Gay marriage in Australia

[Keith&Co.]

It is amusing to read how you get a square peg into a round hole. Not just this response either. Keep bashing away at it, it's cool.

If your peg's square, you might want to get that looked at by a professional.

 

[Jokodo]

There is also the dirtiness aspect. People think poo is yukky (since it is) so they think anal sex is yukky but that is a bit of a diversion in the dicussion.<snip>

This argument is void since there are people who think anal sex between two men is yukky but don't have any problems with anal sex between a man and a woman. I suspect you're one of them.

 

[Jokodo]

No, I am arguing that they SHOULD not be allowed to build family units. I don't think homosexuality is a normal expression of the human sexual instinct. I don't think homosexuals should be victimised for this but I don't think it should be encouraged either.<snip>

Just to check, are you still denying your bigotry?

Also, "encouraging" - I don't think we should encourage people to break off high school, but that doesn't imply that we should stop them from picking up a job if they find someone who'll employ them, stop them from voting, or, for that matter, from marrying and having children. Humans deserve human rights by virtue of being humans, whether or not you approve of their choices, and if you want to deny them their rights, you'll have to come up with a very good reason. "I don't want to encourage that sort of behaviour" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Jokodo]

Some of the historical redefinitions really changed the very nature of the relationship involved. A "marriage type 1" where sex can be demanded at any time and a "marriage type 2" where sex is something we expect to happen but cannot be presumed to be available at any time are two very different concepts. That's what I call a redefinition.

It is amusing to read how you get a square peg into a round hole. Not just this response either. Keep bashing away at it, it's cool.

Please explain how the recognition of marital rape (with all its implications about what a marriage does and doesn't entail) is less of a "redefinition of marriage" than extending the number of potential beneficiaries without changing the rules.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

OK, homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is a waste of genetic resources to have a male homo-sapiens that cannot procreate.

Homosexual is not the same thing as infertile. Homosexual men (and women - why are you stuck on the men?) can and do procreate.

And even if the could not procreate, if this isn't something that they wish to change, why is it a problem for our society? Do we face a dire shortage of human beings on this planet? I thought the opposite was the case. If anything, homosexuals not breeding can help humanity in keeping our numbers down low enough so we all have enough resources.

And what are your other reasons that homosexuality is a negative for humanity? I can see none aside from your own bigoted view that homosexuality is bad and yucky. Yes, homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, so it is not the norm, so it is not "normal", but neither is being a racial minority or being a genius or having red hair or being left handed. When you say it isn't natural, I have to point out that it does occur in nature, in just about every species that has sexes. And even if it wasn't "natural", why does that make it bad? It isn't "natural" for humans to fly through the air in airplanes. Modern medicine isn't "natural" in the sense you seem to be using the word. That doesn't make things bad.

Personally, I am thankful to gay men, as the more of them are gay, the better chance I have with women The next time you see two gay guys holding hands, think of it that way and smile instead of frowning.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can we get rid of old people sex too? If we're going to be banning icky sex which can't produce babies, can we start there and then maybe move onto teh gheys once the real ickiness is dealt with?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can we get rid of old people sex too?

We could put all lubricants in containers with child-proof caps.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Personally, I am thankful to gay men, as the more of them are gay, the better chance I have with women The next time you see two gay guys holding hands, think of it that way and smile instead of frowning.

Is that why straight men are so into lesbian porn? To keep from feeling bitter about women stealing women from the dating pool?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Personally, I am thankful to gay men, as the more of them are gay, the better chance I have with women The next time you see two gay guys holding hands, think of it that way and smile instead of frowning.

Is that why straight men are so into lesbian porn? To keep from feeling bitter about women stealing women from the dating pool?

No, man. It's because there's two of everything - four of some things.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Is that why straight men are so into lesbian porn? To keep from feeling bitter about women stealing women from the dating pool?

No, man. It's because there's two of everything - four of some things.

I see. Well, counting can be fun.

 

[Jokodo]

OK, homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is a waste of genetic resources to have a male homo-sapiens that cannot procreate.

Actually, strictly speaking, it's a waste of resources to have more male homo-sapiens than are needed to impregnate all women. A 1:1 ratio is way over the top. Even in a random-assortment computer model (without any sexual selection or formal polygyny, just making it so that there's a fixed number of children per women but not per man such that the number of children he's already had doesn't negatively impact his chances of fathering another one), you get a double-digit percentage of men who remain childless, but even a 1:10 percentage would be easily enough to ensure no wombs stay unused. Male genetic resources just aren't all that scarce a commodity. Although, if the waste really bothers you that much, you should argue to kill off the surplus males. If you've already chosen to let them live, it's no longer any of your business what they do with their lives.

Sorry, your arguments sucks.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Not to mention this planet is overrun by Homo sapiens. Reproduction is 99% of the world's problem.

 

[Jokodo]

Not to mention this planet is overrun by Homo sapiens. Reproduction is 99% of the world's problem.

No it isn't, but that's another discussion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

OK, homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is a waste of genetic resources to have a male homo-sapiens that cannot procreate.

Actually, strictly speaking, it's a waste of resources to have more male homo-sapiens than are needed to impregnate all women. A 1:1 ratio is way over the top. Even in a random-assortment computer model (without any sexual selection or formal polygyny, just making it so that there's a fixed number of children per women but not per man such that the number of children he's already had doesn't negatively impact his chances of fathering another one), you get a double-digit percentage of men who remain childless. Male genetic resources just aren't all that scarce a commodity. Although, if the waste really bothers you that much, you should argue to kill off the surplus males. If you've already chosen to let them live, it's no longer any of your business what they do with their lives.

Actually, the model supports 1:1 pair bonding. But it assumes female philandering. It´s in all womens best interest to mate with the best males but form couples with reliable guys who will stick around. All that is required is that they´re fooled into believing they´re the real father. There´s good evidence that this behaviour is the driving force behind our intelligence. It was a kind of brainy arms-race in order to keep us from getting cheated.

Anyhoo.. that would produce best possible off-spring while also getting the best rearing of young.

Worth noting is that no animal is capable of sexual behaviours that is not natural for its species. Obviously the same applies to humans. If we do it, it´s part of the design. This is true regardless of us understanding why it works the way it works.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Not to mention this planet is overrun by Homo sapiens. Reproduction is 99% of the world's problem.

No it isn't, but that's another discussion.

I beg to differ, it would be best if most of your species did not reproduce. This whole "marriage is for procreation" is nonsense. There is no reason that all humans need to reproduce. My genetic bits are all over the population, society needing me to reproduce is just crazy talk.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I beg to differ, it would be best if most of your species did not reproduce. This whole "marriage is for procreation" is nonsense. There is no reason that all humans need to reproduce. My genetic bits are all over the population, society needing me to reproduce is just crazy talk.

Yes, the Nice Squirrel and the Jolly Penguin agree on this. There are too many of you humans already. You are destroying the planet. Please get your numbers under control.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I beg to differ, it would be best if most of your species did not reproduce. This whole "marriage is for procreation" is nonsense. There is no reason that all humans need to reproduce. My genetic bits are all over the population, society needing me to reproduce is just crazy talk.

Yes, the Nice Squirrel and the Jolly Penguin agree on this. There are too many of you humans already. You are destroying the planet. Please get your numbers under control.

So long as there are penguins and squirrels on the planet, it means that there are resources being consumed by unecessary species and the human race has further room to expand.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

OK so I assert that homosexuality is a fault in the sexual brain circuitry of some humans.

It serves no purpose and creates social division and is distasteful to witness.

Regarding the second point, homosexuality does not cause social division; people freaking out about homosexuality and denying equal rights creates social division.

The third point is subjective; some people (straight and gay alike) are pretty into watching or reading about gay male and female interactions (from innocent flirtations to hardcore sex).

The first point is not known. Some research is indicating there is potentially a factor which results in increased fecundity for the mother and increased likelihood of gay (possibly just male) offspring. Historically, that would be a benefit to the existence of homosexuality in humans; however, this isn't proven. Research on homosexuality has been far from exhaustive, so it is senseless to jump too far with conjecture and conclusions.

It would be in society's best interests if homosexuality could be eliminated in the future once we understand what causes it.

Can you give me a reason why homosexuality should not be eliminated in the future if/when we understand it's causes better?

There is no real reason why it would be in society's best interest. More and more there is a separation between reproductive sexual activity and sexual activity for pleasure. Given there is no pressing need to increase the global human population, it may actually be ideal if everyone's unions were non-reproductive by default until they intentionally wanted to have children. I'm not saying making everyone gay would be the solution, but same-sex couples do have the edge there -- as long as they are with same-sex partners, accidental pregnancies aren't much of a concern.

There is simply no need to alter or prevent a portion of the population which is fully capable of productively contributing to society without any impediments. Even if we could identify the root of homosexuality, it's not overly advisable to fuck around with our biology unless there are some really substantial gains. Depending on what the cause actually is, the solution could be worse than what we are trying to alter in the first place.

 

[Jokodo]

Actually, strictly speaking, it's a waste of resources to have more male homo-sapiens than are needed to impregnate all women. A 1:1 ratio is way over the top. Even in a random-assortment computer model (without any sexual selection or formal polygyny, just making it so that there's a fixed number of children per women but not per man such that the number of children he's already had doesn't negatively impact his chances of fathering another one), you get a double-digit percentage of men who remain childless. Male genetic resources just aren't all that scarce a commodity. Although, if the waste really bothers you that much, you should argue to kill off the surplus males. If you've already chosen to let them live, it's no longer any of your business what they do with their lives.

Actually, the model supports 1:1 pair bonding. But it assumes female philandering. It´s in all womens best interest to mate with the best males but form couples with reliable guys who will stick around. All that is required is that they´re fooled into believing they´re the real father. There´s good evidence that this behaviour is the driving force behind our intelligence. It was a kind of brainy arms-race in order to keep us from getting cheated.

Anyhoo.. that would produce best possible off-spring while also getting the best rearing of young.<snip>

I was talking about a much simpler model: Just generate a male population of 10000 individuals each with an index and a female population of 10000 individuals. Then generate the next population by randomly mating each woman with a man whose index is less than 10 steps away from hers, twice, and remember who was the father. You'll find that a substantial number of males didn't father any children.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems a likely explanation.

Genetics is just as likely an explanation.

It could just be a commonly recurring mutation of the gene that controls sexuality.

It could be from environmental factors.

It could be to do with the hormonal biochemistry of gestation.

We don't know.

For that matter, the same could be said of heterosexuality.

But if we found out and it was something that we could then avoid or fix I think it should be fixed. What purpose does homosexuality serve? Wouldn't life be easier for an individual if they were heterosexual. It would also give society one less problem to deal with if homosexuality could be understood and abrogated.

The same argument could be made for lefthandedness (what purpose does it serve) ? For centuries, left-handedness was thought to be the sign of the devil. But people evolved in their understanding.

I don't think it is a conscious choice.

Then why worry about children turning gay if they see gay couples?