[hrothgar]

BTW:

There have been some interesting studies in evolutionary biology surrounding what's known as sexually antagonistic selection. Sexually antagonistic selection involves genes that convey an evolutionary advantage in one sex, however, are a disadvatange in the the other.

For example, some biologiests have argued that the genes responsible for homosexuality in males are also associated with increase fecundity in females.

[effervesce]

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 12:55 AM, said:

effervesce, on Nov 9 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages.

I'm not arguing that such a position is correct. I'm just stating that cultural/societal aspects/values may be just as important as genetics in whether a person becomes gay in future generations - and thus from an evolutionary standpoint, being against gay marriages may be beneficial to society as a whole.

This is one of the most offensive posts I have read on BBF and that is really quite a standard.

You don't discriminate against a minority just because you have a weird theory that it might beneficial for the society in the long run. If you don't think that is a good standard then I have some theories developed in the 1930s in my home country to sell you.

And one doesn't discriminate against the rich with taxes, or subsidise those with no job by having welfare either, on the theory that such would be beneficial to society in the long run.

In Australia, we have what we call the 'baby bonus', whereby mothers who give birth are given $4000. Such a bonus was given as an incentive to produce children in an aging population. Such a bonus seems to be universally ok by society as a whole. Why, then, are so many people taking offense at straight couples being given certain tax breaks while individuals do not? Doesn't such a bonus discriminate against gay couples as well, since it is impossible for them to have a baby, but must instead rely on a surrogate or adopt a child?

A very obvious case where your point is proved wrong is in immigration, both in Australia and America. If you're from Canada, Australia, England, it's easy to immigrate to America. But if you're a refugee, you're automatically detained. Indefinitely. 90% of the thousands of so called 'boat people' who have arrived in Australia are legitimate refugees and under Australian law eligible for asylum- however, the majority are refused entry and detained indefinitely at a mandatory detention centre (at taxpayer's expense and more expensive than to simply allow them to immigrate-in fact it costs Australia $100 per day per person-a large amount of money considering that 20% stay in detention for a year or longer) until they are deported to their country of origin.

[TimG]

awm, on Nov 10 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

There's a difference between "necessities of life" which should be always available, versus luxury items.

Birth control pills are a "necessity of life"?

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

Jimmy: Prop 8 was not about which level of government should regulate marriage. The level of government was California, and it was a Californian poll. The central government had nothing to do with it. Some wanted to discriminate between gays and straights in the Californian constitution. It's as simple as that.

i know that, helene... what in my posts leads you to believe that i don't understand that? i was just trying to answer something i thought you had asked... re-read what i said about prop 8 and try to synopsize what i believe about it, you might find i'm not as far from your thoughts as you supposed

[helene_t]

Thanks, Jimmy (and sorry if I have wrongly accused you of being anti-gay). You said that you would prefer no laws regulating marriage, not sure what that means. Some people here have phrased it as two (or more) consenting adults can sign whatever contract they want and the government shouldn't interfere with it. Not sure if that is you POV. FWIW I think it sounds very idealistic but practically speaking, Californians are stuck with certain laws that give a special status to married couples, and the question was if two people have to be of opposite sex to get that special legal status.

[effervesce]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

effervesce: It is called "eugenics". I find your theory quite amusing but I'm afraid it's wrong. If you want to eliminate the "gay gene", you might as well support gay marriage in order to avoid gays feeling forced to marry someone of the opposite sex and spread his/her nasty gay genes to the next generation! However, all this is ridiculous for a number of reasons which I assume are obvious to everyone ....

I don't think you got my point. I totally agree with you that you shouldn't oppose gay marriage simply to try an eliminate a supposed 'gay gene' - in any case it would be totally ineffectual. For example, if a recessive deleterious gene has a frequency of 0.02, and we want to halve its frequency - it would take 50 generations of wiping out each and every single one expressing (ie having both alleles recessive) the deleterious trait. If, as Hrothgar points out, that there is such a so-called gay gene, which indeed increases the fecundity of females, it would make eliminating such a gay gene a nigh impossible task.

My point this entire time is not about genetics-instead, about the environment (society). Preserving the ideal that marriage is a union between man and woman may be a worthwhile goal, if indeed environment plays a role in deciding a person is straight or gay, by reducing the chances that the next generation is gay due to environmental considerations. Not everything is passed on genetically - a large proportion is in fact transmitted from generation to generation in other ways, such a cultural values, or characteristics from parents to children.

I'll make this clear-I'm not against gay marriage because of evolutionary reasons or whatever - or eugenics (Holocaust #2 anyone?). Society as a whole is designed to circumvent evolution- supporting the weak, elderly, valuing helping others, etc. I'm simply trying to make two points - it may be in society's interests to promote straight unions over gay unions - and that if a particular society decides to vote against gay marriage, then so be it. They have spoken and decided their values - that marriage is a union between a man and woman. A similar issue in America are gun laws-America's people have decided that guns are ok for individuals to own. Most other societies in the world, however, have decided the opposite-that guns are not ok. It looks like California has decided that gay marriage is not ok.

[helene_t]

effervesce, on Nov 10 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

it may be in society's interests to promote straight unions over gay unions

Sure, it is also possible that it is in society's interest (as perceived by a majority) to force black people to occupy the rear seats in the bus only.

[effervesce]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

effervesce, on Nov 10 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

it may be in society's interests to promote straight unions over gay unions

Sure, it is also possible that it is in society's interest (as perceived by a majority) to force black people to occupy the rear seats in the bus only.

Wrong analogy. Let me improve on it. Say that darker skinned people are more likely to produce children-and that suntanning will make you have darker skin and therefore more likely to have children. If the government decides to give tax breaks for people who suntan as opposed to people who don't, is that wrong?

Now, where this analogy breaks down is due to choice. In the above scenario, people can choose to suntan or not. Being straight or gay may not be a choice at all-nobody knows. But, I imagine for the majority of Californians, especially those who voted against gay marriage- they believe that being gay is a choice.

[TimG]

effervesce, on Nov 10 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

It looks like California has decided that gay marriage is not ok.

But, I imagine for the majority of Californians, especially those who voted against gay marriage- they believe that being gay is a choice.

But, believing it does not make it so. Nor does a majority of people deciding it is not OK make it wrong; history is full of practices supported by majorities of people that later generations have overwhelmingly determined to be wrong -- take, for instance, slavery or denying women the right to vote.

(It is my hope, and expectation, that a generation or two into the future, my grandchildren will look back and not understand how society could have been so slow to provide equal rights for gays.)

[Codo]

I have the opinion that gays should have the right to have a legal union.

But there is exactly no reason to give this right to them. It is always just an opinion. Or call it a feeling. But you can never argue that it is correct or even better to give them these rights.

We live in an eviroment, where being straight is the norm and being gay is an accept way of living outside this norm (About 10%, isn't it?).
However, being married to more then one person, to a kid or a sheep is forbidden.
Any reasons for this?

I can see no reason besides my feelings, what is right or wrong. (Of course you can argue, that marriage to children are wrong, because they cannot decide for their own (same is true for sheeps)... but this is your (and mine ) personal point of view. People in Yemen (f.e) won't agree with this idea /at least for the kids-part). And I still wait for a statistic that shows that a marriage in our countries makes the people happier then the arranged marriages in other countries. And I doubt that people who acept a marriage with more then one person have a lesser ethical standard. It is just different.

So, it is just a feeling, when we want the gays to have the same rights, there is no real reason behind this. At least no "equal rights to anybody" kind of reason.

If you share my view, that there is no reason to give the gays special rights, you may discuss, why we should give special rights to a "normal" family. Maybe we should not? Maybe a legal union or a marriage should be forbidden for anybody?

I hope this won't happen. We have a very very long history which includes the mariage between man and woman. And we have to suport everybody who wants to create a family and raise some children. So there are reasons why a family between a man and a woman is something special. But this is not true for gay marriage. There is no history and no easy way to raise children.

I know, this sounds as if I am arguing against gay marriage. I don't. I just don't belive that your agruments are valid. We just want them to have equal rights. Period.

In my opinon there should be three kinds of mariage:

1. A legal union: You have some rights in the case of deciding what to do when a partner suffers heavily and is not longer able to pronounce himself. There should be advantages in the area of inheritance and in having the same name- and some other aspects of live.

2. Even more rights are given to people who raise children- tax advantages, etc.

3. A religious marriage is free to every member of that church and the state does not care much about them. If they want to marry a goldfish to a rattlesnake, because they belive that these are their reborn grandparents: Go ahead.

[helene_t]

What's you point, Roland? That one cannot "prove" a moral statement in the same way that one can prove a mathematical statement? This is trivially true, one cannot "prove" that slavery and genocide are wrong, either.

Or that the "same rights for everybody" argument is invalid because most of us oppose adult-child marriages and polygamous marriages? I disagree. Disallowing gay people from being married is exactly as nonsensical as disallowing black people from being married. Now I am not personally opposed to group marriages but the divorce procedures etc. will have to be different because things get more complex when more than two persons are involved. So we cannot simply copy the existing laws for married couples to cover married groups as well. Maybe something similar to marriage should be available for trios. We could discuss whether it should be called "marriage" or something else. Topic for another thread.

If one is against group marriage just because "it feels wrong", then one is probably a bigot in some way. But that doesn't invalidate the argument that gay marriages should be allowed since it is completely arbitrary discrimination not to allow them.

And this "society should support straight marriages because they provide a stable environment for kids to grow up in" is irrelevant, since prop 8 was about gay couples, not about childless couples.

[blackshoe]

akhare, on Nov 10 2008, 02:32 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Nov 10 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

Show me where in the constitution I lose my rights to choose with whom I will associate just because I open a store front. 
.

No one said that personal constitutional rights are abridged by virtue of opening a storefront. However, the the constitutional rights of the owner don't extend to the storefront by phantasmic projection.

To that end, *it* is subject to arbitrary policy and licensing restrictions, and ensuing freedoms may be a small subset of your own personal freedoms.

DrTodd13, on Nov 10 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

If all the pharmacies in the world were owned by one person who was against birth control then it would still be wrong to force that person to sell it.  Of course, anybody who would make such a rule then surely competitors would spring up who would sell contraception or whatever life saving medication the first person found objectionable. 
.

Will free markets eventually regulate themselves? Maybe they will, but I still don't understand why it isn't right to force the business to do something. For instance, government certainly can't force a restaurant owner to bathe, but the restaurant must adhere to the proscribed code of hygiene (I am being facetious here just in case someone is wondering).

You are looking at "the business" as an entity separate from its owner. It's not.

Here's a touchstone: do you, as an individual, have a right to tell someone else, also an individual, how to run his business? For me, the answer is an emphatic no. As a follow-on to that, a group cannot magically acquire rights that its individual members do not have. So no group, including "society" or "government" has any right its individual members do not have - and since individuals don't have a right to tell others how to run their business, neither does "society", or "government".

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

What's you point, Roland? That one cannot "prove" a moral statement in the same way that one can prove a mathematical statement? This is trivially true, one cannot "prove" that slavery and genocide are wrong, either.

Only because the mathematics of human interaction haven't been invented yet.

We need Hari Selden now!

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 11:50 PM, said:

What's you point, Roland? That one cannot "prove" a moral statement in the same way that one can prove a mathematical statement? This is trivially true, one cannot "prove" that slavery and genocide are wrong, either.

Sadly true.

Quote

Or that the "same rights for everybody" argument is invalid because most of us oppose adult-child marriages and polygamous marriages? I disagree. Disallowing gay people from being married is exactly as nonsensical as disallowing black people from being married.

I know that you disagree. But why do you disagree? I state that you and me just feel that it is right to give them the same rights and to deny these rights to people who wants to marry kids.

Quote

If one is against group marriage just because "it feels wrong", then one is probably a bigot in some way.  But that doesn't invalidate the argument that gay marriages should be allowed since it is completely arbitrary discrimination not to allow them.

Because? Why is it discrimination to disallow them to marry each other but it is no discrimination to forbid Mr. Miller to marry three woman or Mister Smith to marry 12 year old Sally?

Quote

And this "society should support straight marriages because they provide a stable environment for kids to grow up in" is irrelevant, since prop 8 was about gay couples, not about childless couples.

I tried to explain, why most states support straight families. the governements are not known for gifts. So when they support families, they must have a reason.
And I guess the main reason (besides tactical reasons and "it had been as it is since ever..") was the raise of chidren who can support our country in the next generation and pay for our pension. And this goal is not really supported by gay marriage.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Because? Why is it discrimination to disallow them to marry each other but it is no discrimination to forbid Mr. Miller to marry three woman or Mister Smith to marry 12 year old Sally?

Those two examples are discrimination, too, but not completely arbitrary discrimination.

Most societies discriminate children in lots of ways - in particular, they generally cannot legally sign contracts as significant as marriage. You know the arguments for and against this. Let's suppose we both think that it has more pros than cons to protect children by baring them from signing certain contracts, including marriage. This argument does not extent to gay marriage (or group marriage). If someone is mature enough to sign a marriage contract with a person of the opposite sex obviously he/she is also mature enough to marry someone of the same sex, or to marry several people.

As for group marriages, I am all for it, and to the extent that current legislation could cover it I really think it should be introduced immediately.

[Lobowolf]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

I have the opinion that gays should have the right to have a legal union.

But there is exactly no reason to give this right to them.

In the United States, at least, there's a reason. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, and it's found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

[TimG]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

So there are reasons why a family between a man and a woman is something special. But this is not true for gay marriage. There is no history and no easy way to raise children.

Is it easy for a heterosexual couple to raise children?

I don't see why it should be any easier or harder for homosexual couples, except for difficulties related to the stigma applied by society.

[helene_t]

I see that another Californian poll was about hi-speed trains from LA to SF. Any thoughts?

[TimG]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Why is it discrimination to disallow them to marry each other but it is no discrimination to forbid Mr. Miller to marry three woman?

Because nobody is afforded the right to marry three women; polygamy is not allowed for some and not for others.

Marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is allowed for some (heterosexual couples) and not for others (homosexual couples). The two groups are treated differently, that is discrimination. The law does not treat those who want to marry more than one person differently than those who want to marry just one person (or who don't want to marry anyone), the law says that none of these people can marry multiple persons (concurrently).

[cherdano]

effervesce, on Nov 10 2008, 07:16 AM, said:

Now, where this analogy breaks down is due to choice. In the above scenario, people can choose to suntan or not. Being straight or gay may not be a choice at all-nobody knows. But, I imagine for the majority of Californians, especially those who voted against gay marriage- they believe that being gay is a choice.

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist, that doesn't mean we should accept that. Maybe the earth is flat or maybe it is round, nobody knows. Can we please stop this non-sense? Writing "nobody knows" is not a valid excuse for ignoring overwhelming evidence.

In any case, I don't think you are right about the reasons why Californians voted in favor of proposition 8. Many voted in favor because they are prejudiced against gays, because they find the thought of gay sex disgusting, or maybe because they believed pro-proposition 8 adds that allowing gay marriage would sooner or later lead to teachers encouraging homosexuality in kindergardens (or s.th. like that, I am only mildly exaggerating).