Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

So, my question is: what are you trying to do by asking that question?

The reasons I am posing the question are 2 -fold

1. Firstly I don't believe a lot of PC people are as comfortable with homosexuality as they profess publicly. Of course that is not a reason in itself to keep a legal distinction between heterosexual marriage and other kinds of pair-bonding but it is interesting. I think it lends weight to the argument that their is not sufficient real desire on society's part to redefine our cultural institutions as part of some exercise in political correctness when the %age of people who are actually homosexual is probably as little as 2%.

2. Secondly, the hypothetical scenario is not that far-fatched, homosexuality has a cause. DrZoidberg asserts that the cause is 100% biological and that this is already proven by science:-

It´s biology. Science knows it is. Stop getting your science from Christian evangelical web-sites. Homosexuality has an even distribution all around the globe. It´s stable at between 2-3% in every culture and has most likely ever been, regardless of a cultures attitudes and tolerance toward homosexuality. Also.. it´s the same ratios in all mammals and birds. So it´s not unique for humans. It´s not nurture. Not at all. It´s not learned behaviour. Not at all.

I don't think this is true but even if it is true it does not change the line of argument. If it is related to a recessive gene or the pH in the womb (instead of nurture) then advances in medical science could be developed to treat that gene (or condition) so the child would grow up exactly as they would have been except their sexuality switch has been changed from homosexuality (which I believe is some kind of recurring error in sexual configuration (nature or nurture notwithstanding)) to heterosexuality.

The point is that keeping marriage with its traditional definition and letting homosexuals use secondary legislation for their pair-bonding is not the same as doing it for racial reasons.

Race is something that is well understood. Humans are adapted for their geographical location which is why they look different racially. Homosexuality is not well understood the rationales for its evolutionary development are reaching at best) and one day it may no longer be necessary to let humans develop homosexuality (if a cause can be determined - biological or environmental) so until we have determined that homosexuality has a rationale and 'belongs' in human nature we should treat it carefully.

A few folk are claiming that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. I have serious doubts about the truth of this and suspect the figures are being fudged by a media freight train that is riding a politically fashionable wave (sorry for the mixed metaphor) in 2015.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it lends weight to the argument that their is not sufficient real desire on society's part to redefine our cultural institutions as part of some exercise in political correctness when the %age of people who are actually homosexual is probably as little as 2%.

But that's a pointless point.
It's not just the 2% that establishes our cultural traditions. The majority would have to agree that it's correct to not be a bigoted dick. THAT is our culture.
So even if it's 'only PC' not to be a bigoted dick, THAT is the cultural tradition our culture had adopted.

2. Secondly, the hypothetical scenario is not that far-fatched,

What difference does it make if it's far-fetched or not?
You only ask it to try to get answers that support your subjective beliefs.

And that, only because your 'evidence' keeps getting shot down.

homosexuality (which I believe is some kind of recurring error in sexual configuration (nature or nurture notwithstanding)) to heterosexuality.

You keep getting asked for any sort of evidence, any reason at all to accept this opinion you keep on offering.
YOu've alluded to reading evolutionary books, but you never, ever offer anything remotely like support for it.

If this was poker, you'd have had your legs broken by now for never being able to ante.

The point is that keeping marriage with its traditional definition and letting homosexuals use secondary legislation for their pair-bonding is not the same as doing it for racial reasons.

It is IN THAT society no longer accepts it as a reason for discrimination.

A few folk are claiming that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. I have serious doubts about the truth of this and suspect the figures are being fudged by a media freight train that is riding a politically fashionable wave (sorry for the mixed metaphor) in 2015.

Then look it up.
Read those evolutionary books you've alluded to.
Find the ACTUAL answers in some actual research. Pony up the SLIGHTEST fucking reason to accept even one of your claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, all in all, Mojo, you've got no evidence.
You suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is probably a liar, either in not honestly reporting they find guy-on-guy kissing objectionable or in making shit up about homosexuality in nature and history, different cultures and whatever else.
You have no expertise in biology to support dismissing any scientific claim that homosexuality is NOT an obvious error, but you read a lot.
You're homophobic, mostly about gay men, and you'd discriminate against them (don't let them marry) in order to further discriminate against them (don't let them raise kids), because MAYBE it's bad.
And if you could 'cure' the trait, you would and cannot really see why anyone would not.

Your homophobia is all you have for your side of the argument and you just keep repeating your rationalizations over and over.

You could probably save a lot of time by just saying 'ditto' until you come up with a new line of bullshit.

 

[mojorising]

It is IN THAT society no longer accepts it as a reason for discrimination.

You are using (claimed) popular support as an argument for why homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality but when I claim that popular distaste for public displays of homosexuality are a reason why they should not be allowed you say that even if that is true it is not relevant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is IN THAT society no longer accepts it as a reason for discrimination.

You are using (claimed) popular support as an argument for why homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality

Incorrect.
I'm using the evidence of popular support to show that your efforts to say it's REALLY unpopular are a load of hooey.
You can't whine about a culture that's adopted a 'PC protection of gays' while simultaneously claiming the culture is merely a front for a far more popular distaste for gays.
The two positions are mutually incompatible.

 

[mojorising]

I would like to find some common ground where we can agree on something at least so would any of the pro-homosexual marriage crew at least agree that homosexuality is not yet properly understood?

We don't know:-

1. What causes homosexuality to occur in an individual (nature or nurture and what type and how much of each)
2. What has caused homosexuality to occur as a recurrent feature of the species (either it is a result of evolutionary forces or it is a recurring aberration)

Would any of you agree with either or both of these statements?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would like to find some common ground where we can agree on something at least so would any of the pro-homosexual marriage crew at least agree that homosexuality is not yet properly understood?

I wouldn't say i'm part of the 'pro-homosexual marriage crew.'
I'm in favor of human beings having human rights and see no reason to think they're that much different.

I think this point has been brought up at least once already in this thread. Your characterization of the 'other side' is faulty.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would like to find some common ground where we can agree on something at least so would any of the pro-homosexual marriage crew at least agree that homosexuality is not yet properly understood?

We don't know:-

1. What causes homosexuality to occur in an individual (nature or nurture and what type and how much of each)
2. What has caused homosexuality to occur as a recurrent feature of the species (either it is a result of evolutionary forces or it is a recurring aberration)

Would any of you agree with either or both of these statements?

I don't think we know either of those. While they'd be interesting questions, they wouldn't be relevant to the current conversation. We also don't really know why some people like Star Trek and why some like classic cars, but we don't go around making laws that only one of them gets to have conventions.

 

[mojorising]

You are using (claimed) popular support as an argument for why homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality

Incorrect.
I'm using the evidence of popular support to show that your efforts to say it's REALLY unpopular are a load of hooey.
You can't whine about a culture that's adopted a 'PC protection of gays' while simultaneously claiming the culture is merely a front for a far more popular distaste for gays.
The two positions are mutually incompatible.

They are not incompatible because I believe that there is a silent majority who are not happy with the redefinition of marriage and the elevation of homosexuality to a position of equal and unqualified acceptance but these people are not given a coherent choice.

The choices they are given are either unconditional acceptance of homosexuality or else being labelled a hate-filled homophobe.

Until we understand homosexuality better I advocate a more moderate position of measured tolerance where homosexuals' rights to pair-bond and be free from persecution are upheld but where their sexuality is not placed on a par with heterosexuality.

I think this is a coherent, rational, tolerant and humane position.

 

[mojorising]

I would like to find some common ground where we can agree on something at least so would any of the pro-homosexual marriage crew at least agree that homosexuality is not yet properly understood?

We don't know:-

1. What causes homosexuality to occur in an individual (nature or nurture and what type and how much of each)
2. What has caused homosexuality to occur as a recurrent feature of the species (either it is a result of evolutionary forces or it is a recurring aberration)

Would any of you agree with either or both of these statements?

I don't think we know either of those. While they'd be interesting questions, they wouldn't be relevant to the current conversation. We also don't really know why some people like Star Trek and why some like classic cars, but we don't go around making laws that only one of them gets to have conventions.

They are relevant.

1. If homosexuality turns out to be a recurring aberration with no evolutionary benefit then it would be good if it could be treated so it did not occur since it presents society with a problem that could be avoided.

2. If you accept homosexuality as undesirable (which I know you don't) and homosexuality turns out to be caused by environmental factors (which could include but not be limited to homosexual 'parents') then granting full rights to homosexuals to marry (and hence to adopt) is detrimental to the well-being of innocent children.

Star Trek is a trivial comparison as it does not present society with the same problems that homosexuality does.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They are not incompatible because I believe that there is a silent majority who are not happy with the redefinition of marriage and the elevation of homosexuality to a position of equal and unqualified acceptance but these people are not given a coherent choice.

But that's not what we see. You yourself admit that it's too PC Sensitive a topic for people to express such discontent.
That can only happen if the majority is prepared to challenge such statements.

When women first joined the US Navy, the majority did not like their presence. It was very clear for many years that people behaved very carefully in front of women, while behaving differently when it was a room of only men. Or the classic 'What's the first part of every ethnic joke?' When they say 'I dunno, what?' you turn your head back and forth as if scanning for blacks or Pollacks or whatever you're about to tell a joke about.

But more and more, people are not interested in tolerating any anti-gay references, so the PC position IS the culture's position.

The choices they are given are either unconditional acceptance of homosexuality or else being labelled a hate-filled homophobe.

Exactly. That's the culture. There's no middle ground, there's no 'be careful who you're around when you say that AIDS stands for Adios Ignorant Dick Sucker.' Or if there is, that's vanishing quickly.

Until we understand homosexuality better I advocate a more moderate position

Discrimination for 'maybe some day what if' is not a moderate position. It's a fearful and intolerant one.

of measured tolerance where homosexuals' rights to pair-bond and be free from persecution are upheld but where their sexuality is not placed on a par with heterosexuality.

But the very fact of witholding equality IS persecution, mojo. Your position is self-defeating

I think this is a coherent, rational, tolerant and humane position.

Except that it entirely isn't....

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

1. Firstly I don't believe a lot of PC people are as comfortable with homosexuality as they profess publicly.

I think a lot of "PC people" have seen a lot of hateful and harmful treatment of LGBT people from elements of society, so even if they are perfectly okay with their child being gay, they don't want their child to face hardships because some parts of society are bigoted.

2. Secondly, the hypothetical scenario is not that far-fatched, homosexuality has a cause. DrZoidberg asserts that the cause is 100% biological and that this is already proven by science:-

The scenarios presented are pretty far-fetched, but the gist of the question seemed apparent. I did answer the questions myself partially because I thought the hypothetical scenarios were so outlandish they were of little consequence, but also to make the statement that I would do very little to ever prevent my child from being gay just as I would do very little to cause my child to be gay. If I could choose any sexual orientation for my child it would be what some call being pansexual 'cause I figure that would give them the most freedom.

If it is related to a recessive gene or the pH in the womb (instead of nurture) then advances in medical science could be developed to treat that gene (or condition) so the child would grow up exactly as they would have been except their sexuality switch has been changed from homosexuality (which I believe is some kind of recurring error in sexual configuration (nature or nurture notwithstanding)) to heterosexuality.

Genetic manipulation is risky business. If someone was ever going to go that route, I'd hope they were aiming to remedy something much more severe than being gay (which, absent the discrimination gay people face, is not something which really seems to need remedy at all). If you had bothered to read up on the issue before spouting off, you'd know that science is starting to lean toward homosexuality being (in part or in whole) the product of somewhat complex genetic and epigenetic factors, in which case the manipulation required might be even more problematic.

The point is that keeping marriage with its traditional definition and letting homosexuals use secondary legislation for their pair-bonding is not the same as doing it for racial reasons.

The point is not that race and sexual orientation are fundamentally similar. The point is that the social dynamics of pushing around minorities without very strong arguments about why it is a matter of public interest to do so is essentially the same mistake being repeated. Denying people rights is also risky business and should be done as a last resort and with severe caution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1. If homosexuality turns out to be a recurring aberration with no evolutionary benefit

Exactly what would evidence of that look like?
How would science determine that it's an 'aberration?'

Can you even frame your hope in a rational manner? What sort of experiment could even possibly come to conclude that it's something that happens, but it's not supposed to happen?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Star Trek is a trivial comparison as it does not present society with the same problems that homosexuality does.

It's exactly the same, then. HOmosexuality doesn't present society with any problems that aren't also presented by heterosexuality. SO that's a trivial difference.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think we know either of those. While they'd be interesting questions, they wouldn't be relevant to the current conversation. We also don't really know why some people like Star Trek and why some like classic cars, but we don't go around making laws that only one of them gets to have conventions.

They are relevant.

1. If homosexuality turns out to be a recurring aberration with no evolutionary benefit then it would be good if it could be treated so it did not occur since it presents society with a problem that could be avoided.

But you've never explained why. Who cares if it doesn't have an evolutionary benefit? My avoidance of raping women who already have husbands so that my genes will get passed while I don't have to expend my own resources to raise the kids could an aberration with no evolutionary benefit, since the alternative would be and is an effective evolutionary strategy. I don't think that less rape is a societal problem which needs to be avoided, though. If I decide to not whack you over the head with a stick and take your stuff simply because you're of a different tribe, I'm engaging in an aberration with no evolutionary benefit, since the alternative is an effective evolutionary strategy. I don't think that less muggings is a societal problem which needs to be avoided, though.

I do lots of things with no evolutionary benefit. If I choose to focus on my career and not have a family, I am engaging in the exact same lack of evolutionary benefit that gay men are. If my girlfriend and I wear a condom during sex and we agree to abort any fetus that may accidentally come along because we don't want kids, we are engaging in the exact same lack of evolutionary benefit that gay men are. If a couple in their fifties decides to get married, they are engaging in the exact same lack of evolutionary benefit that gay men are. Why should gay sex be in a category distinct from those?

Things aren't right or wrong because they may or may not have an evolutionary benefit.

2. If you accept homosexuality as undesirable (which I know you don't) and homosexuality turns out to be caused by environmental factors (which could include but not be limited to homosexual 'parents') then granting full rights to homosexuals to marry (and hence to adopt) is detrimental to the well-being of innocent children.

What is the detriment?

If homosexuality is caused by genetics or if it's caused by the amount of sunlight a kid gets in the first year or if it's a conscious decision adults make of their own free will, why would that matter? They're not hurting anybody, so what's the negative in letting them live their lives while you go about living your own?

 

[mojorising]

1. If homosexuality turns out to be a recurring aberration with no evolutionary benefit

Exactly what would evidence of that look like?
How would science determine that it's an 'aberration?'

Can you even frame your hope in a rational manner? What sort of experiment could even possibly come to conclude that it's something that happens, but it's not supposed to happen?

What do you think Down's syndrome is Keith?

Would you agree that it is a recurrent genetic aberration?

Well then you have an example of what I am talking about.

 

[mojorising]

Star Trek is a trivial comparison as it does not present society with the same problems that homosexuality does.

It's exactly the same, then. HOmosexuality doesn't present society with any problems that aren't also presented by heterosexuality. SO that's a trivial difference.

It does present society with problems because sexuality is an inherently emotive subject (in evolutionary terms it is the biggest game in life) and aberrant sexuality is therefore a disturbing problem for the normal majority. If homosexuality is an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire that could be avoided then it should be avoided.

If a tendency towards other sexual abberations such as paedophilia could be offset through early development genetic or environmental treatment then do you think it would be humane to provide such treatment?

 

[Jokodo]

Some of the arguments being made are quite good although I suspect some of them are a bit imaginative w.r.t. the ancestral heritage of homo-sapiens.

Anyway here is a question:-

Currently we do not know what causes homosexuality. It either has a biological basis or an environmental basis (nature or nurture) or a combination.

If it was statistically determined that homosexuality had an environmental basis would you take steps to avoid that environment for your child?

For example, there is currently some statistical evidence to suggest that youngest male siblings from a family are more prone to develop homosexuality, so what if some specific environmental factor was identified that caused it and could be avoided or countered in some way so as to reduce the probability of homosexuality?

Lets say there was statistical evidence that putting youngest male siblings in an after-school environment for 2 hours where they were the oldest male in the group could significantly reduce homosexuality, would you enrol your youngest male kid in the after-school class?

What if I said yes? To the extent that I'd prefer my kid to be straight, it's because I'm not confident enough that your kind is dying out quickly enough. If it weren't for homophobes, being heterosexual would be no benefit for the individual. Inherently, the best thing that can happen to an individual is being bisexual which leaves one with the greatest choice of potential partners.

Or lets say it was specific types of role-paying in for example playing mummies-and-daddies or doctors-and-nurses games that was causing it. Would you take steps to avoid these games or the environmental scenarios that had been statistically linked to homosexuality?

NO! Also, between gays and people who seriously ponder preventing their kids from playing games they like to play on the off chance that it might prevent their kid from becoming gay, it's the homophobic assholes I don't want to raise kids.

Remember, if you do then you are giving the child a better chance at a fulfilling and normal heterosexual life and giving yourself a better chance at having grandchildren.

You would also be taking away their chance at a fulfilling and normal homosexual life, and giving them a chance of a series of crappy and abusive heterosexual relationships. And while you may (slightly) increase your chances of having biological grandchildren, you'll greatly decrease the chances of ever holding them in your hands - if your kid ever finds out what a selfish manipulative asshole you've been, they'll damn well make sure you never get near their children, and rightly so.

You don't have a right to grandchildren. Your children do have a right to their own lives. So it follows that their right to self-determination always, under any set of circumstances, trumps your desire for grandchildren.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. Firstly I don't believe a lot of PC people are as comfortable with homosexuality as they profess publicly. Of course that is not a reason in itself to keep a legal distinction between heterosexual marriage and other kinds of pair-bonding but it is interesting. I think it lends weight to the argument that their is not sufficient real desire on society's part to redefine our cultural institutions as part of some exercise in political correctness when the %age of people who are actually homosexual is probably as little as 2%.

No, it doesn't lend weight to that.
Fore example, you ask what they would do in terms of how to raise their male child.
It may well be that some PC people actually suspect that being gay would all other things equal probably reduce his level of happiness, but on the other hand, they are comfortable with homosexuality in the sense that they do not morally disapprove of either having homosexual relationships or having a homosexual orientation.
If a PC person were to answer "yes" to your question about enrolling their youngest male kid, and you were to infer from that that they believe there is something morally wrong with homosexual sex or a homosexual orientation, you would be "concluding" what you already believe, but without warrant - i.e., you would be reinforcing your unwarranted beliefs about other people's beliefs.
Moreover, if you were to think that they are against "redefining our cultural institutions", etc. - as you say above - you would be again reinforcing your beliefs in an epistemically improper fashion.
If you're here to believe that many PC people at some level don't believe some of what they profess publicly, well, you might get that right. But on the other hand, you would still be reaching unwarranted conclusions.

2. Secondly, the hypothetical scenario is not that far-fatched, homosexuality has a cause. DrZoidberg asserts that the cause is 100% biological and that this is already proven by science:-

As I said, it's extremely improbable in my case since it assumes I would have a child - even more than one!
But in addition, the scenario is extremely unlikely. While homosexuality does have causes, the chances that you will out of sheer luck (because you have no basis for that) just one of the ways of reducing significantly the chances that it will happen, is very low.

Race is something that is well understood. Humans are adapted for their geographical location which is why they look different racially. Homosexuality is not well understood the rationales for its evolutionary development are reaching at best) and one day it may no longer be necessary to let humans develop homosexuality (if a cause can be determined - biological or environmental) so until we have determined that homosexuality has a rationale and 'belongs' in human nature we should treat it carefully.

Actually, homosexual orientation is not well understood; that there is homosexual behavior in humans sure is.
But that aside, for most of the history of humankind, race was not understood, either. Evolution wasn't even known. Would that have warranted punitive measures against interracial couples, in your view? Bans on interracial marriage?

A few folk are claiming that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. I have serious doubts about the truth of this and suspect the figures are being fudged by a media freight train that is riding a politically fashionable wave (sorry for the mixed metaphor) in 2015.

When you make claims like that "a few folk", you make it very difficult to reply. Who are saying what, exactly?

Anyway, if you are interested in actual data, I would suggest the following link as a starting point:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/272483706_Homosexual_Behavior_in_Primates

It's a chapter of a book uploaded by the author; if you want to read the rest of the book, it's behind a paywall. But the chapter in question gives a lot of information.
You can find more data, papers, etc., if you're interested.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's exactly the same, then. HOmosexuality doesn't present society with any problems that aren't also presented by heterosexuality. SO that's a trivial difference.

It does present society with problems because sexuality is an inherently emotive subject (in evolutionary terms it is the biggest game in life) and aberrant sexuality is therefore a disturbing problem for the normal majority.

You keep repeating such claims, without addressing my replies to them. Why do you still believe them to be true? What is your evidence? Given that in all other species of primates in which homosexual behavior is observe, no punitive reaction is observed, why would you think that humans developed such an odd trait?