female dog (technical term would be filtered) in heat.

Whooboy... this conversation is going get interesting soon...

It's a gay marriage debate. It's always interesting

I've had popcorn for the last two pages.

Trasvi wrote:
I did say that I don't think it is a bad thing... just an observation that culturally the western world is probably not ready for polygamy but all the gay marriage arguments can be equally used for polygamy (and especially so when gay marriage laws are passed).

This isn't really true. The (legitimate) objections to polygamy are based on the coercive nature of fundamentalist religious polygamy. So even if you allow multiple-partner relationships you still have a valid objection to forcing young girls to marry high-status old men, men keeping their wives locked away because god says they shouldn't be out in public, people marrying a second spouse without the first one knowing about it, etc. All of these problems are separate from the exact definition of marriage, and no amount of changes to who is able to get married will make them less of a problem.

On the other hand there's no ethical justification for banning relationships between multiple people (of whatever gender combination) acting as equals. There's a lot of practical concerns with how it would work for tax purposes, who gets automatic inheritance/medical decisions/etc, and other issues related to the current status of the marriage contract assuming two parties. But assuming the practical issues could be worked out and a functioning marriage contract developed to accommodate three or more people there's nothing wrong with, say, a woman having two husbands.

In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the lunar inhabitants typically used a couple of forms of plural marriage, in part due to their shortage of females in the prison colony. It's definitely more complicated, but could be worked out and in theory could be even more stable in terms of the main practical functions of marriage- preservation of capital/pooling of resources, and caring for kids. Like raising kids in a close-knit clan structure, the kids have more caregivers available.

That all being said, I've seen it tried in real life a few times and it often seems to run into some problems; jealously, etc.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Just a quick note on the "Eww Gross" reason. It is valid.

Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.

In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.

An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.

I am not sure we are on the same wave length. You are saying that "an enormous" amount of the animal kingdom would choose to engage in sexual actives even when there are females available? Really? There are examples of animals "mounting" but that is usually accepted as a display of dominance not actual homosexuality as we apply it to humans. In other words, a dog may mount another dog as a display of dominance, but it would much rather have a female dog (technical term would be filtered) in heat.

Applying human terms to animal sexuality lies somewhere between difficult and pointless. I think the modern understanding of animal mating behaviours is now shying away from the 'its all just dominance' explanation, though I don't have a source for that. There are a number of complex relationships that researchers previously said were about 'dominance', but work just as well or even better if you substitute 'trust and respect' or 'bonding'... I believe both male lions and male elephants engage in homosexual behaviour with a 'mentor' figure where the 'mentee' mounts the 'mentor' and vice-versa, which you wouldn't expect if it were simply a display of dominance by th mentor. There are animal species which do engage in same-sex couplings even when there are members of the opposite sex present, and in some species these pairings are for life. There have been studies showing some monkeys prefer homosexual copulation over heterosexual and will deny opposite-sex partners.

Here's a few articles: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html

But the critical point of your post was suggesting that homosexual behaviour is somehow counter to evolution, or that sexual reproduction is necessary for evolution when that is clearly not the case considering that a large portion of life on earth is hermaphroditic or asexual.
EDIT: I really don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, but a significant portion of my job depends on evolutionary theory, so I get frustrated when people misappropriate it.

But the critical point of your post was suggesting that homosexual behaviour is somehow counter to evolution, or that sexual reproduction is necessary for evolution when that is clearly not the case considering that a large portion of life on earth is hermaphroditic or asexual.

There are also theories that suggest that the presence of some homosexual members within a population can be evolutionarily advantageous to the group. I'm certainly glad Alan Turing was on the side of the allies.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That all being said, I've seen it tried in real life a few times and it often seems to run into some problems; jealously, etc.

Of course given the high percentage of supposedly monogamous relationships that end in jealousy and cheating, that's not really saying very much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Religion" does not "own" the word marriage.

The constitution surely does not allow the United States to reserve a word for religious use.

The trouble is, I think, not over words but the things to which words refer.

I am sure you are right.

The fact that a subset of religious people is attacking the concept on the rather specious grounds of nomenclature shows that the "moral" fight is already lost, though.

If arguments of nomenclature are specious, then surely both of the opposing positions are specious.

 Manchu wrote:
If arguments of nomenclature are specious, then surely both of the opposing positions are specious.

Here's one that's not: defining same-sex marriage as something separate to heterosexual marriage means it is easier for unscrupulous lawmakers to make them out of sync. There is no reason why we need the redundancy of defining marriage twice, and it is harmful to the goal of maintaining equal treatment before the law. It makes as little sense as saying that we should have had a separate legal definition for civil unions between couples of different races.

I'm familiar with the argument that X must be treated as if it were Y. What I am saying is that such an argument does not proceed from any characteristic of X or Y other than nomenclature.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm familiar with the argument that X must be treated as if it were Y. What I am saying is that such an argument does not proceed from any characteristic of X or Y other than nomenclature.

This is blatant discrimination against Z!