Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill [Archive]

arildno

Sep8-05, 08:45 AM

Hi ratings are so low, no doubt he didn't want to lose his few supporters.

On the other hand, it was stupid decision - he could have easily gotten my support back and others (I'm sure) if he'd signed it.
I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.
It might be that sufficient pressure has developed within the Republican Party so that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be re-elected as their candidate unless he vetoed the bill.
That is, he might have done this in order to avoid being ousted from the party rather than increase his chances of getting re-elected as governor by the people of California.

In my view then, he deferred to the party line on this issue, and thereby shows the primary quality of a traditional politician:
If you are to retain your rank in the party (or wish to rise), pay more heed to the majority view in the party even if that goes against your own, personal view.

This analysis, at least, seems consistent with the fact that as a Republican governor, there cannot have been much party pressure on Arnie to accept and push through several measures that have been hailed as "gay-friendly".
I.e, we might regard these actions as indicative of his own views, and that resentment over this has grown within the party over time.
It wouldn't be too surprising if the party finally set their foot down, and would refuse to acknowledge Scwarzenegger as a worthy Republican any longer if he continued to press his own views forth, at the expense of the party line.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 09:08 AM

What is the issue here? Do the 'anti-gay' or 'pro-whatever' people not want equal protection, or do they not think equal protection applies to laws only allowing one class of people to marry? If the sole reason to only allow same-sex couples to marry is that it's always been that way, that's not a good enough reason. Seriously, I don't get it. There seem to be three options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution. :confused:

vanesch

Sep8-05, 09:11 AM

Seriously, I don't get it. There seem to be three options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution. :confused:

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

arildno

Sep8-05, 09:26 AM

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?
No, by itself, it doesn't.
There aren't any reasons to accept any bigamic relationships unless you find empirical evidence (by testimonies, for example) that all partners in the bigamic relationship finds their union fulfilling, contributing to each person's sense of worth&happiness and so on..

This is actually how we distinguish between heterosexual relationships as well.
We regard any such relationship as "bad", if the above seems not be present.
However, we regard, prima facie, each such union as benificial, until the opposite is proven. That is a relatively rational stance in this case, but not in the case of bigamy, for example.

There exist more than enough evidence that gay relationships can, indeed, possess these positive qualities, that evidence is wanting in the case of bigamism.

So:
Unless you can amass evidence that bigamism has, within itself, these positive qualities there doesn't exist any reason whatsoever for an official recognition of such relationships.

Same goes for incestuous relationships.

In other words, relationships and practices that are known to be in general abusive shouldn't be officially sanctioned for that reason, even if there exist a theoretical possibility that a specific example might not be abusive.

The abuse level in gay relationships are not in any way higher than the abuse level in heterosexual relationships; the same cannot be said for bigamies, incestuous or pederastic relationships.

vanesch

Sep8-05, 09:42 AM

No, by itself, it doesn't.
There aren't any reasons to accept any bigamic relationships unless you find empirical evidence (by testimonies, for example) that all partners in the bigamic relationship finds their union fulfilling, contributing to each person's sense of worth&happiness and so on..

Well, as long as mutual consent is required (amongst all the parties involved), there's no reason to *forbid* it because you'd reasonably expect that those consenting estimate that their union is more fullfulling than when not, so it would only occur in exactly those circumstances you think cannot be present. So or 1) you are right that bigamy is not fulfilling for all partners, in which case you can allow for it, because nobody will do so (they'll never mutually consent) or 2) there are (even only a few) cases where bigamy IS fulfilling, and then it is sad that it is against the law.
Note: by "bigamy" I understand simply a relationship involving more than 2 persons, no matter from what sex (which is not what the ethymology of the word stands for of course).

arildno

Sep8-05, 09:45 AM

No, on basis of empirical evidence, you cannot REASONABLY expect a bigamist union (like that of Mormons) to be inherently worthwhile.

pattylou

Sep8-05, 09:57 AM

I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.
It might be that sufficient pressure has developed within the Republican Party so that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be re-elected as their candidate unless he vetoed the bill.
That is, he might have done this in order to avoid being ousted from the party rather than increase his chances of getting re-elected as governor by the people of California.

In my view then, he deferred to the party line on this issue, and thereby shows the primary quality of a traditional politician:
If you are to retain your rank in the party (or wish to rise), pay more heed to the majority view in the party even if that goes against your own, personal view.

This analysis, at least, seems consistent with the fact that as a Republican governor, there cannot have been much party pressure on Arnie to accept and push through several measures that have been hailed as "gay-friendly".
I.e, we might regard these actions as indicative of his own views, and that resentment over this has grown within the party over time.
It wouldn't be too surprising if the party finally set their foot down, and would refuse to acknowledge Scwarzenegger as a worthy Republican any longer if he continued to press his own views forth, at the expense of the party line.

Ousted from the party?

I'm not aware of that ever happening. Rising through the party due to other politicians' approval of you? I don't know how that would manifest either. :confused:

On the other hand....Playing it safe with the *voters?* Yeah, I see that all the time.

I'm still disappointed, I'd love it if California took the leadership on energy, gay rights, other.

And I didn't read your link. :tongue2: Maybe I will later.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 10:43 AM

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?The state must have a 'good enough reason' to discriminate.
Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." (emphasis mine)
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.htmlGender and number of spouses are two different classifications. Preventing bigamy and preventing gay marriage are two separate issues, with their own set of reasons. Determining whether one set of reasons is good enough won't necessarily determine whether another set of reasons is good enough. In this case, no, I can't see how allowing gays to marry would allow bigamy.

And thinking up possible consequences doesn't address the argument. I specifically said couples, meaning two people, and I gave 3 not 2 options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution.

If equal protection applies to gay marriage, you have to either allow gay marriage, allow no marriage, or get rid of equal protection. What part of that do you disagree with?

Townsend

Sep8-05, 10:48 AM

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Gay couples don't harm me, heterosexual couples don't harm me, what people do with their personal lives should be up to them.

I say the government has NO business involving itself in the institution of marriage, what so ever. Why should two (or more) people need a license to get married?

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?

Sep8-05, 10:56 AM

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?

I think you've just answered your questions.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 10:58 AM

In other words, relationships and practices that are known to be in general abusive shouldn't be officially sanctioned for that reason, even if there exist a theoretical possibility that a specific example might not be abusive.

Why not? Again, how is a person's private life the business of the government? What purpose does such a law serve?

Correct me if I am wrong arildno....

Whether the government officially sanctions the marriage of a gay couple or not, has no bearing on that relationship. Am I right? Or should I believe that if the government recognized a gay marriage that it would some how alter those two people and their relationship with each other? I don't buy it.....

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 11:02 AM

Sep8-05, 11:05 AM

People will not be emancipated from marriage, bigamy, heterosexual and homosexual cases when there's an influence of religious principles on the government and the law.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 11:07 AM

The government currently grants marriage rights to people. What other institutions or people do is irrelevant.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 11:08 AM

I think the bigamy issue is fallacious and it should just be dropped. Does anyone want to challenge me on this? It's an appeal to consequences, emotion, and tradition, and falsely equates two different issues.

Fine....I personally don't care about bigamy any more than I care about homosexuality. Both are perfectly fine by me since I don't feel the need to impose my moral values on others. What I am concerned about is the government involving itself with marriages at all. Eliminate government involvement in a religious practice and this all becomes moot.

Sep8-05, 11:09 AM

The government grants marriage rights to people. What other institutions or people do is irrelevant.

The government clearly grants marriage rights to people under the influence of religious principles.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 11:10 AM

The government grants marriage rights to people.

And clearly that is where the problem is...:grumpy:

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 11:26 AM

Pengwuino

Sep8-05, 11:32 AM

Okay, great, not letting any couples marry is an option. Anyway, I think I'm leaving to work on my new theory: PWA threads are like ex-boyfriends. You get involved with them again hoping they've changed, but...

And theres your problem. You women expect guys to change for you :tongue2: :tongue2:

I'm sure democrats will soon praise Arnold for this move. Supposedly, democrats love "what the people want" and California already passed a referendum defining marriage between a man and a woman so I'm sure they will point to the past democratic decision to defend Arnold. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 11:56 AM

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 12:02 PM

How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?

There's about 300 million people in the United States. About 270 million consider themselves straight. About 30 million consider themselves gay.

Of course, that's a bit arbitrary. As human sexuality studies have shown, just about everybody is bisexual to one degree or another.

Homophobes included.

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 12:03 PM

10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's

Townsend

Sep8-05, 12:06 PM

How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?

Well if you're suggesting that the government should not consider this an issue because it only affects a minority then I would have to disagree with you. The balance between liberalism and democracy should only tilt in favor of democracy when it is not an issue of discrimination.

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 12:12 PM

10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's

If 10% were gay in the forties, just think of how many are gay now!

Actually, like I said, it's somewhat arbitrary. About 10% of people are exclusively homosexual.

Most everybody else is bisexual to one degree to another.

That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.

BTW, you're getting your information from a bigoted fundamentalist site that claims homosexuality can be cured. Not exactly a reliable source of information.

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 12:13 PM

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 12:14 PM

That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.

Yes well when I need your opinion on anything I'll let you out of my closet and you can strap on that gimp costume that you enjoy so much

Townsend

Sep8-05, 12:14 PM

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

Not a bad idea....

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 12:16 PM

Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They dont belong in politics let alone in state affairs

Townsend

Sep8-05, 12:16 PM

Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They dont belong in politics let alone in state affairs

Exaclty...

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 12:16 PM

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 12:21 PM

Exaclty...

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and dont come out until Jesus returns"

Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

How do you not get this? I dont care what you think

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 12:24 PM

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and dont come out until Jesus returns"

How do you not get this? I dont care what you think

What about churches that want to marry gays?

Oo, somebody's getting a little upset. I must have hit a nerve.

Art

Sep8-05, 12:32 PM

Not a bad idea....

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

vanesch

Sep8-05, 12:36 PM

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Oh, but I didn't have anything a priori against bigamy either. The point is that the civil marriage gives certain rights to a group of (2 ?) people ; it is in fact the only reason to subscribe to a civil marriage.
They are essentially 2-fold:
1) financial aspects, like lower taxes on heritage when one of the partners dies
2) co-parentship when (one of the?) females in the couple gives birth.

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism: promote the chances of transfer of the genes to the future generation. The optimal team is then of course a man and a woman, because their kin has 50-50 gene content, so this man and this woman will optimize the transfer of their genetic material to the future (will care best for their kin).
All other combinations will do less good. In a situation of one male with several females, the females who didn't give birth to certain children will have of course all advantage to care more about their own children than of the children of the other spouses of their male ; on the other hand, the male would like to see ALL its children cared for (he has 50% of the genetic material in all of them). So this situation is only advantageous if the male is very dominant over the females. In fact, what males hate the most are unfaithful women because then they are caring about kin that has NOT their genetic material - hence the usually very harsh conditions that are put traditionally on adulterous women by a male-dominated society.
See, all tradition (cast into iron by religious traditions) have to do with optimal gene transfer to the next generation, and marriage is one of those traditions, and explains why those traditions have a strong preference for the 1man-1woman situation.
From the moment you leave that reason (such as gay marriages) you can relax in fact all conditions, and have a general kind of contract between members of a group.

arildno

Sep8-05, 12:41 PM

The government currently grants marriage rights to people.
Correct, and that is the basic issue here.
The same rights that are granted couples married in a church are also granted to those couples who merely go to the public registrar (or whatever his title is).
So no, marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a solely religious matter.
What type of unions a religious sub-community chooses to celebrate, is basically their own affair.

The debate over whether or not the state ought to confer benefits (judicial&fiscal, mainly) to any particular union, or if all such benefits should be withdrawn, is another matter.

However:
By extending these rights to gay couples by no means reduce these rights to straight couples (i.e, the majority), so a woolly argument against "special" privileges to small groups simply doesn't hold.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 12:42 PM

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

I don't think the government knows what is best for me or my kids...(I don't actually have any kids but if I did..)

So far the American government has not impressed me with their wisdom and I really don't care for their wisdom on how to best raise kids.

I think we can all agree that the governments job is not to micro manage people's personal lives. :smile:

Smurf

Sep8-05, 12:50 PM

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 01:02 PM

The issue really isn't about raising kids.

It's about pandering to homophobes.

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused."

Baloney. Those people didn't want interracial marriages because they hated black people. Pure and simple. Arguments about kids were just a deflection. A phony excuse.

Same thing here.

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:04 PM

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..
So why are these rights granted to heterosexual couples where the female is past her menopause at the time of the marriage ceremony, then?
(Tens of thousands such marriages happens every year in the US, if not hundreds of thousands, so this is no silly hypothetical example)
There won't be any children in these unions..

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:11 PM

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?
If they disappoint you; vote them out of office. :smile:

Art

Sep8-05, 01:23 PM

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?There was a controversy in the UK a few years back when a left wing authority in a borough of London insisted the schools under it's control use readers for the very young with titles such as "Tom lives with Dick and John."

As the title suggests the book was intended to show children being brought up in a homosexual family unit as being a normal everyday event. Many parents with children at these schools were (in my view understandably) livid.

At christmas this same authority advertised for a black, lesbian Santa Claus. :rolleyes:

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:30 PM

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.
And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

Skyhunter

Sep8-05, 01:35 PM

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Gay couples don't harm me, heterosexual couples don't harm me, what people do with their personal lives should be up to them.

I say the government has NO business involving itself in the institution of marriage, what so ever. Why should two (or more) people need a license to get married?

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?
Originally government involvement in the US was simply to record the marriage.

I agree with Townsend. If people want to be married, all they should need to do is commit to one another using whatever vows or church or rituals they deem appropriate. And there sex or numbers should be of no ones concern but the consenting adults. I do have a problem with arranged marriages, especially when they involve children.

The idea that society would be harmed by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples is ludicrous.

I didn't vote for Arnold. I was not happy with Davis, he seemed to spend more time fund raising than governing. I voted against the recall, and for the porn queen (don't remember her name). I did argue that we needed to support him because he took on a tough job and needs support to be effective. However he has shown himself to be just another pandering politician. This veto is just another example.

Skyhunter

Sep8-05, 01:41 PM

Skyhunter

Sep8-05, 01:45 PM

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage
This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:45 PM

Ousted from the party?

I'm not aware of that ever happening. Rising through the party due to other politicians' approval of you? I don't know how that would manifest either. :confused:
Eeh?
Who choose a party's candidates to various positions?
That's an internal party process in just about any political party I know of.

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 01:47 PM

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

Yeah, what is it with homophobes and their fantasies about homosexuals shoving things down their throats?

Skyhunter

Sep8-05, 01:49 PM

This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..
Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.

Art

Sep8-05, 01:54 PM

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?It didn't, why on earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right. :confused:

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:55 PM

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.
But, inasmuch as you would like these rights to be conferred to gay couples by the state (from what I know, hospitals cannot deny a person the right to visit his wife, unless there exist strictly medical reasons for such a denial), then this would be an "interfering" from the state, whether you call the formalized co-habitation between the couple as a civil union or a marriage.
(As a note, gays in Norway can't marry, they may form an officially recognized "partnership")

arildno

Sep8-05, 01:56 PM

It didn't, why on earth would you think that? IMO you'd have every right. :confused:
But that is one of the basic issues at stake here, and why so many gays want to have the possibility to get a formal recognition of their relationship.

Art

Sep8-05, 01:57 PM

Not to mention if their partner is in an accident they are not immediate family and would possibly not be allowed to visit them in the hospital, would have no say in the care they receive etc.Yes I agree. It would be better for all if some form of compromise could be reached. My personal opinion is I couldn't care less if gay people get married as I believe it is unfair for them to be penalised for their sexuality. My post just laid out the arguments for and against.

pattylou

Sep8-05, 02:08 PM

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism:

Oooooh. I like this. This'll wind up the fundamentalists on the school boards here, for sure!

Thanks Vanesch!

pattylou

Sep8-05, 02:10 PM

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused.".When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

2CentsWorth

Sep8-05, 02:16 PM

This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.Personally this is my position too, and as you say there are many private sector restrictions such as hospital rules, medical benefits, etc., which discriminate against those not considered legally married.

This goes for heterosexuals living together, even under 'common law' too. Where I once worked my boss was diagnosed with liver cancer. Fortunately for her, when she reached the point where she could no longer work and qualify for her medical benefits, her boyfriend married her so she could be on his policy. But at least they had that option.

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.

Art

Sep8-05, 02:19 PM

And now...in all fairness to Arnold...the majority of Americans are against making gay marriage legal. So it is not a popular position for any politician to take.Are there any polls you know of on this. I am curious to see the reasons people give for being anti gay marriage.

2CentsWorth

Sep8-05, 02:36 PM

Art

Sep8-05, 02:55 PM

Very quickly, here is a site with results of different polls conducted on various current issues: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm It shows the questions (wording, etc.), but I didn't see any analysis on the results (i.e., why people respond as they do).Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

edward

Sep8-05, 02:57 PM

When were interracial marriages illegal??

This is news to me, but could be as useful as Vanesch's perspective, if I ever address the school board here.

Got a reference?

Edit: Slave days?

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case known as Loving vs. Virginia.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 03:04 PM

From the article in the OP:
A new poll, released on the weekend, shows that California voters are equally divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Public Policy Institute poll shows that 46 percent are in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry and 46 percent are opposed.That's Californians, the people who Arnold works for.
Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.And I'm sure that you all want to know why:
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
hmmmm....

pattylou

Sep8-05, 03:07 PM

Until 1967 many states had laws against interecial marriage. The supreme court banned the laws in a case know as Loving vs. Virginia.

Wow! thanks. http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

pattylou

Sep8-05, 03:09 PM

hmmmm....
Thanks for the link - here's an excerpt:

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

I find that really interesting.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 03:13 PM

Thanks for the link. It is interesting (and pleasing) to see there is a solid trend in favour of allowing official gay unions and a clear majority in favour of granting them equal rights with hetro couples. Presumably the differences between the first and second poll are due to religious beliefs. ie only 36% in favour of gay marriages but 53% in favour of gay couples having the same rights as married couples.Wouldn't that be nice, but the question didn't say the same rights:
"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"Not equal. As an old friend used to say, 'this ain't horseshoes,' which I think means that close doesn't count.

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 03:17 PM

I find the arguments given by the state court most interesting (and eerily familiar):
In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S. E. 2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.Replace race and blood with family and traditional values...

CJames

Sep8-05, 03:29 PM

Frankly I don't think the government has any business handing out special tax deductions to people just because they are lucky enough to get married. Get rid of the whole thing, marriage, civil unions, all of it. Those unlucky enough, either because they are gay or poligimous or just plain can't find a spouse, or don't believe in marriage, shouldn't have to pay higher taxes or be excluded from benefits. They should just lower the overall tax level. Where the money goes after somebody dies should be up to the person that dies. Who gets to visit somebody when that person is dying should also be up to the person that is dying. Frankly, why do doctors ever tell anybody that they can't visit? Limiting it to just a few people at a time who know him/her should be enough. Whether or not two people stay together shouldn't have anything to do with government recognition. Fear of divorce ruins so many lives. Of course an organization that recognizes marriage or any other contract is fine, but why government?

edward

Sep8-05, 03:29 PM

arildno

Sep8-05, 03:41 PM

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 03:48 PM

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens. They can have all of the other rights that male citizens have. But we all know that women were not historically citizens. Only men were citizens. So let's not ruin the name citizen by letting it apply to women. What's a name? :rolleyes: (Don't ask this second-citizen)

It's a matter of law. The US is a nation of laws. No one else is talking about the laws. It looks like the people trying to ban gay marriage want an unconstitutional law. Does our Constitution not matter to those of you who are trying to ban gay marriage? Do you want to throw away equal protection?

Whatever, I'm stopping. I'm gonna be sick. :yuck:

Art

Sep8-05, 03:52 PM

While looking up the history of marriage I came across this; From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.Makes one positively nostalgic for 'the good old days' :rofl: :rofl:

honestrosewater

Sep8-05, 03:53 PM

If it's so difficult to recognize the difference between the actions of the government and the actions of other institutions, call them all civil unions or whatever - just call them all the same thing. Calling one set of rights 'marriage' and another set of rights 'unions' is not equal. And you can't say that the name is insignificant - just look at the change in the polls between approval of "marriages" and "unions".

edward

Sep8-05, 03:55 PM

These are also the major reasons behind marriage-similar institutions within "primitive tribes" as well.

No it was a matter of evolution and survival of the fittest. The stronger the family bond the more likely the family was to survive.

Art

Sep8-05, 03:57 PM

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens. They can have all of the other rights that male citizens have. But we all know that women were not historically citizens. Only men were citizens. So let's not ruin the name citizen by letting it apply to women. What's a name? :rolleyes: (Don't ask this second-citizen) Historically women didn't have the same rights as men so I think that should be rolled back too. Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn. :rofl:

p.s I'm kidding for those who didn't know :uhh:

arildno

Sep8-05, 03:58 PM

No it was a matter of evolution and survival of the fittest. The stronger the family bond the more likely the family was to survive.
As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.
Your "survival" arguments are simple false.

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:01 PM

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

They/You can call it whatever they/you want but leave the word marriage out of it.

All of the talk about not being able to see a gay partner in the hospital is not accurate. Many states recognize gay unions, and allow all the benefits and rights of survivorship etc that marriage allows.

In light of the fact that ,unions, life partners, and other terms give the same legal benefits as the term marriage, why is it then necessary to use the sacrosanct term marriage??

Why is the term marriage sacrosanct? Marriage was a way of joining families and were(still are in some places) arranged to do just that. How is forcing one's childeren to wed sacrosanct?

All right here's the skinny. No matter where you get married under whom you get married or your religion of choice the marriage in the states eyes is a simple contract. That contract bestowes certain rights to both parties such as access to monies, property, as well as life and death decisions. It's a contract. Nothing sacrosanct. Nothing grandeous. Nothing special in the eyes of the government. Marriage has been a contract for thousands of years---a contract to join families for arranged marriages.

Now with that in mind, how many contracts must be state sanctioned? Not a lot. You don't have to have a state endorsement to buy a car. No license is needed to buy a house. No writ of state approval is necessary when buy stocks or putting your dog to sleep or going to the dentist or having a vasectomy. There are a million and one things men and women do any given day that involge contracts written, verbal, implied or otherwise with no state involvement. So it begs the question as to why the state deams it necessary to control this one aspect of the American life.

Because marriage is nothing more than a contract(laws don't include the word love or feelings or sexy or anything of the sort because those are intangible where as the sharing of resources is completely within the relm law) it should not need state sanctioning other that a possible post-wedding day registration to allow a couple to file taxes jointly and to declare to the rights of each partner with regards to the contract.

It is a contract and should not be regulated by the state the way it is today. There is no reason to limit gay couples from joining---none. Creating a Civil Union with all the same rights as a marriage is STUPID because the contract in both cases would be the same so the language associated with the sharing of resources and the like should also be the same. Marriage is not some magic word that brings flowers when your sad or puppy dogs to hurt children or beautiful women pouring beer on midgets to Happy Gilmore. Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people with no guarantee of children or responsible parenting or any other excuse given for not letting gays wed.

Anybody who's been divorced knows that marriage---as far as the state goes--- is a contract.

Now, will allowing gays to web make any of the detractors here worse spouses? Will any exhisting marriages fall apart because the gays are comming? Will gay marriage destroy the fabric of space time? No. With that I'd like to hear from the nay-sayers why they feel gay marriage is so wrong. How will gay marriage change your life? How?

All this hullabaloo is just sillyness to say the least. People are panicking about the demise of American culture---look at where we are today w/out gay marriage and tell me how allowing anybody to partake of this contract will somehow destroy our culture. Silliness---keep Uncle Sam out of my life. His job is to protect me not to mother me or baby sit me or tell me how to drink my kool-aid oh yeah!!!

Art

Sep8-05, 04:02 PM

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.
Your "survival" arguments are simple false.I don't follow your argument? On the one hand you seem to say marriage serves no useful purpose and on the other that gays should be allowed to marry? Can you clarify by explaining what you interpret the point of marriage to be or do you think it should be abolished for everyone?

vanesch

Sep8-05, 04:03 PM

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens.

I'm all for equal rights between couples of all sexes, but I do have to say that the word "marriage" between gay people, ... , well it makes me think of Mr Bean sketches (two hairy, bearded blokes coming into the church, one with a black smoking and the other in a white dress with some flowers, music playing and mothers crying...) and I cannot suppress a smile :smile:.

To take your example, it is as if feminists would like to have the word "woman" scrapped and call them "man" to enforce "equal rights between the sexes". Sorry, the word is taken.

edward

Sep8-05, 04:04 PM

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:08 PM

Prove it. We are not chimps. Your comparison is ludicrous

No, we're 98.56% chimp.

arildno

Sep8-05, 04:08 PM

I don't follow you're argument? On the on hand you seem to say marriage serves no useful purpose and on the other that gays should be allowed to marry? Can you clarify by explaining what you interpret the point of marriage to be or do you think it should be abolished for everyone?
I have tried to stay clear of that part of the debate that goes on whether or not the state, in principle, should confer benefits on some forms of co-habitation and not on others.
Definitely an important issue, but as it happens to be real social benefits in having a marriage in our days, there's your "usefulness" of being married.

As for the quasi-biological explanations given, I merely pointed out that they are nonsensical, and largely irrelevant.

arildno

Sep8-05, 04:11 PM

Prove it. We are not chimps. Your comparison is ludicrous
Since your argument didn't include anything specifically human that is not present among bonobos, your argument is invalidated by the fact that bonobos live perfectly well in a totally different manner than us.

vanesch

Sep8-05, 04:13 PM

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

EDIT: there's indeed an advantage to changing partners which is, the more you MIX your genetic material with many others, the higher the chances are that you will produce successfull kin, so a priori "screwing around" is genetically favorable. But this can be offset by the investment in *raising* the kin.

arildno

Sep8-05, 04:17 PM

Art

Sep8-05, 04:18 PM

I have tried to stay clear of that part of the debate that goes on whether or not the state, in principle, should confer benefits on some forms of co-habitation and not on others.
Definitely an important issue, but as it happens to be real social benefits in having a marriage in our days, there's your "usefulness" of being married.

As for the quasi-biological explanations given, I merely pointed out that they are nonsensical, and largely irrelevant.I agree that all people male and female should have equal rights as should all co-habiting couples. I agree that gay couples should have exactly the same civil rights and benefits as hetro couples with the same civil ceremony available to all. I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples. Like Vanech it just seems a little Monty Pythonish to me. I also don't think it would be right to force religions to perform such ceremonies against their beliefs although if the gay community wished to start their own off-shoot religion then that would be fine with me and probably most others as well.

CJames

Sep8-05, 04:19 PM

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

EDIT: there's indeed an advantage to changing partners which is, the more you MIX your genetic material with many others, the higher the chances are that you will produce successfull kin, so a priori "screwing around" is genetically favorable. But this can be offset in the investment in *raising* the kin.Evolution takes place through natural selection and so why should the government be stepping in and artificially saying what is more viable in terms of evolution? If gay people exist then there must be a reason, or at the very least they are not a problem.

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:19 PM

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children? Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults? Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not.

You are working in a relm of suppositions. Well in the mid 1700's scientists supposed mice(and life for that matter) sprang from linen and wheat not sperm and eggs. It took real science, not suppositions, to quite such stupid notions.

Art

Sep8-05, 04:27 PM

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children? Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults? Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not. It appears the data available is too scant to draw conlusions one way or the other A Marriage Made in History?
By Don Browning and Elizabeth Marquardt
New York Times, March 9, 2004

CHICAGO — Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage make their case with hypothetical arguments about its social effects and claims about the history of marriage. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the first subject, and proponents of same-sex marriage have mischaracterized the second.

The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting is scant at best. The numbers of gays and lesbians raising children are so small relative to the population, and their visibility so recent, that there are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.

Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question "contained at least one fatal flaw" and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Is it wise, then, to develop social policies that go to the heart of family life without better knowledge? http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html

edward

Sep8-05, 04:28 PM

Since your argument didn't include anything specifically human that is not present among bonobos, your argument is invalidated by the fact that bonobos live perfectly well in a totally different manner than us.

They are not us. Bonobos live perfectly well using a sticks to gather termites from dead logs.

You are trying to use one varity of Chimp to try to disprove the evolution of man and the family unit?? Not very scientific.

vanesch

Sep8-05, 04:29 PM

Nonsensical blather, which is irrelevant besides.

Ah, an irrefutable argument :-)

Well, look at this, just a random selection of works on the issue:

The Descent of Man is a much more daring book than The Origin of Species, yet Browne downplays its radicalism, presenting it largely as an endorsement of the Victorian status quo. And so for Browne, Darwin "believed that biology supported the marriage bond," and "although he rejected the outward trappings of the established Anglican religion, he subscribed wholeheartedly to its underlying values and the presumed onward march of civilization." Again, "the 'higher' values were, for him, self-evidently the values of his own class and nation." Although Browne doesn't praise Darwin's purported use of biology to reinforce conventional mores and gender roles, today many on the Right do. Browne's reading explains (albeit unintentionally) why these modern conservatives find Darwin so attractive. Longing for a way to defend traditional mores, they are entranced to learn that Darwinism may supply a biological basis for them.

Unfortunately, Browne's reading doesn't do justice to Darwin's full argument. While it's perfectly true that in The Descent of Man Darwin claims that some traditional virtues are sanctioned by nature, he also shows that a great many traditional vices are grounded there as well. Kindness may be natural according to Darwin, but so is cruelty and lust. Maternal instinct is natural, but so is infanticide. Monogamy is natural, but much more so is polygamy. Courage is natural, but so is cowardice. Care toward family members is natural, but so is euthanasia of the feeble, even if they happen to be one's parents (here Darwin mentions the practice some primitives have of burying their sick parents alive). If Darwin provides some examples of virtue in nature, he also presents nature's shocking immoralities.

What eventually becomes clear in The Descent of Man is that Darwin's view of nature points not to Aristotle or Aquinas, but to Thomas Hobbes. Nature may on occasion sanction certain traditional virtues, not because these virtues are intrinsically good, but only because at the moment they happen to promote biological survival. If circumstances should change, and these virtues no longer promoted survival, then for Darwin they would cease to be virtues. In the end, the only permanent and unchanging moral imperative is the drive for self-preservation.

from:
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/jwest.html

arildno

Sep8-05, 04:32 PM

I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples.
They don't have that in Norway. Individual priests have, however, chosen to give a "blessing" to the few gay partners (we're partners in Norway, not wedded)
I also don't think it would be right to force religions to perform such ceremonies against their beliefs
A point where we are in full agreement.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 04:33 PM

Is it wise, then, to develop social policies that go to the heart of family life without better knowledge?

Why should the government be involved in developing social policies? If we let that happen then pretty soon all of America would be in church on sunday morning... :surprised

As far as I am concerned, the less the government is involved the better.....

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 04:35 PM

I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples.

You're working under the idea that marriage is a religious ceremony. I am an atheist. So is my wife.

edward

Sep8-05, 04:36 PM

Why should the government be involved in developing social policies?

In the long term national security is affected by social policies.

arildno

Sep8-05, 04:36 PM

Ah, an irrefutable argument :-)

Well, look at this, just a random selection of works on the issue:

from:
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/jwest.html
Socio-biological "explanations" of human behaviour is patently false.
To take just a single point:
The turn-over rate of social customs is so fast that to say that human behaviour is dominantly determined by evolutionary concerns, is just sheer nonsense.
But, when you accept that it isn't a dominant factor, then you've stepped out of the explanatory constraints set by a strictly Darwinian theory.

Townsend

Sep8-05, 04:38 PM

In the long term national security is affected by social policies.

What is the purpose of national security?

vanesch

Sep8-05, 04:38 PM

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children?

Can you supply data of where I claimed that ??

Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults?

There are sociobiological reasons for that too!

Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not.

Did I say so ??

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:45 PM

Can you supply data of where I claimed that ??

There are sociobiological reasons for that too!

Did I say so ??

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

Your assertion of stability is ungrounded IMHO.

Art

Sep8-05, 04:47 PM

You're working under the idea that marriage is a religious ceremony. I am an atheist. So is my wife. :confused: No I'm not far from it. I thought I had clearly defined the role of civil unions.

In fact I don't know about the US but in the UK and Ireland the only way you can get legally married is by the state. After going through the religious part and the priest pronounces you man and wife you are still not legally married in the eyes of the state until you sign the civil register.

Gokul43201

Sep8-05, 04:48 PM

What is the purpose of national security?To protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, no ?

<not my turn ?...sorry>

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:49 PM

:confused: No I'm not far from it. I thought I had clearly defined the role of civil unions.

In fact I don't know about the US but in the UK and Ireland the only way you can get legally married is by the state. After going through the religious part and the priest pronounces you man and wife you are still not legally married in the eyes of the state until you sign the civil register.

We are not in a country with an official religion. Strawman! Marriage is a contract in the united states---that's it.

Art

Sep8-05, 04:53 PM

We are not in a country with an official religion. Strawman! Marriage is a contract in the united states---that's it.Wha..... ??? :confused: Am I missing a point you are making here?

vanesch

Sep8-05, 04:53 PM

Socio-biological "explanations" of human behaviour is patently false.
To take just a single point:
The turn-over rate of social customs is so fast that to say that human behaviour is dominantly determined by evolutionary concerns, is just sheer nonsense.
But, when you accept that it isn't a dominant factor, then you've stepped out of the explanatory constraints set by a strictly Darwinian theory.

Human behaviour is not of course completely explained by purely genetic considerations, they only give you AVERAGE tendencies over time scales long enough to have an evolutionary influence. The turn-over rate you talk about are the statistical fluctuations around those long-term averages. So everything that happens only on a time scale of a few hundred years or less will not play a significant role, and it plays less and less a role because our society becomes so terribly complex that it is difficult to say what pattern of behaviour will result in better gene transfer.
So all you can deduce from sociobiology for our species are traditions that must have been the same since we were hunters-gatherers and early civilisations. One of these traditions is the 1-man 1-woman (with some adultery :-) relation, raising their kids (at least for a few years). I only wanted to explain why that tradition is so much ancred in our, well, traditions. Not that things SHOULD be that way. Just why traditionally they were considered to be "good".

Townsend

Sep8-05, 04:55 PM

It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.

1. The dinks are continuing to rise in numbers....my wife and I will always be dinks

2. There is no shortage of people in the world. In fact I would say some countries could use a lot more homosexuality. Heck, the whole world could use a lot more homosexuals....

The problem is that people are not evolving through any process of natural selection. A mentally retarded person who would not likely generate offspring 10k years ago now has a better chance of producing offspring than a lot of normal, intelligent people do.

In fact overpopulation is a good reason to bring down the institution of marriage, if the purpose of marriage is in fact to foster a family.

faust9

Sep8-05, 04:57 PM

Wha..... ??? :rofl: Am I missing a point you are making here?

The point I'm making is you are trying to tie religion to the word marriage while still allowing for "civil Unions". To bolster your stance you used the Uk as an example to wit I stated we are not in the UK we are in the US. California is not bound by the laws of the UK it is bound by the laws of the US. The laws within the US hold that marriage is a contract---nothing religious---so seperating marriage and civil unions in name only is stupid. They are the same thing just different names so why bother? Because civil unions can be looked down upon(seperate but equal all over again)...

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 04:58 PM

Townsend

Sep8-05, 04:59 PM

To protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, no ?

<not my turn ?...sorry>

That's what I thought.

Isn't constructing laws to govern society's social policies more like taking away peoples rights and freedoms?

vanesch

Sep8-05, 05:02 PM

Your assertion of stability is ungrounded IMHO.

Care to illuminate your opinion ? This has been studied you know...

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101966008

From the intro:

I am an identical twin. By the time I was four or five, I had begun to notice grown-ups staring at my twin sister and me as they asked us questions. Did I know when Lorna was in trouble? Did we like the same toys? Did I ever think I was Lorna? I remember sitting in the backseat of the family car and comparing hands. We laughed alike and still do. We both like risk, although we display it very differently. She is a hot-air-balloon pilot in Colorado, whereas I discuss emotionally charged issues such as adultery and divorce on television and the podium. She is also an artist. She paints large canvases with tiny bruslistrokes, whereas I move tiny words across hundreds of manuscript pages. Both are jobs that require patience and attention to details. And we both work alone.

So as a child I started, quite unconsciously, to weigh my behavior: How much of it was inherited? How much of it was learned?

Then, in graduate school, I discovered the "nature/nurture" debate. John Locke's concept of the "tabula rasa," or empty tablet, was particularly troubling. Was every infant really a blank sheet of paper on which culture inscribed personality? I didn't believe it.

Then I read Jane Goodall's book In the Shadow of Man, about the wild chimpanzees of Tanzania. These creatures bad different personalities, and they made friends, held hands, kissed, gave one another gifts of leaves and twigs, and mourned when a companion died. I was overcome by the emotional continuity between man and beast. And I became convinced that some of my behavior was biological in origin. So this book is about the innate aspects of sex and love and marriage, those mating traits and tendencies that we inherited from our past. Human behavior is a complex mixture of environmental and hereditary forces and I do not wish to minimize the power of culture in influencing human action. But it is the genetic contributions to behavior that have always intrigued me.

The book began on a New York subway. I was pouring over American marriage statistics and I noticed some peculiar patterns to divorce. I wondered if these same patterns might appear in other cultures. So I looked at divorce data on sixty-two societies contained in the demographic yearbooks of the United Nations; there I found some similar curious designs. Then I examined data on adultery in forty-two cultures. And when I compared these worldwide figures on human bonding with patterns of monogamy, "cheating," and desertion in birds and nonhuman mammals, I found some similarities so compelling that they led me to a general theory for the evolution of human sex and family life.

Why do we marry? Why are some of us adulterous? Why do human beings divorce? Why do we remarry and try our luck again? The book begins with chapters on the nature of courting, infatuation, monogamy, adultery, and divorce. Then, starting in chapter 6, I dial back to the beginning of human social life and trace the evolution of our sexuality from its inception on the grasslands of East Africa some four million years ago, through life among the cave painters of Ice Age Europe and on into contemporary times, both in the West and more "exotic" places.

In the course of presenting my theories, I examine why we fall in love with one person rather than another, the experience of love at first sight, the physiology of attachment and philandering, why men have large penises and women display permanently enlarged breasts, gender differences in the brain, the evolution of "women, men, and power," the genesis of teenage, the origin of our conscience, and many other creations of our human sexual impulse. Finally, in the last chapter, I use all these data to make some predictions about "relationships" tomorrow and, if we survive as a species, millennia from now.

But first a few caveats. Along the way I make many generalizations. Neither your behavior nor mine fits all of the patterns I will describe. Why should it? There is no reason to expect a tight correlation between all human actions and general rules of human nature. I focus on the predominant patterns, rather than on the exceptions.

Moreover, I make no effort to be "politically correct." Nature designed men and women to work together. But I cannot pretend that they are alike. They are not alike. And I have given evolutionary and biological explanations for their differences where I find them appropriate.

I have also resisted some fads in anthropology. It is at present unpopular, for example, to use the !Kung Bushmen of southern Africa as a model for reconstructing life in our hunting-gathering past. My reasons for continuing to use their society as a model are laid out in one of many endnotes that I hope you will have time to read.

Most alarming to some readers, I discuss the possible genetic components and adaptive features of complicated, controversial, and often highly painful social behaviors such as adultery and divorce. I am certainly not advocating infidelity or desertion; rather, I am trying to understand these disturbing facts of human life.

Last, I am an ethologist, one who is interested in the genetic aspects of behavior. Ethologists have, as Margaret Mead once said of the anthropological perspective, a "way of seeing." In my view, human beings have a common nature, a set of shared unconscious tendencies or potentialities that are encoded in our DNA and that evolved because they were of use to our forebears millions of years ago. We are not aware of these predispositions, but they still motivate our actions.

I do not think, however, that we are puppets of our genes, that our DNA determines our behavior. On the contrary, culture sculpts innumerable and diverse traditions from our common human genetic material; then individuals respond to their environment and heredity in idiosyncratic ways that philosophers have long attributed to "free will."

In our drive to understand ourselves, we first studied the sun and moon and stars, then the plants and animals around us. Only in the past two centuries have we scientifically examined our social networks and our minds. Victorians put books by male and female authors on separate shelves. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey made his pioneering studies of American sexuality as recently as the 1950s. And academics have only just begun to inspect the genetic undercurrents of human mating practices. So this book is an attempt to explore the nature of our romantic lives.

There is magic to love—as poets and sweethearts know. I don't pretend to penetrate this sanctum. But our sexual imperatives are tangible, knowable. And I firmly believe that the better we come to understand our human heritage, the greater will be our power over it and the stronger our free will.

cronxeh

Sep8-05, 05:05 PM

I'm not sure if there is a gene that encodes for bisexuality or homosexuality or heterosexuality, but in either case it would be interesting to find out in a few dozen years. Until then all of your remarks are pretty much pointless and have no meaning or value - considering the implications of such genes on human genome and its sustained existence

The question could, however, remain regarding the current population and their preference for specific minority groups. Do we really need to bring this fuss up and mix it in same bowl with religion, BGLTs, different races, and different classes? If you really want peace on Earth why not start with Mexico, India, and China controlling their population and perhaps we'd talk less about those pathetic issues like gay marriage or abortion rights

faust9

Sep8-05, 05:05 PM

Care to illuminate your opinion ? This has been studied you know...

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101966008

From the intro:

Too bad you can't read it; moreover, scientiffic studies do not include the following:

15 "Till Death Us Do Part"
Birth of Western Double Standards

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

—Book of Common Prayer ( 1549)

Thwack, thwack, thwack. A giant willow crackled, swayed, then thundered down beside the lake. Trout, perch, pike, chub, and catfish sped below the lily pads and darted among the bulrushes that lined the lake with marsh. A forest boar dashed, stricken, from the underbrush. Ducks and geese and mud hens lifted, flapping, from the reeds. Two otters froze, listening, among the cattails. Someone new was in the woods.

By 5000 b.c. central Europe was strewn with ponds and lakes and streams, signatures of massive glaciers that had retreated north some five thousand years earlier. Surrounding these glacial footprints were deep, thick forests. First birches and pines had spread across the grass. Then oaks, elms, spruce, and fir trees appeared. And by 5000 b.c. beech trees, chestnut trees, ashes, and maples cloaked the river valleys. Where oak trees spread their limbs, light bathed the forest

Art

Sep8-05, 05:11 PM

The point I'm making is you are trying to tie religion to the word marriage while still allowing for "civil Unions". To bolster your stance you used the Uk as an example to wit I stated we are not in the UK we are in the US. California is not bound by the laws of the UK it is bound by the laws of the US. The laws within the US hold that marriage is a contract---nothing religious---so seperating marriage and civil unions in name only is stupid. They are the same thing just different names so why bother? Because civil unions can be looked down upon(seperate but equal all over again)...If you read my posts you will see California is the same as the UK and Ireland then in relation to marriage and you would also see that I have never said anything about whether or not the civil union gays, or hetros for that matter, go through should be called a marriage. So what was that you were saying about creating strawman arguments? :rolleyes:

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 05:48 PM

That's what I thought.

Isn't constructing laws to govern society's social policies more like taking away peoples rights and freedoms?

Unless it's a law constructed to give people rights that were not being protected.

loseyourname

Sep8-05, 05:49 PM

Just a few quick point to make, which I'm sure will be overlooked since this thread seems to be moving so fast.

The original article posted has some blatantly misleading opinions. Arnold is not doing this to pander to the "far-right." He is doing this to pander to the majority of California voters, who already passed a referendum precluding the recognition of homosexual marriages. Arnold is and has always been a populist governor, using the initiative and referendum system more than any other governor in memory. Part of the reason he does this is that he was elected through the initiative system to begin with. The other is that the legislature in California has been notoriously ineffective over the last decade or so, failing to deliver budgets on time, constantly deadlocking and refusing to actually pass any legislation that didn't pander to what might be called the "far-left." Gerrymandering has been so bad in the state that it is impossible to get elected in a majority of districts without appealing to a very liberal sector of the populace that does not represent the actual majority. As a consequence, whereas most voting citizens of the state do not want the recognition of homosexual marriages, most legislators do. Represenation in the state assembly and senate is not doled out evenly.

With that out of the way, my personal position on this is the same as Townsend's. The idea that the government can grant someone the right to form a lifelong union with someone that they love is completely absurd to me. The historical evolution of marriage as a western institution can get a little muddled, as it comes largely from two sources. The ancient Greeks married purely as a means of producing legitimate, state-sanctioned heirs, who could inherit the husband's property. There was no love involved whatsoever; in fact, the idea of a Greek man loving anything other than another Greek man (and usually a Greek boy) was absurd to them. Women were uneducated non-persons that a man could never have any real rapport with. To paraphrase Creon in Antigone, 'there are many other fields he could plow.' A woman was nothing more than a soilbed in which to plant one's seed.

The other concept of marriage from which the western institution has arisen is the Christian conception. I don't know as much about Christianity as I do about the Greeks, but the idea seems to be that one forms a lifelong union with another, whom one loves, to become "one flesh," a single spiritual entity. This single spiritual entity came to be a single legal entity as the Church wove its dogmas into the pagan traditions of pre-medieval Europe, which had inherited from the Greeks the concept of using marriage to produce legitimate heirs. As Arildno points out, this Christian conception was heavily bastardized in the process, as there was in fact no single legal or spiritual entity created. Women still had no rights (unless they were royalty), and the purpose remained to create heirs and to join lands together. Inter-kingdom marriages became a means of creating peace and expanding one's territorial holdings.

It should be clear why the conception legally had to be between one man and one woman. Only a male/female pairing can produce a child, and if multiple partners were allowed, there would be doubt as to which children were the legitimate heirs of which fathers. There is no reason for this conception of the pairing beyond that. In fact, from what I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the Christian conception did not scripturally forbid the love between man and man. It only admonished their lying together as if with a woman. While the idea of love without sex seems strange to us, the biblical conception of love doesn't seem to have much to do with physical lust. In fact, the two seem to be intentionally separated. Lust is a concern of the flesh, whereas love is a purely spiritual thing. The reasoning behind the forbidding of homosexual sex seems to be nothing more than the reasoning behind the forbidding of pre-marital or even just non-procreative sex. Sex was not something to be enjoyed and done for its own purpose. Sex was to be performed only with the intention of creating a child. As homosexual sex could not do this, it was forbidden.

The modern-day conservative argument that we can extrapolate from all this that there is any moral reason to keep marriage as being an institution involving only one man and one woman is absurd. We need real arguments, not simply appeals to tradition and history. The historical reasons for having state-sanctioned marriage at all are gone. The children of any property-owner are the legal inheritors of that person's property whether or not they are legitimately born, and inheritance is not doled out according to birth order; it is doled out according to written wills. We no longer have any feudal system whereby land possessions can be expanded through marriage, and we generally do not have arranged marriages in the first place. The whole idea that the state should sanction marriage because it is beneficial to society to have long-term monogamous couple raising children doesn't seem to be working, either. Let's face it; take one look at the divorce rate and you can see that giving tax benefits is not keeping people together. The modern conception of marriage is strictly that of one person loving another for the rest of their lives. Why should the government grant us the right to love someone? That is not their right to grant.

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 06:12 PM

TRCSF

Sep8-05, 06:15 PM

The original article posted has some blatantly misleading opinions. Arnold is not doing this to pander to the "far-right." He is doing this to pander to the majority of California voters, who already passed a referendum precluding the recognition of homosexual marriages.

That implies the majority of Californians are bigots. That would be a shame.

Well, thank god the majority can't repress the minority forever.

Back in the seventies, the vast majority of whites were against interracial marriages.

SOS2008

Sep8-05, 08:19 PM

I would add one modification, which is at one time inheritance passed through the maternal line because it could not be disputed who the mother was.

I think it's funny that now that people are demanding that homosexuals be allowed to marry, that people are now saying that marriage shouldn't be a function of the state.

As if they had a problem with marriage before homosexuals demanded the right.

It reminds me of those after school programs. The Chess Club, for example. Homosexual students demand the right to be allowed to participate in the Chess Club, and they win the court case, so the school just decides it's going to ban the Chess Club for everybody.

It strikes me as homophobic as any action, and is particularly cowardly.That's in reference to prop 200, and keeping in mind that California traditionally has been a liberal (blue) state with a significant gay population in the SF area, if it hasn't passed there, then where? I think the only state where gay marriage is legal is Massachusetts?

In any event, I see a little difference between this debate and the Chess Club example. As discussed above, the majority of Americans believe in the individual right to lifestyle choices, and as was seen in the Schiavo case, most Americans don't support government intervention in private matters--the flip side being that government-sanctioned laws also represent intervention. Of course many Christians can't see this contradiction, and feel tolerance does not mean condone (like filling birth control prescriptions against one's beliefs). Not that this is my personal position.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep9-05, 12:48 AM

I think it's funny that now that people are demanding that homosexuals be allowed to marry, that people are now saying that marriage shouldn't be a function of the state.

As if they had a problem with marriage before homosexuals demanded the right.

It reminds me of those after school programs. The Chess Club, for example. Homosexual students demand the right to be allowed to participate in the Chess Club, and they win the court case, so the school just decides it's going to ban the Chess Club for everybody.

It strikes me as homophobic as any action, and is particularly cowardly.
Perhaps many people didn't think much of the legality of marriage. I myself for a long time did not intended to ever get married and so the thoughts never really occured to me. Once the debate is brought up of constitutional rights regarding marriage though then one will begin to think on it.

This also necessitates consideration of the precident set that could allow for polygamy if you use equal protection as the cornerstone of your arguement. Polygamists fall under equal protection too. As to empirical evidence that polygamy is not a healthy practice, please show us. Also let us know if your empirical evidence distinguishes between those that are involved in a polygamous relationship knowingly and willingly. I think you only hurt your arguement by descriminating against others looking for their marriage rights aswell. Ofcourse it helps you politically to deny those rights to others just as it helps Arnold politically to deny them to same sex couples.(this last part wasn't directed at you TRCSF)

vanesch

Sep9-05, 01:18 AM

Perhaps many people didn't think much of the legality of marriage. I myself for a long time did not intended to ever get married and so the thoughts never really occured to me. Once the debate is brought up of constitutional rights regarding marriage though then one will begin to think on it.

Well, I *do* think that there is a "legal" function to marriage, union, whatever one calls it, which has to do with taking into consideration that certain people happen to have a close relationship, which changes the natural context of their relations in legal matters. Their legal relations should then not be exactly the same as between two random strangers.
As has been pointed out here, simple things like visiting right in hospitals (I don't see why just any stranger should be allowed to come and visit - and annoy - me in hospital, but I'd think it to be perfectly normal to have my wife near me), or inheritance rights (if you've lived together for a long time and you've worked together to buy a house, I don't see why you should, upon death of one of the two, have to pay huge taxes to herit half of the house for instance), or some administrative advantages (for instance, all other things equal, having a preference in job location assignments that keep the couple geographically together) and other stuff. It is just a recognition by society that these people have their life together, which is something that can change the application of law in certain cases for the best of everybody. There's no point in having, for instance, a married couple, both in public service, and - if this is possible and doesn't infringe on the rights of others - assign one to a job in one city and the other one in a city 500 km from there. I mean, if you can avoid doing that, why make people unhappy ? But in order to do so, it is normal to assign a legal status to this fact that those people ARE together.
And I fully agree that the sexual nature (and hence the sex of the individuals) of the relationship is no-one's business. But I also claim that the NUMBER of participants, in that case, should be free.

This also necessitates consideration of the precident set that could allow for polygamy if you use equal protection as the cornerstone of your arguement. Polygamists fall under equal protection too. As to empirical evidence that polygamy is not a healthy practice, please show us. Also let us know if your empirical evidence distinguishes between those that are involved in a polygamous relationship knowingly and willingly. I think you only hurt your arguement by descriminating against others looking for their marriage rights aswell.

:approve: That was my initial point, and it was a bit provocative in order to put gays now "on the other side of the fence" for the sake of argument.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep9-05, 01:30 AM

I don't disagree with rights for people in intimate relationships. I think that "Marriage" regardless of it's actual source is generally concidered a religious institution. I don't think that a religious institution should be a legal one as well. Let all people have civil unions. Let all people get married in churches. Just don't expect your religious cerimonies to have merit in a court of law.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep9-05, 01:31 AM

Or just cut the religious aspect out of marriage but I think that has already been thuroughly ingrained.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 01:48 AM

1. The dinks are continuing to rise in numbers....my wife and I will always be dinks

I think I've been misunderstood. I didn't want to argue from socio-genetic arguments that "marriage between 1 man and 1 woman" is what ought to be, I just said that this tradition is something that got through to us from the deep origins of humankind because it was a socio-genetically advantageous strategy for over thousands of years. This was NOT (as I now think some perceived it) an argument against any 1man-1man couple or whatever. Gay couples don't involve in reproduction and so don't get involved in any strategy, and it hence doesn't make any difference whether they are 2, 3, 24 and whether they are faithful or not ; it doesn't influence their transmission of genetic material to the next generation (which is taken care off by their relatives).
If we grew out of elephants, probably we would have considered marriage between members of a group of females natural, where males are not supposed to take part in any lasting relationship. But the fact that we, as humans, have relatively few offspring (10-15 in a whole lifetime), and have to invest several years into their upbringing, makes that the 1male-1female cell is best suited to the task (each having 50% in the genetic assets of the offspring). At least in ancient times, when life was hard and kids easily died because of lack of care.

Now, society has changed so much that this strategy is probably outdated: whether or not a kid's parents stay together, its survival and reproduction chances are not much altered by that. It is not because daddy left, that your chances of dying prematurely as a kid are much increased. So from that moment on, it becomes more interesting for daddy and mommy to go and "spread their genetic material where they can" :-)
But we still have this tradition of marriage surviving from ancient times.

2. There is no shortage of people in the world. In fact I would say some countries could use a lot more homosexuality. Heck, the whole world could use a lot more homosexuals....

In "the selfish gene" Dawkins makes an interesting observation: if, for instance, Latin America's population keeps growing at the current rate, 500 years from now, the continent will be full, in that, everybody standing upright, they will all touch eachother, from Patagonia up to the Gulf, and fill up all the land space.
Clearly, no matter what technological improvements we bring to food production and all that, this will of course not happen in practice, and that's why there are 2 natural mechanisms that will regulate this: famine and war. Technological improvements, and medicine are in fact trying to avoid these regulations, and will make the final bang only worse ; it is like trying to avoid small forest fires until there's so much dead wood that you get a huge brazing fire you cannot control anymore.

The problem is that people are not evolving through any process of natural selection. A mentally retarded person who would not likely generate offspring 10k years ago now has a better chance of producing offspring than a lot of normal, intelligent people do.

Hehe, we are! We are *evolving*, but not necessarily to select out what we 'd consider the "best" (intelligent, just, strong, healthy...). We can only temporarily give ourselves the illusion that we now mastered evolution.

THE ANTS ARE WATCHING US AND WILL TAKE OVER :rofl:

In fact overpopulation is a good reason to bring down the institution of marriage, if the purpose of marriage is in fact to foster a family.

That's not entirely true, because it would lead us to go and fornicate randomly, with LESS investment in our offspring, compensated by having more of them. In fact, probably the best solution is to legally impose (like do the Chinese) a quorum of offspring (like 1 or 2 kids). If you want to get most out of your kids, then again, it is probably best to stay in a monogamous couple.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 01:52 AM

I don't disagree with rights for people in intimate relationships. I think that "Marriage" regardless of it's actual source is generally concidered a religious institution.

Eh, I am only married for the law, and most people around me too. In fact, we mainly got married for administrative reasons, especially because I was going to live in another country, procedures are much simpler (and sometimes more advantageous) if you are married. Some marry AGAIN a few years later, in church, mostly just for the fun of it to have a big party.

loseyourname

Sep9-05, 02:05 AM

Smurf

Sep9-05, 02:12 AM

If you must know, I've been in a homosexual relationship before. You might not want to assume so much. As long as marriage is a state function, I think anyone and everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they damn well please. But I still don't think, and never have thought, that marriage should be a state function. Thanks for not addressing a single thing I said in my post, by the way.
:biggrin: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=741025#post741025

vanesch

Sep9-05, 05:17 AM

If you must know, I've had homosexual encounters before.

Yeah, me too. Each time I go to the garage, and see the bill, I feel screwed :rofl:

arildno

Sep9-05, 05:32 AM

Good post, LYN, I'll address it since no one else seems to have done so.
I'll get back to the issue of socio-biology in a later post.

The original article posted has some blatantly misleading opinions. Arnold is not doing this to pander to the "far-right." He is doing this to pander to the majority of California voters, who already passed a referendum precluding the recognition of homosexual marriages. Arnold is and has always been a populist governor, using the initiative and referendum system more than any other governor in memory. Part of the reason he does this is that he was elected through the initiative system to begin with. The other is that the legislature in California has been notoriously ineffective over the last decade or so, failing to deliver budgets on time, constantly deadlocking and refusing to actually pass any legislation that didn't pander to what might be called the "far-left." Gerrymandering has been so bad in the state that it is impossible to get elected in a majority of districts without appealing to a very liberal sector of the populace that does not represent the actual majority. As a consequence, whereas most voting citizens of the state do not want the recognition of homosexual marriages, most legislators do. Represenation in the state assembly and senate is not doled out evenly.
I am sure you know more about the inticacies of Californian politics than me; I tried to tie Arnold's somewhat surprising veto (surprising on basis of his previous "gay-friendly" measures) to a feature pretty much universal in any political party:
You won't get re-elected as a candidate by your party buddies unless you espouse (if not personally agree with) views compatible with their own.
Pandering to the general public of voters will often be a secondary concern; it is more important to secure re-election as candidate, since if you are not a candidate at the time of the public election, your chances of getting elected into office is zero.

With that out of the way, my personal position on this is the same as Townsend's. The idea that the government can grant someone the right to form a lifelong union with someone that they love is completely absurd to me. The historical evolution of marriage as a western institution can get a little muddled, as it comes largely from two sources. The ancient Greeks married purely as a means of producing legitimate, state-sanctioned heirs, who could inherit the husband's property. There was no love involved whatsoever; in fact, the idea of a Greek man loving anything other than another Greek man (and usually a Greek boy) was absurd to them.
Incorrect, or at least, very inaccurate.
Read for example Aeschines poisonous speech before the popular assembly for why a certain person (can't remember his name right now) should not be eligible for office:
1. The fact that this person had willingly submitted in his early youth to the advances of other males was an excusable weakness due to youth, his continuance of the same practice into adulthood made him patently ineligible, a person of INEXCUSABLY loose morals.
2. One of those males to which the person submitted himself in adult years,is characterized by the odd personality , according to Aeschines, of sole attraction to other men, and Aeschines notes that it is typical of these males to retain youthful looks long past what "normal" men (like Aeschines himself) do. (I.e, the folk belief that gay men often look a lot younger than their straight counterpart is not something new; it was circulating in ancient Greece as well)
3. That is, for the Greeks in general, the man/ "boy"-love thing (the "boy" was typically 16-17, the man should ideally not be past 30, the age when he typically came into his inheritance and ought to find a suitable wife) was always a rather problematic thing, but something that could be tolerated.
Men who persisted into old age with fascination for youths could meet quite a lot of ridicule (see for example, Aristofanes' portrayal of Socrates and his ilk in "The Clouds"), and the men called "kinaidoi", who wanted a "passive" role sexually when they were adult were scorned and regarded as unfit citizens.

Aristofanes and Aeschines presented their works towards the GENERAL public, and hence, the attitudes towards sexuality contained in their works should be regarded as more representative of the common view than what Socrates, Plato etc. spoke with their philosophical f*ck-buddies.

It should be clear why the conception legally had to be between one man and one woman. Only a male/female pairing can produce a child, and if multiple partners were allowed, there would be doubt as to which children were the legitimate heirs of which fathers. There is no reason for this conception of the pairing beyond that.
Caveat: Within a PATRIARCHATE, this is true enough, not so with a matriarchate. Our closest relatives, the bonobos, have a matriarchal societal structure, with markedly different unions of coupling.
This seems also to have been the case with human matriarchates.
In fact, from what I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the Christian conception did not scripturally forbid the love between man and man. It only admonished their lying together as if with a woman. While the idea of love without sex seems strange to us, the biblical conception of love doesn't seem to have much to do with physical lust. In fact, the two seem to be intentionally separated.
Correct.
Since no one cares a damn about gods whilst enjoying sex and the pleasant aftermath, it is necessary to restrict peoples' access to sex, and pollute peoples' minds about sex by dubbing them as "sinful pleasures" if you are to gain the sought-after level of control over individuals.

Perhaps I'll address a few of your other points later on.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 05:38 AM

Since no one cares a damn about gods whilst enjoying sex and the pleasant aftermath,

And what about: "oh my god, this feels goood ? " :smile:

arildno

Sep9-05, 05:41 AM

And what about: "oh my god, this feels goood ? " :smile:
Well, then it is the real person you're with who fulfills the role of god for you, more than any scriptural god ever can. :smile:

vanesch

Sep9-05, 05:44 AM

Our closest relatives, the bonobos, have a matriarchal societal structure, with markedly different unions of coupling.

Bonobo life is great:
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

From the text:

During reconciliations, bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression. Not that this function is absent in other animals--or in humans, for that matter--but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.

Art

Sep9-05, 06:37 AM

Yeah, me too. Each time I go to the garage, and see the bill, I feel screwed :rofl:Stop complaining... just bend over and take it like a man. :uhh:

arildno

Sep9-05, 07:00 AM

Human behaviour is not of course completely explained by purely genetic considerations, they only give you AVERAGE tendencies over time scales long enough to have an evolutionary influence. The turn-over rate you talk about are the statistical fluctuations around those long-term averages. So everything that happens only on a time scale of a few hundred years or less will not play a significant role, and it plays less and less a role because our society becomes so terribly complex that it is difficult to say what pattern of behaviour will result in better gene transfer.
So all you can deduce from sociobiology for our species are traditions that must have been the same since we were hunters-gatherers and early civilisations. One of these traditions is the 1-man 1-woman (with some adultery :-) relation, raising their kids (at least for a few years).
You'd better check up on matriarchal traditions. These do not, it seems, follow the 1-1 pattern.

Secondly, and more importantly, to assume a dominating reproductive "drive" behind human actions has very little evidence.

A more rational, and better evidenced theory than assuming that human behaviour are to be seen as primarily reproductive strategies, are to say that human behavior is first and foremost characterized by the motivational factors seeking pleasure and avoiding pain (SPAP-strategies).
Now, this is not arbitrarily chosen, but closely related to the evolution of the neural systems and furtheron, consciousness.

It is important not to conflate the issues here:
It is evidently true that reproductive sex, for example, is pleasurable.
But this is a "fact of consciousness", rather than a motivational drive towards reproduction.
Obviously, an organism devising SPAP-strategies whose way of reproduction is painful will be selected against relative to an organism whose way of reproduction is deemed as pleasurable.
But in no way does it follow that an organism whose sole pleasure in life is the act of reproduction will be reproductively more successful than an organism whose pleasures are many and varied.
That is, by regarding pleasure-seeking and pain-eschewal as the main causes of human behaviour we are not fitting the emperor in "new clothes" i.e, that the set of actions predictably to follow from them is equal to the set of actions which would follow if the reproductive drive was dominant; rather, we are espousing a new principle for explaining behaviour.

There are many human behaviours that are more easily explained as SPAP-strategies; suicide of a youngster, for example, may be seen as a pain-avoidance strategy, it doesn't make much sense as a reproductive strategy.

Monkish celibacy is another case:
By firmly believing that unending bliss will be theirs if they sacrifice a few "minor" pleasures, they are basically involved in a pleasure-seeking strategy.
Again, their behaviour makes little sense from a reproductive view.

Essentially, then, my view is that by the markedly increased neural activity and evolved intelligence, human behaviour has become extremely adaptable to the actual circumstances they live in, or, in other words, their actions are better to be understood as SPAP-responses to experiences, rather than as reproductive strategies.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 07:40 AM

A more rational, and better evidenced theory than assuming that human behaviour are to be seen as primarily reproductive strategies, are to say that human behavior is first and foremost characterized by the motivational factors seeking pleasure and avoiding pain (SPAP-strategies).

Sure, I don't deny that, on the contrary! As I say somewhere else, I strongly believe in hedonism (which is SPAP, nothing else).

Now, this is not arbitrarily chosen, but closely related to the evolution of the neural systems and furtheron, consciousness.
It is important not to conflate the issues here:
It is evidently true that reproductive sex, for example, is pleasurable.
But this is a "fact of consciousness", rather than a motivational drive towards reproduction.
Obviously, an organism devising SPAP-strategies whose way of reproduction is painful will be selected against relative to an organism whose way of reproduction is deemed as pleasurable.

Exactly. As you point out, SPAP and evolutionary success are not contradictory. In fact, evolutionary strategies always win in the end, so probably SPAP is just ONE of the different possible strategies. And, as you pointed out, NOW our societies are so complex and quickly changing that there is probably no strategy of reproductive success that will be selected for. I mean, the time it takes (several generations) for a particular strategy to be selected for, society has already changed and the strategy isn't optimal anymore in any respect. So probably behavioural influences are not steered anymore now by genetic mechanisms. But we have still the inheritance of the past, when behaviour WAS strongly determining when our ancestors were reproductively succesful or not, so the rules of "getting more genes to the next generation" DID count back then.
Now what is special about the human species (apart from its brain) is the VERY LONG PERIOD needed to bring up kids to self-support. It is several years, which is very rare in the animal kingdom. So the 50-50 rule is optimal in that respect.

But in no way does it follow that an organism whose sole pleasure in life is the act of reproduction will be reproductively more successful than an organism whose pleasures are many and varied.
That is, by regarding pleasure-seeking and pain-eschewal as the main causes of human behaviour we are not fitting the emperor in "new clothes" i.e, that the set of actions predictably to follow from them is equal to the set of actions which would follow if the reproductive drive was dominant; rather, we are espousing a new principle for explaining behaviour.

I agree partly with this. The new behavioural rule is correct as long as it doesn't go *radically* against the good old Darwinian behavioural rules. After all, the aim of the game is to win over several generations, so if SPAP behaviour gives an overall gain over several generations, and has, locally, sometimes consequences that seem to be going against Darwinian behavioural rules, then that's still a good strategy.

There are many human behaviours that are more easily explained as SPAP-strategies; suicide of a youngster, for example, may be seen as a pain-avoidance strategy, it doesn't make much sense as a reproductive strategy.

Look what I said above: *locally* these consequences might seem to go against Darwinian imposed rules, but as long as suicide remains a minor phenomenon, and SPAP gives OVERALL advantages to most of its members, it will be selected for.

Monkish celibacy is another case:
By firmly believing that unending bliss will be theirs if they sacrifice a few "minor" pleasures, they are basically involved in a pleasure-seeking strategy.
Again, their behaviour makes little sense from a reproductive view.

I have my own theory that we've been selected for religious behaviour because it gave OVERALL advantages to the group (like working like crazy and obeying to the god-king, hence building a stronger nation and beating up the neighbours), and this monk-behaviour is some of the excess of that - as long as the majority of the group doesn't turn into monks, it is an acceptable price for an overall positive effect on the survival of genetic material.

Essentially, then, my view is that by the markedly increased neural activity and evolved intelligence, human behaviour has become extremely adaptable to the actual circumstances they live in, or, in other words, their actions are better to be understood as SPAP-responses to experiences, rather than as reproductive strategies.

Especially now, I agree. But it shouldn't be in TOO STRONG a conflict with Darwinian selection, because after all, after a few generations it would simply be dying out. So this Darwinian selection STILL plays. And something like the strong social pressure to lead a monogamous relationship is difficult to explain OTHERWISE. There's not much SPAP to it, is there ? The Bonobos have more fun.

Sep9-05, 07:48 AM

Eh, I am only married for the law, and most people around me too. In fact, we mainly got married for administrative reasons, especially because I was going to live in another country, procedures are much simpler (and sometimes more advantageous) if you are married. Some marry AGAIN a few years later, in church, mostly just for the fun of it to have a big party.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact of the law being under the influence of religious principles. Furthermore, if you or anyone chooses to marry in a church, you will be subject and forced to accept its policies, irrespective of being for fun or not.

arildno

Sep9-05, 08:01 AM

Especially now, I agree. But it shouldn't be in TOO STRONG a conflict with Darwinian selection, because after all, after a few generations it would simply be dying out. So this Darwinian selection STILL plays. And something like the strong social pressure to lead a monogamous relationship is difficult to explain OTHERWISE. There's not much SPAP to it, is there ? The Bonobos have more fun.
Again, you ignore the dynamics of matriarchal societies:
Let's look how this can be favorable in a Darwinian sense:
Since it is trivial for a dominant female to know who her own daughters (and sons) are, she doesn't have the slightest inclination to impose a control on the extraneous sexual behaviour of males. As long as she is able to seduce males to bring her and her kids food, say, it would be better for her that the males are so besotted with the thought of getting a vagina award that she can choose whomever she likes.
In this respect, she is in no serious way a rival to her co-sisters; they can distribute the silly males between themselves in an amicable manner.

Furthermore, let's look at it from the male perspective:
Vagina is good. Really, really good. If I spread my seed as much as possible among as many females as possible, then I've got a really good chance that several of the babies born will be mine; just in case, I'll be nice to the female and all her kids (otherwise, she might join her sisters on a vagina-strike against me, reducing my chances of getting more babies).

This is a perfectly well-functioning system; that is to say:
From a Darwinian perspective it is UNDETERMINED whether patriarchal or matriarchal societies will represent the best reproductive strategy overall; the clinching issue will be provided by those SPAP-strategies seen as most feasible to the individual.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 08:31 AM

Again, you ignore the dynamics of matriarchal societies:
Let's look how this can be favorable in a Darwinian sense:
Since it is trivial for a dominant female to know who her own daughters (and sons) are, she doesn't have the slightest inclination to impose a control on the extraneous sexual behaviour of males. As long as she is able to seduce males to bring her and her kids food, say, it would be better for her that the males are so besotted with the thought of getting a vagina award that she can choose whomever she likes.
In this respect, she is in no serious way a rival to her co-sisters; they can distribute the silly males between themselves in an amicable manner.

Furthermore, let's look at it from the male perspective:
Vagina is good. Really, really good. If I spread my seed as much as possible among as many females as possible, then I've got a really good chance that several of the babies born will be mine; just in case, I'll be nice to the female and all her kids (otherwise, she might join her sisters on a vagina-strike against me, reducing my chances of getting more babies).

This is a perfectly well-functioning system; that is to say:
From a Darwinian perspective it is UNDETERMINED whether patriarchal or matriarchal societies will represent the best reproductive strategy overall; the clinching issue will be provided by those SPAP-strategies seen as most feasible to the individual.

I agree entirely that there are different good strategies. I'd say as long as there are no important possessions in a tribal society, as a male, you just fornicate as much as you can, and as a female you "prostitute" in a way to get things done by males (that's about what you describe). There's something to say for that, and as long as raising a few more or less kids doesn't change much, there is no problem. In fact, some of our behaviour goes in that direction :-)

But I think the caveat comes when there's only a finite amount of stuff you can distribute amongst your kids: this goes from who is going to inherit your stuff to the time you can invest in them, their food etc... The system you describe works very well in a "luxury" environment. When you just have a lot of kids and you estimate that some are yours, as long as you don't have to make huge efforts to have them survive, there's no problem. However, if conditions are harsher this doesn't work. From the moment that investing more in one, means, investing less in another one, you'd prefer, as a male, that you only invest in YOUR OWN kids. For instance, if you are a farmer, which kids are going to take over the farm ? Just dividing your land in as much kids as there are is probably not your best strategy. Having land, for a farmer, means more chances of survival. You want to give your land only to those few who are really your kids. This is different from just jumping from tree to tree and pick a few bananas, which you distribute amongst the kids, to get a great time with their mommy.

arildno

Sep9-05, 08:38 AM

But I think the caveat comes when there's only a finite amount of stuff you can distribute amongst your kids: this goes from who is going to inherit your stuff to the time you can invest in them, their food etc... The system you describe works very well in a "luxury" environment. When you just have a lot of kids and you estimate that some are yours, as long as you don't have to make huge efforts to have them survive, there's no problem. However, if conditions are harsher this doesn't work. From the moment that investing more in one, means, investing less in another one, you'd prefer, as a male, that you only invest in YOUR OWN kids. For instance, if you are a farmer, which kids are going to take over the farm ? Just dividing your land in as much kids as there are is probably not your best strategy. Having land, for a farmer, means more chances of survival. You want to give your land only to those few who are really your kids. This is different from just jumping from tree to tree and pick a few bananas, which you distribute amongst the kids, to get a great time with their mommy.
1. To develop a healthy bisexuality in the population at large will mean that from a SPAP-perspective you get lots of new pleasures to choose from, and by thereby (presumably) limiting the frequency on strictly heterosexual relationships you will limit the number of kids being born, so that adverse effects of over-population relative to available resources are reduced (which is not in contradiction with natural selection)
2. From a FEMALE perspective, the matriarchate structure should always be preferable; whether or not this structure is overthrown by males is a historical contingency.

vanesch

Sep9-05, 08:44 AM

1. To develop a healthy bisexuality in the population at large will mean that from a SPAP-perspective you get lots of new pleasures to choose from, and by thereby (presumably) limiting the frequency on strictly heterosexual relationships you will limit the number of kids being born, so that adverse effects of over-population relative to available resources are reduced (which is not in contradiction with natural selection)
2. From a FEMALE perspective, the matriarchate structure should always be preferable; whether or not this structure is overthrown by males is a historical contingency.

I agree with 2.
Overpopulation, though, is only a very recent problem ! And since it is a problem, there are birth control methods which are more effective on the short term than waiting until this bisexuality is eventually selected for. In fact, it doesn't even work, because the society that limits its own growing population will be crushed by the neighbours who grow uncontrolled.

arildno

Sep9-05, 09:18 AM

I agree with 2.
Overpopulation, though, is only a very recent problem !
I said over-population relative to available resources; you said "scarcity of resources". Same thing. Very old.
And since it is a problem, there are birth control methods which are more effective on the short term than waiting until this bisexuality is eventually selected for.
It already is, which is amply attested by history.
Western societal influences TODAY tend to maximize the manifest heterosexuality (manifest meaning explicit desires, thoughts and actions), while minimizing manifest homosexuality.
Societies in which this societal influence is dissimilar show widely varying degrees of manifest sexuality; the simplest explanation of this is that the majority of individuals have a bisexual potential (latency, that is), whose manifestation is dependent on societal influences.

In other words, the majority of those calling themselves today "straight" are deluding themselves, the psychologically implanted mechanism being that of a carefully constructed bulwark of emotional disgust at the thought of homosexual encounters.
This bulwark mechanism works at its poorest on those individuals who happen to be on the homosexual extreme of the spectrum, since for those, the major sources of pleasures will be homosexual.
It is at its most effective on the other end, where the only slight homosexual tendencies might be dispensed with, since the dominant source of pleasure will be heterosexual encounters, anyway.

The INTENSITY of disgust will roughly be proportional to the strength of latent homosexual desires, in order to have a sufficiently strong bulwark.
This is why intense homophobia is typically found in male police officers, career army folk and athletes who desire and choose a career where they are in close physical contact with other males, and form passionate buddy relationships. They NEED the physical&mental intimacy with other men (more than with their girl-friends who they tend to beat, anyway), but they are sh*t-scared of being labelled as gays.

At some point, though, the exclusivity of homosexual desire becomes so strong that the societal control mechanism of disgust is ineffective in keeping them at the latent level, i.e, the societal control of desires experiences a collapse.

Lisa!

Sep9-05, 09:22 AM

arildno

Sep9-05, 09:38 AM

I want to know whether the majority of gays prefer the marriage to open relationship or they're just defending their basic rights as a human.
Does anyone have any information about the gay marriage in countries that it's legal?
In Norway, we've got what is called "partnerships".
Typically, those who enter a partnership have been together for quite a few years before they choose to take the step of formalizing their relationship in this manner.
Many don't bother with it at all.
Some (a minority) actually disagree to it in principle in that it is a form of aping the "breeders", and that the government haven't got a damn right to legislate on such personal matters.

As you can see it is quite varied attitudes..

vanesch

Sep10-05, 12:53 AM

I said over-population relative to available resources; you said "scarcity of resources". Same thing. Very old.

Ah, but when there is scarcity of ressources, the winning policy is not to limit one's offspring !
Imagine 2 groups of individuals living in a confined space with limited ressources. One group A limits its offspring while the other one (B) breeds on. The breeding group will soon lack ressources and they'll compete for the same ressources. As there are more of B as of A, and as we take it that due to competition, both are equally reduced in numbers (say, 50% of each survive), at each generation, there's relatively more of B than of A that will survive: A is competed out. Now, if A and B would have IDENTICAL offspring limitations, that would be of course beneficial to both. But it is unstable: once one generates slightly more offspring, it pushes as well A as B in ressource scarcity, and then the B will statistically start to outnumber the A.

It already is, which is amply attested by history.
Western societal influences TODAY tend to maximize the manifest heterosexuality (manifest meaning explicit desires, thoughts and actions), while minimizing manifest homosexuality.

I'm not arguing against any selectivity of homo or bisexuality. One thing is clear: homosexuality can not be dominantly selected for, because then the species stops breeding :-) But as long as it is a relatively small fraction that is purely homosexual, there's no problem ; bisexuality can be neutral or even slightly positive as you point out.

The thing I wanted to underline is only that the "monogamous 1 man 1 woman" cell - as breeding is concerned - can be understood to be socially endorsed because it maximizes the transfer of the genetic material to the next generation within that cell and hence will motivate mostly the partners to invest in their offspring. As human offspring is small in number and requires high investments, this motivation is important.
This doesn't say anything about the homosexual behaviour because it is neutral concerning offspring.

Lisa!

Sep10-05, 01:37 AM

arildno

Sep11-05, 07:35 AM

Ah, but when there is scarcity of ressources, the winning policy is not to limit one's offspring !
Imagine 2 groups of individuals living in a confined space with limited ressources. One group A limits its offspring while the other one (B) breeds on. The breeding group will soon lack ressources and they'll compete for the same ressources. As there are more of B as of A, and as we take it that due to competition, both are equally reduced in numbers (say, 50% of each survive), at each generation, there's relatively more of B than of A that will survive: A is competed out. Now, if A and B would have IDENTICAL offspring limitations, that would be of course beneficial to both. But it is unstable: once one generates slightly more offspring, it pushes as well A as B in ressource scarcity, and then the B will statistically start to outnumber the A.
Incorrect; you are confusing historical contingencies with dynamical, adaptive mechanisms.
It is a historical contingency if there happens to be two population groups adjacent to each other in a time of starvation/resource scarcity.
There could equally well be historical situations in which population limitation is the optimal choice.

Furthermore, you ignore the dynamical utilization of a bisexual population (which is what you find among other primates):
The main function of sexuality from a Darwinian point of view is for primates to keep the level of social tension within the group on an acceptably low level (this is important in order to have safe enough environment for the growing young)
However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in.
The tension level within the group can by this means be kept roughly constant, whereas a swift adaptation in terms of numbers of members to the current situation is made possible.

I'm not arguing against any selectivity of homo or bisexuality. One thing is clear: homosexuality can not be dominantly selected for, because then the species stops breeding :-)
Ah, the old myth!
You think gays "can't get it up" in the presence of women?
That's wrong.
Nor is it true that a gay man will find it painful or unpleasurable to have intercourse with a woman; but why do you think so many humans once they are in a relationship don't bother any longer with masturbation?
It is because that pleasure is found inferior to the ones one rather would have, i.e, it is pleasures one readily might dispense with, nor can one develop the rich and varied emotions you may find in a relationship.

In fact, a far more rational planning of child-raising would be possible if the human population today had been predominantly homosexual.
Dominant genetic flaws like Huntingdon's could readily be removed from the gene pool, by simply banning such individuals from engaging in reproductive sex; to which they wouldn't have too much inclination towards anyway, and
thus, such a ban would not be an inappropriately harsh regulation of individuals' lives (as such a ban would be today).

The thing I wanted to underline is only that the "monogamous 1 man 1 woman" cell - as breeding is concerned - can be understood to be socially endorsed because it maximizes the transfer of the genetic material to the next generation within that cell and hence will motivate mostly the partners to invest in their offspring. As human offspring is small in number and requires high investments, this motivation is important.
This doesn't say anything about the homosexual behaviour because it is neutral concerning offspring.
Now, as for the motivation thing:
Intention is not experience, seeking something desirable is not the same as having the desire fulfilled.

The fact that reproductive sex is pleasurable is, of course, predetermined by genetics, the fact that people seek it, is a SPAP-strategy, not, in general, a desire to procreate (only homosexuals are interested in engaging in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation (with a mild pleasure besides), heterosexuals engage in it for quite different reasons).

That is to say, there are several pleasures and pains present in humans laid down by natural selection; it does not follow that you can construct individual psychologies on basis of a spurious (and, IMO, basically non-existent) motivation for procreation.
Rather, their presence means that, on average, a sufficient number of SPAP-strategies will be developed that involve procreative acts.

However, what is painful and what is pleasurable is by now means a strictly INHERITED phenomenon; far more important is the influence of individual experience (and the corresponding unique development of the neural system, i.e, learning).
But, therefore, since it is not inherited, simplistic models of natural selection fails on the individual level, but is trivially true in a statistical sense.

For example, take again the case of suicides.
In as much as the enironment is relatively stable in providing triggers for the development of suicidal tendencies in some members of a population, then the recurrence of suicides over time is not something selected for genetically.

There is no need to implant desires towards natural selection in individual members; natural selection works fine without it, and aside from regarding a limited set of pleasures&pains universal among humans as genetically predetermined, most of our pleasures&pains may be regarded as experentially determined, and that in all cases, on the individual level, it is SPAP-strategies that constitute our psychologies and may explain behaviours.

Sep11-05, 09:02 AM

However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in.

Even though there could be more homosexuals than heterosexuals? I disagree.

If the world fully accepts homosexuality, the danger zone of not reproducing due to a "devastating plague" kicks in.

The fact that reproductive sex is pleasurable is, of course, predetermined by genetics, the fact that people seek it, is a SPAP-strategy, not, in general, a desire to procreate (only homosexuals are interested in engaging in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation (with a mild pleasure besides), heterosexuals engage in it for quite different reasons).

Is it me or you got it wrong? Isn't this the other way around?

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:06 AM

No, heterosexuals mainly engage in reproductive sex for the pleasure it brings them, not because they "intend" by every such act to produce a baby.
Any other viewpoint is simply wrong.

Sep11-05, 09:08 AM

No, heterosexuals mainly engage in reproductive sex for the pleasure it brings them, not because they "intend" by every such act to produce a baby.

That's a bold statement. Prove it.

Any other viewpoint is simply wrong.

:surprised

cronxeh

Sep11-05, 09:18 AM

What we know for a fact is that there is a gene that is responsible for homosexuality. I've read a study on this done on the fruitflies I believe where they've altered a gene and the affected male fruit fly was trying to hump other males thinking they were the mate.

How this works in humans I have not a clue, but perhaps at the basic level we really are that primitive and a slight alteration in genetics will result in homosexuality or bisexuality. If this is the case, and I dont think you are "gay by choice" - that is a completely ignorant statement, then homosexuality is a serious problem to humankind at large, and should not be promoted further than that.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:22 AM

That's a bold statement. Prove it.
Oh, perhaps I'm wrong, then?
Do heterosexuals use contraceptives in order to produce babies?

Sep11-05, 09:24 AM

Oh, perhaps I'm wrong, then?
Do heterosexuals use contraceptives in order to produce babies?

Oh dear... is that your argument?

Truly weak.

Sep11-05, 09:26 AM

then homosexuality is a serious problem to humankind at large, and should not be promoted further than that.

Totally agree.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:28 AM

Oh dear... is that your argument?

Truly weak.
No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

If that had been their main motivation, pregnant women, for ecample, would have been singularly unattractive to have sex with, since you cannot impregnate here again for about a year's time.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:28 AM

cronxeh

Sep11-05, 09:30 AM

No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

If that had been their main motivation, pregnant women, for ecample, would have been singularly unattractive to have sex with, since you cannot impregnate here again for about a year's time.

Well if its not about reproduction, id like to hear your theory on why we have males and females, and why the only difference between male and female is in the last pair of chromosomes which subsequently represents the reproductive system

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:33 AM

Well if its not about reproduction, id like to hear your theory on why we have males and females, and why the only difference between male and female is in the last pair of chromosomes which subsequently represents the reproductive system
Mainly, sex is about tension-release, i.e, removing social tensions within a population (this is how it is among other primates, in particular among our closest relatives, the bonobos).
To have a low level of social tension is important in order that those young who are born can be expected to reach adulthood themselves.

cronxeh

Sep11-05, 09:34 AM

If you extrapolate the genetic variation we having today - particularly homosexuality and bisexuality, in future nobody knows what the effects will be. We may end up with a completely new species. Turn off your logical mumbo jumbo and think for a second. Imagine the segregation of humankind into several species, each of which doesnt produce a healthy offspring. Forget healthy we may even end up with cases where male and female can no longer mate, because they simply became different species (like breeding horses and donkeys to produce a mule. And mule is very infertile - only like 1 in million there is a fertile mule (hinnies) - you want this scenario for humans? You know how much that will cut down the 7Billion population ?)

vanesch

Sep11-05, 09:36 AM

Furthermore, you ignore the dynamical utilization of a bisexual population (which is what you find among other primates):
The main function of sexuality from a Darwinian point of view is for primates to keep the level of social tension within the group on an acceptably low level (this is important in order to have safe enough environment for the growing young)
However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in. [...]

I can up to a point agree with what you write, but it didn't have anything to do with my point. I'm not talking about non-reproductive sexual behaviours, in the same way I'm not talking about the desire to eat apples or to sing.
What I AM claiming is that the REPRODUCTIVE unit which is, from a Darwinian standpoint, the best adapted to the (early) human situation, is the monogamous 1man 1woman cell. What those men and women do ELSE, sexually or not, doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't lead to reproduction. This is simply a consequence of the fact that raising kids is expensive and takes a long time (several years). It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the very old tradition of marriage in several human cultures. Given the fact that the human male is physically stronger than the female on average, he will mostly NOT accept the matriarchal solution, for the simple reason that he would loose out on genetic transfer. I can do the calculation if you want. The 1man-1woman reproductive unit is the one that allows both most to be sure that their expensive investment on offspring raising will have high rentability.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:36 AM

If you extrapolate the genetic variation we having today - particularly homosexuality and bisexuality, in future nobody knows what the effects will be. We may end up with a completely new species. Turn off your logical mumbo jumbo and think for a second. Imagine the segregation of humankind into several species, each of which doesnt produce a healthy offspring. Forget healthy we may even end up with cases where male and female can no longer mate, because they simply became different species
What are you blathering about? :confused:
Don't bother posting if you can't deal with facts.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:40 AM

I can up to a point agree with what you write, but it didn't have anything to do with my point. I'm not talking about non-reproductive sexual behaviours, in the same way I'm not talking about the desire to eat apples or to sing.
What I AM claiming is that the REPRODUCTIVE unit which is, from a Darwinian standpoint, the best adapted to the (early) human situation, is the monogamous 1man 1woman cell. What those men and women do ELSE, sexually or not, doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't lead to reproduction. This is simply a consequence of the fact that raising kids is expensive and takes a long time (several years). It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the very old tradition of marriage in several human cultures. Given the fact that the human male is physically stronger than the female on average, he will mostly NOT accept the matriarchal solution, for the simple reason that he would loose out on genetic transfer. I can do the calculation if you want. The 1man-1woman reproductive unit is the one that allows both most to be sure that their expensive investment on offspring raising will have high rentability.
But the 1man-1woman situation is NOT present in what we know of matriarchal cultures.
The fact that aggressive, patriarchal cultures have killed off matriarchates cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a GENETICALLY INHERITED TRAIT towards that particular form of social organization.

Sep11-05, 09:40 AM

No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

I fail to understand you. Has it ever occurred to you that homosexuals practice sex for the sake of pleasure as well? Has it also occurred to you that most homosexuals are aware of being subject to NEVER having a child of their own?

Sex is mainly practiced for pleasurable reasons, let it be for heterosexuals or homosexuals. There's no way you can prove that homosexuals practice sex for reproduction purposes only.

Sep11-05, 09:42 AM

What are you blathering about? :confused:
Don't bother posting if you can't deal with facts.

He's discussing the aftermath of YOUR facts.

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:43 AM

Sex is mainly practiced for pleasurable reasons, let it be for heterosexuals or homosexuals. There's no way you can prove that homosexuals practice sex for reproduction purposes only.

I said that homosexuals would engage in REPRODUCTIVE sex mainly for the sake of procreation.

Sep11-05, 09:47 AM

I said that homosexuals would engage in REPRODUCTIVE sex mainly for the sake of procreation.

All sex is REPRODUCTIVE! (heterosexuality) I said that homosexuals do not engage in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation but for PLEASURE, just like heterosexuals.

[EDIT] In homosexuality, sex is practiced for pleasurable reasons.

cronxeh

Sep11-05, 09:49 AM

I'm gonna have to order those I TOLD YOU SO stickers and pins. I have a pretty good feeling I'ma start using them soon

arildno

Sep11-05, 09:55 AM

All sex is REPRODUCTIVE! (heterosexuality)
Fellatio? Hmm..
Sex with a woman after menopause?

In homosexuality, sex is practiced for pleasurable reasons.
I haven't denied that.
I said that if homosexuals choose to engage in reproductive sex, then their motivation will more be to actually procreate, rather than experience a pleasure (which, for them, is decidedly inferior to the pleasures they usually seek out).

vanesch

Sep11-05, 10:09 AM

But the 1man-1woman situation is NOT present in what we know of matriarchal cultures.
The fact that aggressive, patriarchal cultures have killed off matriarchates cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a GENETICALLY INHERITED TRAIT towards that particular form of social organization.

It is because in the case of heavy investment in offspring, a matriarchate is slightly less optimal.
Imagine we have 10 males and 10 females in a matriarchate on terms of "equivalence". Let's say that one of the males is Fred and we will do Fred's calculation. Let us assume that each female has 20 kids, 2 from each male. So Fred has 6 kids somewhere. If he's nice to all of them, he invests 1/60 of his efforts in each of them, he's investing 1/10 of his efforts in his 6 kids, who have 50% of his genetic material. Now that means that Fred is investing 5% of his effort in his genetic material (1/10 and 50% genetically related).
Of course overall, if Fred and the other males invest the same in the kids, what Fred is doing for the others, the others are doing for Fred, so his kids would get just as much survival attention as if he'd care exclusively for them. BUT: Fred can now decide to care LESS for the kids, and concentrate on other things like living longer himself. This will only slightly affect the survival change of his (and the other) kids. This ends up in all males getting very uninterested in investing in the kids, and is the result of the fact that his investment counts only for 5% of his genetic material in the next generation.
Females only care about their own kids and hence always invest in 50% of their genetic material.
Another reason why males don't like matriarchate is when having kids is not without risk for the female. They don't want the mother of their kids to take risks to put to the world kids of OTHER males, because if she dies, their own kids lack a mother.

Sep11-05, 10:10 AM

Fellatio? Hmm..
Sex with a woman after menopause?

You know exactly what I meant.

I said that if homosexuals choose to engage in reproductive sex, then their motivation will more be to actually procreate, rather than experience a pleasure (which, for them, is decidedly inferior to the pleasures they usually seek out).

Even though they're homosexuals? Sure that the predominant motive to have reproductive sex would be to procreate - just like you say - but just who would accept and permit this? And when you say having reproductive sex to procreate, are you referring to procreating only to go back to homosexuality with the baby? To satisfy procreation in the homosexual world? 90% - if not 100% - of homosexuals actually adopt a child as opposed to procreating in reproductive sex.

cronxeh

Sep11-05, 10:13 AM

Apparently engineers think they know it all :wink:

Please, do not get excited. This is only sarcasm

arildno

Sep11-05, 10:15 AM

It is because in the case of heavy investment in offspring, a matriarchate is slightly less optimal.
Imagine we have 10 males and 10 females in a matriarchate on terms of "equivalence". Let's say that one of the males is Fred and we will do Fred's calculation. Let us assume that each female has 20 kids, 2 from each male. So Fred has 6 kids somewhere. If he's nice to all of them, he invests 1/60 of his efforts in each of them, he's investing 1/10 of his efforts in his 6 kids, who have 50% of his genetic material. Now that means that Fred is investing 5% of his effort in his genetic material (1/10 and 50% genetically related).
Of course overall, if Fred and the other males invest the same in the kids, what Fred is doing for the others, the others are doing for Fred, so his kids would get just as much survival attention as if he'd care exclusively for them. BUT: Fred can now decide to care LESS for the kids, and concentrate on other things like living longer himself. This will only slightly affect the survival change of his (and the other) kids. This ends up in all males getting very uninterested in investing in the kids, and is the result of the fact that his investment counts only for 5% of his genetic material in the next generation.
Females only care about their own kids and hence always invest in 50% of their genetic material.
Another reason why males don't like matriarchate is when having kids is not without risk for the female. They don't want the mother of their kids to take risks to put to the world kids of OTHER males, because if she dies, their own kids lack a mother.
Well, I don't know where you've gotten this from, but it is proven wrong by history.

The ancient culture of Crete was most probably matriarchal and lived perfectly well (the males included) until the Dorian invasion crushed it.
It was, from what archeology bears witness a very low-aggression high society.
Similar tendencies was present in the Great Mother cultures in the rest of Europe.

There exists today a few matriarchates scattered about, notably one in the mountain vales of China.
This is also a very low-aggression society; the males seem quite happy with it.

arildno

Sep11-05, 10:23 AM

.
To satisfy procreation in the homosexual world? 90% - if not 100% - of homosexuals actually adopt a child as opposed to procreating in reproductive sex.
Because as the situation happens to be today, adoption is a much simpler alternative.
Cultural attitudes depend on what options happens to be available, and change accordingly.

arildno

Sep11-05, 10:31 AM

vanesch:
Your problem with the calculation is that you assume that the drive towards procreation is working on the individual level.
That is a totally unevidenced hypothesis.

Sep11-05, 10:36 AM

Because as the situation happens to be today, adoption is a much simpler alternative.

I disagree. Adoption is in actual fact a very complicated process.

Entropy

Sep11-05, 10:38 AM

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

Well, I understand where you're coming from. But thats the whole point of governments, to pave roads. If the government didn't intervene, druken bastards would be able to come home and beat children without commiting a crime. You would have thousands of eight year olds born into poverty stricten families working legally in textile mills. And less than half of the kids in the country probably woundn't being going to school, seeing how the government wouldn't force their parents into making them go. If the government couldn't tell parents how to raise their children, we'd be set back a whole century.

arildno

Sep11-05, 10:40 AM

I disagree. Adoption is in actual fact a very complicated process.
Due to the stigmatization of homosexuals prevalent in our society, it is just about only long-term, well-off lesbian couples who dare to take upon the parenting roles.

Gay men are not, in general, into heroics.

arildno

Sep11-05, 10:42 AM

Well, I understand where you're coming from. But thats the whole point of governments, to pave roads. If the government didn't intervene, druken bastards would be able to come home and beat children without commiting a crime. You would have thousands of eight year olds born into poverty stricten families working legally in textile mills. And less than half of the kids in the country probably woundn't being going to school, seeing how the government wouldn't force their parents into making them go. If the government couldn't tell parents how to raise their children, we'd be set back a whole century.
Very good points!
The nice thing about government officials is that we can kick them out of office in the next election if we don't like them.
We might as well, for our OWN sakes, set them to do good work for us.

Entropy

Sep11-05, 11:20 AM

As for gay marriage, who cares? Isn't their something more important to talk about other than two guys frenching each other?

But why stop with gay marriage? According to my beliefs, catholisms, judism, islam, divorce, military service, hinduism, astrology, mystism, divination, sex before marriage, abortions, swearing, violence, pornography, capital punishment, smoking, drugs, polytheism and lots of other stuff is self destructive. Many of them probably more so than holosexuality.

So because I know all these things are wrong, everyone should be forced to follow my rules. Because we all know that God put all these rules in the Bible so we could force them on to each other against their will, even though God said explicitly the exact opposite in the Bible.

I LOVE how Bush is selective in what scriptures he wishes to follow! Isn't it great how he only chooses to acknowledge the important passages against gays, but arbitrally ignores the [i]less important[i] passages against greed, killing, pride, politics, and idleness (love how you didn't let Katrina ruin your vaction by the way) so he can warp religion to satisfy his own personal desires? He is so amazing! Bush is the best president EVER![/sarcasm]

P.S. I nearly had a stroke writing that last paragraph.

arildno

Sep11-05, 11:26 AM

As for gay marriage, who cares? Isn't their something more important to talk about other than two guys frenching each other?
Is that what you think this is about?

vanesch

Sep11-05, 12:32 PM

vanesch:
Your problem with the calculation is that you assume that the drive towards procreation is working on the individual level.
That is a totally unevidenced hypothesis.

I don't know what you mean.
What you normally do to compare different genetic transfer strategies, is that you take strategy A vs strategy B, suppose that a set of individuals X will behave according to strategy A, and suppose that another set of individuals will behave according to strategy B, and then compare what is the fraction of genetic material individuals X and Y will have in the next generation (or even, in N generations later). The winning strategy is the one with the highest percentage. In simple strategies, it is sufficient to do the calculation for one single individual, and here we compared the following strategies:

- Matriarchate, male is investing in all the kids (A)
- Matriarchate, male is NOT investing in all the kids (B)
- Patriarchate, male is investing in his the kids (C)
- Patriarchate, male is NOT investing in his kids (D)

From that, it follows that A and C have equal (optimal) transfer. However, it follows that B amidst of A has ALSO almost optimal transfer. D is a much less optimal strategy.

If B has OTHER advantages, it will start to outcompete A, so A has an instability. On the other hand C is not unstable against D.
From this follows that C is the optimal strategy, although - as you point out - A can work too. It is slightly less optimal, but can do the job if other conditions are ok.

arildno

Sep11-05, 12:33 PM

arildno

Sep11-05, 01:50 PM

As to empirical evidence that polygamy is not a healthy practice, please show us. Also let us know if your empirical evidence distinguishes between those that are involved in a polygamous relationship knowingly and willingly. I think you only hurt your arguement by descriminating against others looking for their marriage rights aswell. Ofcourse it helps you politically to deny those rights to others just as it helps Arnold politically to deny them to same sex couples.(this last part wasn't directed at you TRCSF)
There is ample evidence of violence towards women in polygamous societies like the Mormon-dominated areas, and in those Islamic countries practicing polygamy.
Besides, these are cultures in which women are denied the opportunity of becoming financially dependent from their men.
Thus, it is most probable that, from the womens' perspective, to enter a polygamous relationship is a mere pain-avoidance strategy (choosing a lesser evil to happen to them, rather than a greater in this case), rather than a pleasure-seeking strategy.

So, from those polygamies we know of, there is ample reason to conclude that polygamy is unhealthy, at least for the women involved.

arildno

Sep11-05, 02:38 PM

I would like this thread to return to the California situation; here's an article on what measures might still be present for the bill proposers as circumvention tactics:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/090905calFolo.htm

Smurf

Sep11-05, 05:52 PM

But why stop with gay marriage? According to my beliefs, catholisms, judism, islam, divorce, military service, hinduism, astrology, mystism, divination, sex before marriage, abortions, swearing, violence, pornography, capital punishment, smoking, drugs, polytheism and lots of other stuff is self destructive. Many of them probably more so than holosexuality. :rolleyes: Then you should very much care about this, by your own beliefs not allowing gays to marry is quite destructive.

Smurf

Sep11-05, 06:10 PM

There is ample evidence of violence towards women in polygamous societies like the Mormon-dominated areas, and in those Islamic countries practicing polygamy.Correlation is not causation.
Thus, it is most probable that, from the womens' perspective, to enter a polygamous relationship is a mere pain-avoidance strategy (choosing a lesser evil to happen to them, rather than a greater in this case), rather than a pleasure-seeking strategy.Polyandrous cultures (marriage of a woman to more than one man) are extremely rare today. Of the few that do exist, most of which are quite poor. George Murdock gave the example that polyandrous was adopted by many cultures that practiced female infanticide out of pure necessity. They simply didn't have enough women. In this case polyandrous is clearly the result of a society already devaluing women, not the cause.

Even in polygynous cultures the evidence that polygyny (marriage of one man to many women) is causing harm to a society is rather thin. Most men only have one wife, having more than one wife is considered a status symbol (indeed, how could the society survive if it was not?). Thus because of it's rarity it is rather odd to think that it is the cause of any "unhealthy" practices rather than a mere correlation.

During anthropologist George Murdock's study (1949, 1957) he sampled 565 societies and found that more than 80 percent had some type of polygamy as their preferred form. Remember that polygyny is by far the most common, and in such relationships having more than one wife is considered a status symbol. To me this would seem to suggest that humanity is inherently (at least untill recently) biased towards the male gender and that polygyny is merely a natural progression of this bias. Polyandrous as I stated before, is extremely rare, this -keeping Murdock's example in mind- seems to suggest that it only rises out of necessity.

So, from those polygamies we know of, there is ample reason to conclude that polygamy is unhealthy, at least for the women involved.I think that any study of the swinger subculture will show that Polygamy does not lead to any unhealthy practices when in a society that already appreciates women's suffrage.

vanesch

Sep12-05, 12:23 AM

It is utterly irrelevant; the desire for procreation is not the driving strategy behind people's actions, so your calculations are all wrong, and they are contradicted by evidence.
It is a silly fantasy, nothing else.

The desire for SUCCESSFUL procreation is one of the strongest drives! Why do you want to get rich ? FOR THE KIDS. Why do you look for a secure place to live ? For the SECURITY OF YOUR KIDS. It is amazing what people are willing to do FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR KIDS. Why do we want to improve the world ? So that our KIDS HAVE A BETTER LIFE.

vanesch

Sep12-05, 12:37 AM

To me this would seem to suggest that humanity is inherently (at least untill recently) biased towards the male gender and that polygyny is merely a natural progression of this bias. Polyandrous as I stated before, is extremely rare, this -keeping Murdock's example in mind- seems to suggest that it only rises out of necessity.

As I pointed out in the very beginning of this thread, polygamy is in fact the best strategy for STRONGLY DOMINANT males, who can even dictate the behaviour of women: if he can make sure that his different females DO NOT harm their rival offspring (from the rival wives) and force them into the relationship then he will normally get MORE offspring to the next generation. This happens when the females have essentially nothing to say.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep12-05, 01:11 AM

There is ample evidence of violence towards women in polygamous societies like the Mormon-dominated areas, and in those Islamic countries practicing polygamy.
Besides, these are cultures in which women are denied the opportunity of becoming financially dependent from their men.
Thus, it is most probable that, from the womens' perspective, to enter a polygamous relationship is a mere pain-avoidance strategy (choosing a lesser evil to happen to them, rather than a greater in this case), rather than a pleasure-seeking strategy.

So, from those polygamies we know of, there is ample reason to conclude that polygamy is unhealthy, at least for the women involved.
We're talking about here in the US and I specified relationships where the partners are knowingly and willingly taking a part. These things are all already provided for by the laws we have here in the US. To not let a partner know that you are already married to someone else before you marry that person would generally be considered fraud (bigamy technically but this law assumes that polygamy is not legal), and legal contracts agreed to under duress are invalid. Just because there are groups that practice polygamy and are unethical/unhealthy in other practices doesn't mean that polygamy is then an unethical/unhealthy practice.
As for pain-avoidance strategies and pleasure-seeking strategies among women, what of women that like the idea of having both a husband and a wife? I've known many females that like having both sexs at their disposal for "pleasure-seeking" purposes.