News Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[arildno]

That's a bold statement. Prove it.

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

 

[DM]

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

Oh dear... is that your argument?

Truly weak.

 

[DM]

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

Totally agree.

 

[arildno]

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]

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 don't 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.

What serious problem?

 

[cronxeh]

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]

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]

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 doesn't 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]

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]

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 doesn't 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?
Don't bother posting if you can't deal with facts.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[DM]

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.

 

[DM]

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

He's discussing the aftermath of YOUR facts.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[DM]

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]

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

 

[arildno]

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]

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.

 

[DM]

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]

Apparently engineers think they know it all

Please, do not get excited. This is only sarcasm

 

[arildno]

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]

.
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]

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.

 

[DM]

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]

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 that's 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]

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]

Well, I understand where you're coming from. But that's 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]

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 less important 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[arildno]

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 argument 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]

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]

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.

Then you should very much care about this, by your own beliefs not allowing gays to marry is quite destructive.

 

[Smurf]

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 until 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]

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]

To me this would seem to suggest that humanity is inherently (at least until 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]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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.

I don't think that's accurate. The number of people in the west who actually have kids, and the number they have, is decreasing.

A good question to address in this debate is "Why do those in the prosperous west have so many more kids than those in the west?" I think you could present some interesting answers to this question. The usual one is just a boring anthropologist answer.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think that's accurate. The number of people in the west who actually have kids, and the number they have, is decreasing.

Yes, in fact, the importance of kids usually only occurs to those having them. When I didn't have kids, I couldn't care less. Now that I do have, it is a very important preoccupation. Where did that come from ? I'm pretty sure it is a kind of instinctive reflex, like what one sometimes calls "mother instinct".

Also, as said before, I don't think you can apply purely genetic arguments to our complex societies NOW, but I'm pretty sure that they did play a role in ancient times and that we still have that heritage.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, in fact, the importance of kids usually only occurs to those having them. When I didn't have kids, I couldn't care less. Now that I do have, it is a very important preoccupation. Where did that come from ? I'm pretty sure it is a kind of instinctive reflex, like what one sometimes calls "mother instinct".

Also, as said before, I don't think you can apply purely genetic arguments to our complex societies NOW, but I'm pretty sure that they did play a role in ancient times and that we still have that heritage.

For males, there is the young bachelor status vs the male hierarchy status; these terms come form studying chimps and other apes. Young batchelors are out of the band and forage for themselves and compete without rancor. But at some point, due to timed hormone flow maybe, the young bachelor will try to worm his way into a tribe, maybe not his birth one, by being useful to a female. Then he gets interested in sex and politics and works his way up to his natural place in the band's male hierarchy. I have often compared this primate model with such facts as mathamtical talent fading after 35. We are very very close to our chimp cousins genetically, and who knows how much of our behavior is just chimp behavior, rationalized.

 

[CJames]

I thought that nomadic peoples were generally thought not to be strictly monogomous. In fact I was under the impression that the children were essentially raised by the community, rather than by what we today call "mother" and "father." I don't know if this is proven fact or anything. However I certainly do not see any evolutionary advantage to this somewhat isolationist approach. Nomads traveled in bands of roughly 40 individuals. They did not separate into individual "families." This is simply a better survival strategie, one used by a great deal of nomadic species. Of course passing on the maximum survival rate to your children is what garantees you're particular genetics will be passed on. But this by no means indicates that what is best is for you to exclusively raise only your direct offspring. In a nomadic band of 40 people closely related to one another both socially and genetically, your child stands a better chance of survival if he/she obtains as much information and guidance as is possible. Given more experience, your child is more likely to survive. It is therefore in your child's favor to be raised not exclusively but socially. Because of this there is really no need for a monogomous heterosexual relationship to be the basis of everything. And as far as I know, there really isn't any evidence that this is the case.