Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[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.