Gay marriage in Australia

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There is a possible link between increased female fecundity and an epigenetic influence contributing to a higher chance of homosexual male offspring. This has two advantages. The first is that higher fecundity means a greater chance of more offspring. The second is that gay sons are less likely to reproduce themselves, but can still contribute to the strength of the family and the survival of subsequent generations.

This only works with group selection. Which is largely dismissed. We´re not ants. Genetic traits incapable of being passed on are worthless. Evolutionarily speaking. Yes, it is interesting that the more older siblings you have the more likely you´re gay. But I have a hard time seeing how this, in any way, could be beneficial to anybody. It´s just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. That´s not how to make a species survive.

The trait is passed on. Hypothetically, it is passed on matrilineally.

It not just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. Generation one produces a higher number of offspring, though perhaps one male of generation two is homosexual and unlikely to reproduce. Even so, the number of reproducing offspring in generation two may be higher than or equal to that of generation one females with lower fecundity. Generation two families with gay siblings may, hypothetically, have the support of those siblings in increasing the survival rate of their own offspring in generation three.

The relationship between increased fecundity and homosexual offspring has been studied to some extent and there is some supporting evidence. The bit about gay offspring helping with subsequent generations is simply stealing from the gay uncle hypothesis, which is not all that important here as the frequency of gay offspring in this scenario could be rather low. Whether this proves to be the right path (or one of them) toward understanding the biology of homosexuality or not remains to be seen, but last I checked it remained plausible with what we know so far.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This only works with group selection. Which is largely dismissed. We´re not ants. Genetic traits incapable of being passed on are worthless. Evolutionarily speaking. Yes, it is interesting that the more older siblings you have the more likely you´re gay. But I have a hard time seeing how this, in any way, could be beneficial to anybody. It´s just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. That´s not how to make a species survive.

The trait is passed on. Hypothetically, it is passed on matrilineally.

It not just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. Generation one produces a higher number of offspring, though perhaps one male of generation two is homosexual and unlikely to reproduce. Even so, the number of reproducing offspring in generation two may be higher than or equal to that of generation one females with lower fecundity. Generation two families with gay siblings may, hypothetically, have the support of those siblings in increasing the survival rate of their own offspring in generation three.

The relationship between increased fecundity and homosexual offspring has been studied to some extent and there is some supporting evidence. The bit about gay offspring helping with subsequent generations is simply stealing from the gay uncle hypothesis, which is not all that important here as the frequency of gay offspring in this scenario could be rather low. Whether this proves to be the right path (or one of them) toward understanding the biology of homosexuality or not remains to be seen, but last I checked it remained plausible with what we know so far.

I know the theory. It just doesn´t work mathematically. There´s simply no way to model that theory in a way that would give that reproductive strategy a greater success rate than just every bloke and gal being able to have babies. Also.. the further back in time we go the more common was rape, and all violent crime. The need for actual physical protection against rape was the greatest back in the time when we were hunter-gatherers and these instincts evolved. I have a hard time seeing how lesbianism can be of any benefit here.

 

[Jokodo]

There is a possible link between increased female fecundity and an epigenetic influence contributing to a higher chance of homosexual male offspring. This has two advantages. The first is that higher fecundity means a greater chance of more offspring. The second is that gay sons are less likely to reproduce themselves, but can still contribute to the strength of the family and the survival of subsequent generations.

This only works with group selection. Which is largely dismissed. We´re not ants. Genetic traits incapable of being passed on are worthless. Evolutionarily speaking. Yes, it is interesting that the more older siblings you have the more likely you´re gay. But I have a hard time seeing how this, in any way, could be beneficial to anybody. It´s just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. That´s not how to make a species survive.

Also, doesn´t explain homosexuality in non-social species. Cats are gay to the exact same proportion as humans. What possible use could a gay cat have to the offspring of anybody? Non-mother cats do NOT give a shit about anybody´s offspring.

I like the theory that the "gay gene" sits on a gene that does something very basic and useful. Most genes code for several things at once, and these can vary greatly. Removing/mutating it would kill the individual. So it stays in the genome, without actually being useful. BTW, this is not an argument for treating gays badly. No matter the reason they can´t help it and deserve our respect.

It does explain homosexuality in non-sexual species - if we assume a gene that increases fecundity in female carriers by 10% (heterozygous condition) to 20% (homozygous condition), but reliably causes male homozygous carriers to have no offspring whatsoever, you still get a stable allele frequency of just under 10% - and that's with fairly radical assumptions, 100% phenotypic homosexuality in homozygous males and 0 offspring for them. No group selection needed, just kin selection.

 

[Jokodo]

The trait is passed on. Hypothetically, it is passed on matrilineally.

It not just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. Generation one produces a higher number of offspring, though perhaps one male of generation two is homosexual and unlikely to reproduce. Even so, the number of reproducing offspring in generation two may be higher than or equal to that of generation one females with lower fecundity. Generation two families with gay siblings may, hypothetically, have the support of those siblings in increasing the survival rate of their own offspring in generation three.

The relationship between increased fecundity and homosexual offspring has been studied to some extent and there is some supporting evidence. The bit about gay offspring helping with subsequent generations is simply stealing from the gay uncle hypothesis, which is not all that important here as the frequency of gay offspring in this scenario could be rather low. Whether this proves to be the right path (or one of them) toward understanding the biology of homosexuality or not remains to be seen, but last I checked it remained plausible with what we know so far.

I know the theory. It just doesn´t work mathematically. There´s simply no way to model that theory in a way that would give that reproductive strategy a greater success rate than just every bloke and gal being able to have babies. Also.. the further back in time we go the more common was rape, and all violent crime. The need for actual physical protection against rape was the greatest back in the time when we were hunter-gatherers and these instincts evolved. I have a hard time seeing how lesbianism can be of any benefit here.

It does work mathematically. Even if you assume the same gene causes lesbianism in homozygous females, and again assuming that homosexual individuals have 0 offspring, you'd still get a stable allele frequency of 5% or so.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I know the theory.

That's really unclear if you are talking about group selection and traits which are incapable of being passed down or talking about rape.

This is a popular science article dealing with similar epigenetic factors which may hypothetically increase the fitness of the parents with a low frequency occurrence of homosexual offspring, and later on in the article, it mentions the increased female fecundity link to male homosexuality. If that's what you were referring to when you said you knew the theory, I can't figure out a few of your comments which seem to be off target.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

 

[Keith&Co.]

But homosexuals are not attracted to 'people' they are attracted to men. That is not good enough.

That's the problem, then.
WE want equality for people
YOU want to discriminate against what you think it a sickness and don't care whose rights you trample when you do.

This is your problem, mojo. Everything else here is just you rationalizing your homophobia.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Homosexuality presents problems to society. i.e. Heterosexuals (the vast majority) do not want to have to witness public displays of homosexuality as it is an unpleasant notion for a heterosexual.

Even assuming that's true, why do YOU bring this up?
If we protect the tradition of 'marriage,' as you want, and give the gays the civil unions you say you'll support, there will still be public displays of affection between the civil unioned couples. For that matter, even without marriage or unions, homosexual men and women who are dating, especially those at the gooey eyes, magnetic hands phase, will display affection.

You're shooting your own argument in the foot.

Or, I suspect, opening up slightly to show your actual stance.

Homosexuality presents problems to the homosexual. e.g. 1. They cannot have children,

Jesus Christ and all his paperclips, why do you persist with this lie? They can, they have and they do.

2. the unpleasantness with which society views homosexuality makes it awkward for the homosexual to express themseves freely.

And there have been places it was awkward for me to express myself freely with my wife.

Not much of a reason for any decent human being to give up their rights to marry the partner of their choosing, though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think you are splitting semantic hairs there. Of course evolution does not have a purpose or a compass. When I use the term 'purpose' I mean the end goal of a biologically replicating system i.e. survival of the fittest solution.

No splitting hairs.
If evolution doesn't have a goal, then there's no 'purpose' to any evolved trait.
If there's no established 'purpose' to sex, then we cannot possibly do sex incorrectly.

All this is an aside, though. I thought we agreed that the science of homosexuality isn't going to help you in your efforts to fight it, mostly because you cannot prove any of it.


If it's an error or a suboptimal choice or something with an as-yet-unidentified benefit, that's beside the point.

There are gay citizens in our society. Does society choose to punish them for this?

Well, we don't punish left-handers. Or blondes. Blacks. Or half-blacks, now that I think on it. I've been told more than a few times that while Black People fit God's purposes, the interracial kids are counter to his desires.

Anyway, your discomfort at seeing left-handed people display their handedness in public would be a fucking ridiculous reason to deny them a right to adapt scissors or computer mice or golf clubs to their needs.
We'd be a downright nasty society to demand that they behave as righties in every situation just because they prefer their sinister hand.

For whatever reason lesbians and gays exist, they want to be treated the same as the rest of the citizens in the society we share. And most of society, including people who aren't gay or lesbians, are moving in the direction of sharing society with them.

Same way we decided to let the coloreds and women folk into the clubhouse.

So, shut up about the science. There isn't any that'll matter to your argument. It's an IOU to someday maybe be proven or disproven or given a shit about.

What's a good civil precedent for mistreating 10% of the population?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think it is too late to save the cultural definition of marriage and I think it is worth saving.

Well, consider this, then.
Say that there's an argument at work and I say 'I'll bet forty quatloos on Christine.' Some people agree, some people disagree and the vast majority ask 'what the hell are you talking about? I don't understand what you're saying!'

Say that there's an argument at work and I say 'I'll febabbto forty iglits to Christine.' Almost no one will agree or disagree, everyone will ask 'what the hell are you talking about? I don't understand what you're saying!'

When a person says they support same-sex marriage, do people in the room agree/disagree, or do they ask 'what the hell are you talking about? I don't understand what you're saying!'

Bad news, Mojo. If they agree or disagree, the definition has already changed.

 

[Sajara]

Speak for yourself. As a member of the heterosexual majority with a number of 'out' homosexual friends, I have no more problem with them kissing and cuddling in public than I do with anyone else doing the same.

I cannot believe that the majority of heterosexual males would not find it unpleasant to have to watch male homosexual activity in public. If laws are formulated for the maximum benefit of the majority then public displays of male homosexuality should be legally curtailed.

I have no issues watching a guy kiss another guy in public. In fact, the only people I know of who have issues with this are people who openly admit to discriminating against homosexuals (though just like you they never have a real reason why they do it), or people that just don't like seeing PDA regardless of who is doing it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Speak for yourself. As a member of the heterosexual majority with a number of 'out' homosexual friends, I have no more problem with them kissing and cuddling in public than I do with anyone else doing the same.

I cannot believe that the majority of heterosexual males would not find it unpleasant to have to watch male homosexual activity in public. If laws are formulated for the maximum benefit of the majority then public displays of male homosexuality should be legally curtailed.

ha ha. I don´t even find it unpleasant to watch gay porn. I´m simply not aroused. I think I´m pretty normal. I have zero hang ups or issues about homosexuality. Just last week I got a gay friend drunk because he´d just gotten dumped and needed a shoulder to cry on. Just like I would for any of my friends that is going through a break-up. I listened to all the sordid details while being supportive, just like I would for any of my straight friends. No difference at all and I felt no icky-ness about it.

...

 

[Sajara]

Those are problems caused by homophobia, not by homosexuality.

That is not homophobia. The measured distaste for homosexuality felt by heterosexuals is rational not irrational. Public displays of sexuality are inherently offensive to some degree. Homosexual public displays are much more offensive than heterosexual ones since they go against the grain of the heterosexual majority's natural disposition towards sexuality.

That is not racial descrimination. The measured distaste for black & white couples felt by pure race couples is rational not irrational. Public displays of sexuality are inherently offensive to some degree. Black & white public displays are much more offensive than pure race couple ones since they go against the grain of the pure race majority's natural disposition towards sexuality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The measured distaste for black & white couples felt by pure race couples is rational not irrational.

A guy I knew in the Navy had been stationed on Midway Island. There he saw two breeds of gooney birds establish their rookeries.
Some of the males of both breeds were not successful in drawing the attention of a mate of their own order, but did manage to get a female from the other flock to sit in their nest. The guy referred to these as 'losers.'

Because when the hybrid eggs hatched, the gooneys of both breeds would peck the hybrids to death.

He maintained that this was the natural order of things. Oil and water don't mix, species that can interbreed should NOT interbreed because nature abhors a hybrid. The offense he took at my home life was perfectly rational and scientific and based on observing nature objectively.

I asked why dogs don't bite mongrels to death, then. He claimed that one exception didn't disprove his thesis. He had SCIENCE on his side.
How about horses? Do they stomp mules to death on sight? Do donkeys?
Do lions attack ligers?
Wolf-husky hybrids seem to do well in the packs.

I just had to question whether all of nature abhorred a hybrid or if it was an evolutionary strategy some species had happened upon, but by no means all of them.

He shut up about science, then, and started quoting the Old Testament.

 

[Sajara]

mojo,
My wife and I are unable to have children naturally.

1. Do you think we have sex?
2. If you answer yes to question 1 (and I'll let you cheat here because the answer is yes), then why do you think we have sex?
3. Should we not have been allowed to get married because we were infertile naturally?

As an aside, we were able to have two very lovely children thanks to In-Vitro Fertilization.

4. You know there is the legal government definition of marriage and the church definition of marriage right? I am an atheist. I was 'married' by a justice of the peace, a.k.a. a civil union. I do not have a church marriage but the government recognizes my marriage. There are something like 27 laws (I might be way off here, but that number is popping into my mind at the moment) where the government uses the term marriage in the legal government sense to define rights for people who were joined in a civil union as I did. Church wise I could give two shits what their definition of marriage is. Government wise I want my rights.

What basis do you have to say government wise, the definition of marriage should not extend to homosexuals? Church wise, I agree...leave their private backward definition alone. If a couple is already in a civil union, then why stop them from being considered in a marriage and getting all of the rights that others in a civil union already get just because they happen to have married the opposite sex?

 

[Sajara]

The measured distaste for black & white couples felt by pure race couples is rational not irrational.

A guy I knew in the Navy had been stationed on Midway Island. There he saw two breeds of gooney birds establish their rookeries.
Some of the males of both breeds were not successful in drawing the attention of a mate of their own order, but did manage to get a female from the other flock to sit in their nest. The guy referred to these as 'losers.'

Because when the hybrid eggs hatched, the gooneys of both breeds would peck the hybrids to death.

He maintained that this was the natural order of things. Oil and water don't mix, species that can interbreed should NOT interbreed because nature abhors a hybrid. The offense he took at my home life was perfectly rational and scientific and based on observing nature objectively.

I asked why dogs don't bite mongrels to death, then. He claimed that one exception didn't disprove his thesis. He had SCIENCE on his side.
How about horses? Do they stomp mules to death on sight? Do donkeys?
Do lions attack ligers?
Wolf-husky hybrids seem to do well in the packs.

I just had to question whether all of nature abhorred a hybrid or if it was an evolutionary strategy some species had happened upon, but by no means all of them.

He shut up about science, then, and started quoting the Old Testament.

I hope my post was obviously not my actual belief. I have no issues with mixed-race couples; however, my grandparents would call you a salt-and-pepper couple...so there might be hope for mojo's descendants.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I hope my post was obviously not my actual belief.

Oh, that was obviously comparing his belief to an older, no longer terribly popular belief while championing neither one.

I have no issues with mixed-race couples; however, my grandparents would call you a salt-and-pepper couple...so there might be hope for mojo's descendants.

My grandparents have called my marriage a mistake. They didn't say it directly to me, but no one in my family can keep a secret for very long (except for nuclear targeting and Xmas presents).

Until the first great-grandchild was born. Then I asked if they wanted to hold my latest mistake. Grandma said 'hand over the burping cloth and no one gets hurt.'

So, yeah, there's always hope.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is now legally called "marriage" in Australia is not at all ancient.

I just looked up the legal definition of marriage in Australia. I find it amusing that there was no definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961. None at all.
It was amended in 2004, specifically to add that it was a man+woman thing.

I have socks more ancient than that...

 

[mojorising]

I do not have a church marriage but the government recognizes my marriage.
......
There are something like 27 laws (I might be way off here, but that number is popping into my mind at the moment) where the government uses the term marriage in the legal government sense to define rights for people who were joined in a civil union as I did.
......
What basis do you have to say government wise, the definition of marriage should not extend to homosexuals?

I think the cultural definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) predates the legal definition.

When the laws were drafted they just used the term marriage assuming all pair-bonding would only ever be between a man and a woman.

Later on society accepted that homosexuals would want to have legally recognised partnerships. That is OK. But a legal partnership is not a marriage because a marriage is more than just a partnership. It is the binding together of 2 families with the likely prospect that children will be produced (yes there are exceptions). We should redraft laws to accomodate partnerships that can include homosexual partnerships. But we should not redefine marriage since it has a valuable cultural heritage as binding together specifically a man and a woman.

Keith&Co said homosexual couples can have children but I don't understand this point as they cannot really do it by themselves. They need help from other people. I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think they should be allowed to have children at all.

Because you think that kids can be infected by progressive attitudes you disagree with.

So, would you also prevent racists from having children?
Technophobes?
Religionists?
Young Earth Creationists?

Where would you draw the line? Or better yet, what would you point to as a precedent for denying them children?

 

[mojorising]

Because you think that kids can be infected by progressive attitudes you disagree with.

I don't think it is progressive. I think it is politically correct conformism.

Where would you draw the line? Or better yet, what would you point to as a precedent for denying them children?

We are in fairly new territory with this so a precedent is a bit difficult but the simple fact that homosexuals cannot produce children by themselves and children should not be part of a social experiment is good enough reason I would say.