Gay marriage in Australia

[Jokodo]

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)

In evolutionary terms, procreation and child rearing is the biggest game in life. While it's true that, before modern reproductive medicine, procreation required sex between a man and a woman roughly every five years, the very fact that most couples have sex more frequently than that (and those that don't are reluctant to admit it) proves that sexuality in humans isn't all about procreation. Not that evolutionary terms are a sound basis for how to construct a rational society or any such thing.

and aberrant sexuality is therefore a disturbing problem for the normal majority.

That doesn't follow at all.

If homosexuality is an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire that could be avoided then it should be avoided.

Another non sequitur. It's been said before but: If you want to maintain that sexuality is exclusively for reproduction, you know what else is "an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire"? Sexual desire by, or for infertile individuals of any sex, post-menopausal women, pregnant women, men who have undergone vasectomy, use of contraceptives,... If you want to remain halfway consistent, you'll need to propose avoiding and legislating against those forms of sexuality as well.

 

[mojorising]

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?

OK, so sometime in the past race was not understood and racial bigotry was common.

Now we do understand race and racial bigotry is not acceptable.

Today we do not understand homosexuality. Baseless bigotry as a behaviour is no longer acceptable but it does not follow that measured scepticism about something which we do not understand is unreasonable.

I am proposing that homosexuality is something that we are still warranted in being sceptical about since we really do not understand its cause or function.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Now we do understand race and racial bigotry is not acceptable.

Not really. I mean, from an evolutionary perspective we can speculate, and have even formed some great hypotheses, but it would be a bit of a mistake to say we understand race. We have a difficult time even defining it consistently let alone understanding the full properties and limits of the genetics contained in each racial grouping. Usually we mean skin colour when we talk about race, and while we can identify genes responsible for varying skin colours, it's not entirely clear whether being white is advantageous, neutral or if it simply stopped being disadvantageous enough to inhibit survival in certain environments. By the oldest traditions, people having children were, to the best of our knowledge, darker skinned.

While I don't think white people should be treated hatefully, I think we should respect the older, more traditional skin tones which have longer stood the test of time, and we should probably discourage white people from breeding. Seeing as having children is an integral part of our cultural roots and all, hopefully white people can respect this ancient tradition and maybe find a different caregiver role like having a pet cat or something.

We can't truly tell if being fair skinned is equally advantageous to the species as being darker skinned, especially if global warming is on the horizon, so until we know it's not a problem, some measured skepticism seems warranted before we fuck up the human gene pool any further.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

OK, so sometime in the past race was not understood and racial bigotry was common.

Now we do understand race and racial bigotry is not acceptable.

Today we do not understand homosexuality. Baseless bigotry as a behaviour is no longer acceptable but it does not follow that measured scepticism about something which we do not understand is unreasonable.

I am proposing that homosexuality is something that we are still warranted in being sceptical about since we really do not understand its cause or function.

That fails to address my questions. As I mentioned, for most of the history of humankind, race was not understood, either. Evolution wasn't even known.
7. Would that have warranted punitive measures against interracial couples, in your view?
8. Bans on interracial marriage?

By the way, race is not as well understood yet as you some to think. You say "Humans are adapted for their geographical location which is why they look different racially." But that may only be part of the picture. Are you sure that factors such as drift or sexual selection didn't play a significant role?

But in any case, you're right that in the past (even today) racial bigotry was common. But it was still immoral (even if, perhaps, it's even more immoral today, at least in context in which more information is available, and all other things equal).
The point is that not knowing what causes racial differences didn't warrant punitive behavior against interracial couples (for example).

Now, you say "I am proposing that homosexuality is something that we are still warranted in being sceptical about since we really do not understand its cause or function."
But that's not all or most of what you're proposing.
You're proposing, among other things:

a. To take punitive action against homosexual couples - regardless of the orientation of their members - who display affection publicly in the way heterosexuals couples do.
b. To change the colloquial meaning of the word "marriage" to exclude homosexual relationships (well, you see it in the opposite direction, but you just ignored my arguments in support of the view that the word "marriage" in English already refers to some homosexual relationships, and the linguistic evidence that supports them).
c. To keep the legal meaning of "marriage" in Australia unchanged.
d. To ban male gay couples from joint adoption - which they're already allowed to, in several parts of Australia -, or perhaps to list them as less good for adoption or something like that, and only allow them to adopt if there are no straight candidates (what you actually propose is not clear, but it's clear that it's quite restrictive).
e. To ban or restrict adoption by single gay men, to an unspecified extent.
f. Perhaps (it's unclear) to ban joint adoption in the case of lesbian couples, and/or to restrict adoption by single lesbians.

If you were only proposing remaining uncommitted on the issue of whether homosexual orientation - not behavior - is always a sort of malfunctioning or illness, perhaps you would not have faced arguments debunking your claims - though you would still have found many committed opponents. But you're proposing a number of punitive or at least right-restricting measures.

 

[mojorising]

But in any case, you're right that in the past (even today) racial bigotry was common. But it was still immoral (even if, perhaps, it's even more immoral today, at least in context in which more information is available, and all other things equal).
The point is that not knowing what causes racial differences didn't warrant punitive behavior against interracial couples (for example).

That is an interesting point although something of a diversion.

Is morality something absolute that we discover as we mature as a social species?

I am not so sure. I think morality is to some extent a function of time and place. I think certain behaviours were OK in the past and are no longer OK because our geo-political environment has changed.

Probably another thread for that discussion though.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But in any case, you're right that in the past (even today) racial bigotry was common. But it was still immoral (even if, perhaps, it's even more immoral today, at least in context in which more information is available, and all other things equal).
The point is that not knowing what causes racial differences didn't warrant punitive behavior against interracial couples (for example).

That is an interesting point although something of a diversion.

Is morality something absolute that we discover as we mature as a social species?

I am not so sure. I think morality is to some extent a function of time and place. I think certain behaviours were OK in the past and are no longer OK because our geo-political environment has changed.

Probably another thread for that discussion though.

The point I was making isn't a diversion, though one of the questions you raise might be so (it's unclear what you mean by "absolute" in this context; the word has been used in ethics and metaethics to mean quite different things. Are we talking true relativism or just what is called "contextualism"?). Rather, I was pointing out that even if we don't know the causes of something (e.g., race), that does not warrant punitive behavior.

But still, if you're suggesting that punitive behavior against interracial couples (for example) would be morally acceptable if we didn't know the causes of race (and we don't really know them very well), at that point I guess we'll just have to disagree, as there seems to be no way forward.
On the other hand, if you are not suggesting that and agree that it would still not be morally acceptable, there is still the issue of why you would consider punitive behavior against gay couples morally acceptable in cases of PDAs in which you don't find that similar punitive behavior against straight couples would be acceptable: surely, it's not because just we don't know the causes of homosexual behavior (assuming we don't know them), given the race example.

Probably another thread for that discussion though.

I suggest that you start a thread in the "Morals & Principles" subforum and you explain what you mean by "absolute" more precisely, if you want to discuss the matter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Here you go. Wikipedia has collated all the research on the matter and provided helpful links to the studies themselves in case you are sceptical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

The only reason there´s any questioning of this scientific scientific data is lunatic Christians lying. If it wasn´t for them this would be common knowledge.

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.

I probably would. But I wouldn´t be proud about it. I´d see it as a shameful act. And the only reason I would do it would be down to homophobia, people like you who make life miserable for gays. For the same reason I would prefer having a white than a black child. I acknowledge that racism is a thing, and I wouldn´t want my child to be the target of racism. Which I acknowledge is a horrible thing to say and do, but it is at least honest.

Race is something that is well understood.

It isn´t, because science stopped caring. Race is not a scientific concept any more (it arguably never was/pseudoscience). It´s only ever been used in the broadest sense within science. Today in science we talk genetic phenotypes, genography, genetic variation, genetic anthropology and so on. There´s a pattern I´m sure you can see. Scientists stopped using the word race when it became clear that genetic variation within groups had a very low correlation with outward appearance. The humans with the greatest genetic variation on the planet, the Kenyans, look about as similar to one another as the humans with the lowest genetic variation, the native Americans. Scientifically race is not particularly interesting to study. So they stopped. They still study genetics.... of course. But use other, more helpful and informative, terms for it.

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.

As you admit, we don´t know what homosexuality is about. Maybe we shouldn´t mess with it until we do? Race, as well as sexuality is mostly down to genetic drift. It was the exact same evolutionary pressure that turned Asians yellow while Europeans became white. Our sexuality will also include a lot of genetic drift. Messing with it can have disastrous consequences.

One example is when we cured stomach ulcers with antibiotics we inadvertently also killed off bacteria that we needed for our well being. It took us 30 years before we figured this out, and caused a whole range of new diseases. Until we figured out that we could solve the issue with pro-biotics. It´ll be the same whatever we try to mess with.

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.

It has been studied. And it´s only evangelical Christians who fudge the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I should also point out that the terms homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual don´t really match the scientific data. Human amorous attraction is not as simple and neat as falling into just these categories. They are helpful and easy to understand general concepts. But in reality humans are attracted to a whole host of gender markers in partners. Some well understood. Some less understood. A woman who is ovulating can easily arrange men according to testosterone level simply based on her smelling their t-shirts. The rest of us have no clue and can´t do it. Wtf is this about? Science can at best speculate. Gay women who ovulate can do it to, but find the t-shirts with less testosterone more appealing.

In reality there´s most likely thousands of variations of types of sexuality. All who are more or less fixed. We can group them into gay, straight and bisexual... but it´ll at best be a rough idea. A hint if you will. Rather than anything concrete. The only reason we at all use these categories is because Krafft-Ebing coined the descriptions in an 19´th century book on the topic. And it stuck.

What is unique to our western world is the idea that our sexuality is the source of some sort of top level identity as human. If we, in our culture, worried less about which top level category we belonged to, that we didn´t worry what it meant that we possibly got sexually aroused by some muscular dude at the gym, then this would not be an issue we discussed or cared about. We´d just follow our cocks and vaginas and get on with life.

Homosexuality among animals is of course just as complex as homosexuality in humans.

 

[bilby]

...

I should also point out that the terms homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual don´t really match the scientific data. Human amorous attraction is not as simple and neat as falling into just these categories. They are helpful and easy to understand general concepts. But in reality humans are attracted to a whole host of gender markers in partners.

...

This is quite obvious, from the simple fact that most people are not sexually attracted to every member of their 'preferred' sex - people are attracted to individuals, not genders.

 

[mojorising]

Another non sequitur. It's been said before but: If you want to maintain that sexuality is exclusively for reproduction, you know what else is "an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire"? Sexual desire by, or for infertile individuals of any sex, post-menopausal women, pregnant women, men who have undergone vasectomy, use of contraceptives,... If you want to remain halfway consistent, you'll need to propose avoiding and legislating against those forms of sexuality as well.

So do you not accept that there is any such thing as 'aberrant' sexual desire?

What about paedophilia and bestiality would you accept the label 'aberrant' as applied to those sexual inclinations?

 

[mojorising]

A quick flick through youtube has videos of monkeys having sex with cats and ducks and dogs having sex with cats and chickens.

(I won't post them all here!)

The sex drive is an elemental force for most sexual animals and it is not always able to find a normal outlet but the normal outlet is usually a member of the opposite sex and the same species.

Clearly aberration falls over a wide spectrum of possibilities but I think it is reasonable to say that an adult member of the opposite sex and the same species is the normal outlet and anything else is aberrant to some degree.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

But you're defining it as aberrant in order to treat it as aberrant. You have not shown it to be aberrant.

The 'problem' that society faces is entirely a made-up one.

If homosexuality is an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire that could be avoided then it should be avoided.

Circular.
The aberration is still an 'if,' so the conclusion is still fanciful and the argument's jousting at a man of straw.

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?

Oh, yes, I was wondering when you'd get around to comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. I've almost got a bingo.

But no, probably not. Not if it's rewriting someone's DNA. I think that's a bit heavy-handed, and more than a bit arrogant for us to decide we know all the repercussions of such a treatment. 'Humane' isn't the word that comes to mind. Dr. Frankenstein comes to mind, really.

There are a lot of horrible, horrible 'treatments' mankind has come up with in the past, and we should be learning from them. We don't just dump people in Bedlam, for example, or spin them in Cox chairs as a 'cure' for violent tendencies. And we don't perform lobotomies as a matter of course.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now we do understand race and racial bigotry is not acceptable.

Today we do not understand homosexuality. Baseless bigotry as a behaviour is no longer acceptable but it does not follow that measured scepticism about something which we do not understand is unreasonable.

But we DO, hopefully, learn from our mistakes, right?
Discrimination just because people are different is something that was a mistake we made.
Discrimination for bogus, made-up reasons and IOUs for reasons is a further mistake.

I am proposing that homosexuality is something that we are still warranted in being sceptical about since we really do not understand its cause or function.

Fine. Be skeptical about homosexuality. But stop being a poopie-head towards homosexuals.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Another non sequitur. It's been said before but: If you want to maintain that sexuality is exclusively for reproduction, you know what else is "an aberrant expression of the human sexual desire"? Sexual desire by, or for infertile individuals of any sex, post-menopausal women, pregnant women, men who have undergone vasectomy, use of contraceptives,... If you want to remain halfway consistent, you'll need to propose avoiding and legislating against those forms of sexuality as well.

So do you not accept that there is any such thing as 'aberrant' sexual desire?

What about paedophilia and bestiality would you accept the label 'aberrant' as applied to those sexual inclinations?

Aberrant implies there's some harm to it, unless you simply want to use the word to mean "different", in which case people who like having sex standing up are displaying aberrant sexual behaviour. There's no harm to homosexuality, so the word doesn't apply when used in a negative way.

 

[Jokodo]

A quick flick through youtube has videos of monkeys having sex with cats and ducks and dogs having sex with cats and chickens.

(I won't post them all here!)

The sex drive is an elemental force for most sexual animals and it is not always able to find a normal outlet but the normal outlet is usually a member of the opposite sex and the same species.

Clearly aberration falls over a wide spectrum of possibilities but I think it is reasonable to say that an adult member of the opposite sex and the same species is the normal outlet and anything else is aberrant to some degree.

You'd have to define "aberrant" for this statemtn to even begin to make sense. If you want to link it to reproduction: You're way too tolerant. If you want to maintain that the purpose of sex is reproduction, it logically follows that anything other than unprotected penis-in-vagina sex involving a fertile male and a fertile and currently ovulating female of the same species is aberrant. Just because you like to fuck your girlfriend or wife more than once or twice a month until she gets pregnant and then never again for several years but you don't like to fuck another man doesn't make one of them objectively aberrant and the other normal.

Good thing for all of us is that the definition of "aberrant" you seem to be employing is one that has no connection whatsoever to any legal or moral arguments. In legal and moral discussions, all that matters is whether anyone's harmed.

 

[Sajara]

In evolutionary terms, procreation and child rearing is the biggest game in life. While it's true that, before modern reproductive medicine, procreation required sex between a man and a woman roughly every five years,

Every FIVE years? My brother is having kids at the rate of one every two years (6 kids so far). My in-laws had 5 kids in 7 years. We're stopping at 2 kids in 3 years.

 

[mojorising]

You'd have to define "aberrant" for this statemtn to even begin to make sense. If you want to link it to reproduction: You're way too tolerant. If you want to maintain that the purpose of sex is reproduction, it logically follows that anything other than unprotected penis-in-vagina sex involving a fertile male and a fertile and currently ovulating female of the same species is aberrant. Just because you like to fuck your girlfriend or wife more than once or twice a month until she gets pregnant and then never again for several years but you don't like to fuck another man doesn't make one of them objectively aberrant and the other normal.

I think the percentage of the month that a woman can get pregnant is above 50%.

I think you are bending a simple fact of life (men are evolved to be sexually attracted to women) out of shape and trying to split hairs about fertility windows in a PC attempt to justify social recognition for what is really a fundamentally different and fundamentally more odd behaviour (i.e. men being sexually attracted to men). I don't expect you to agree with that summary but that is the way I see these tortuous justifications.

Can you not accept that men being sexually attracted to men is at least a bit odd?

 

[Sajara]

You'd have to define "aberrant" for this statemtn to even begin to make sense. If you want to link it to reproduction: You're way too tolerant. If you want to maintain that the purpose of sex is reproduction, it logically follows that anything other than unprotected penis-in-vagina sex involving a fertile male and a fertile and currently ovulating female of the same species is aberrant. Just because you like to fuck your girlfriend or wife more than once or twice a month until she gets pregnant and then never again for several years but you don't like to fuck another man doesn't make one of them objectively aberrant and the other normal.

I think the percentage of the month that a woman can get pregnant is above 50%.

I think you are bending a simple fact of life (men are evolved to be sexually attracted to women) out of shape and trying to split hairs about fertility windows in a PC attempt to justify social recognition for what is really a fundamentally different and fundamentally more odd behaviour (i.e. men being sexually attracted to men). I don't expect you to agree with that summary but that is the way I see these tortuous justifications.

Can you not accept that men being sexually attracted to men is at least a bit odd?

Once ovulated, the egg lasts inside a woman for 2 days, but sperm can last inside the woman for up to 7 days. Theoretically, within 7 days of ovulation, a woman could get pregnant...but that is like best of the best case scenario.

On average, you might have 4 days a month that a woman could get pregnant. This is roughly 15%

This is all from my wife who teaches this stuff for a living.

 

[Jokodo]

In evolutionary terms, procreation and child rearing is the biggest game in life. While it's true that, before modern reproductive medicine, procreation required sex between a man and a woman roughly every five years,

Every FIVE years? My brother is having kids at the rate of one every two years (6 kids so far). My in-laws had 5 kids in 7 years. We're stopping at 2 kids in 3 years.

That would be highly unusual for human hunter-gatherer societies, as well as for great apes in general, though. 4-6 years is a more typical interbirth interval for feral hominidae.

ETA: This paper suggests an IBI of 3.69 years for human hunter gatherers, 4.4 for gorillas, 5.46/6.25 for chimpanzees and bonobos respectively, and 8 (!) years for orang-utans.

 

[Jokodo]

You'd have to define "aberrant" for this statemtn to even begin to make sense. If you want to link it to reproduction: You're way too tolerant. If you want to maintain that the purpose of sex is reproduction, it logically follows that anything other than unprotected penis-in-vagina sex involving a fertile male and a fertile and currently ovulating female of the same species is aberrant. Just because you like to fuck your girlfriend or wife more than once or twice a month until she gets pregnant and then never again for several years but you don't like to fuck another man doesn't make one of them objectively aberrant and the other normal.

I think the percentage of the month that a woman can get pregnant is above 50%.

I think you are bending a simple fact of life (men are evolved to be sexually attracted to women) out of shape and trying to split hairs about fertility windows in a PC attempt to justify social recognition for what is really a fundamentally different and fundamentally more odd behaviour (i.e. men being sexually attracted to men). I don't expect you to agree with that summary but that is the way I see these tortuous justifications.

Can you not accept that men being sexually attracted to men is at least a bit odd?

Every bit as "odd" as men being attracted to women during the wrong time of the month, or to pregnant women, or to post-menopausal women, or men who have undergone vasectomy being attracted to anybody at all, or expressing a preference for oral or anal sex. Neither of those lead to reproduction. If that's a good enough reason to consider them morally inferior and argue for legal defences against such behaviour in one case, the same logic by necessity also applies to all othe cases.

Hint: It's not a good reason, which is exactly why bringing it up in this discussion is futile.

 

[mojorising]

I think the percentage of the month that a woman can get pregnant is above 50%.

I think you are bending a simple fact of life (men are evolved to be sexually attracted to women) out of shape and trying to split hairs about fertility windows in a PC attempt to justify social recognition for what is really a fundamentally different and fundamentally more odd behaviour (i.e. men being sexually attracted to men). I don't expect you to agree with that summary but that is the way I see these tortuous justifications.

Can you not accept that men being sexually attracted to men is at least a bit odd?

Every bit as "odd" as men being attracted to women during the wrong time of the month, or to pregnant women, or to post-menopausal women, or men who have undergone vasectomy being attracted to anybody at all, or expressing a preference for oral or anal sex. Neither of those lead to reproduction. If that's a good enough reason to consider them morally inferior and argue for legal defences against such behaviour in one case, the same logic by necessity also applies to all othe cases.

Hint: It's not a good reason, which is exactly why bringing it up in this discussion is futile.

'Every bit as odd' is a wild over-statement. It is interesting but not within a mile as odd as being sexually attracted to another man. Over-stating your claim reduces its impact.

We don't seem to have the olfactory senses to detect ovulation. Maybe we developed other senses at the expense of smell and one of the costs is not knowing what time of the month is best for copulation for pregnancy.

There is such an obvious link between heterosexual sex and reproduction that to deny it just seems obtuse.