Gay marriage in Australia

[Jokodo]

^If you agree that men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional evolved attributes then it folows that the marriage of a man and a woman is significantly different to the pair-bonding of 2 men or 2 women.

You say that doesn't matter but I say it does matter for 3 reasons.

1. Cultural - The cultural heritage (which I know you don't believe in) of marriage as between a man and a woman is something of inherent value and should not be redefined. Homosexuals can create a new cultural meme for their pair-bonding rituals.

2. Legal - Extending the original legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals gives them access to rights which I think they have no claim to, particularly in relation to adoption of children (since we do not understand the causes of homosexuality yet) - I know you disagree with this. Laws already exist or can be created to cater for their needs w.r.t. their pair-bonding activities.

3. Distaste - I maintain (without any proof, it is my intuited belief) that, even if they don't want to admit it, for fear of being seen as bigoted, that most heterosexual people (men in particular) actually find it distasteful to have to watch 2 members of their own sex kissing and cuddling in public.

The last point is not in relation to marriage but in relation to rights (or just social rules) regarding public displays of affection. We have general 'indecency' and 'lewdness' laws which are vary vague and can cover anything or nothing according to interpretation but I think the laws should be sexuality-specific and be more strict with regard to homosexual displays of affection due to the offence I believe that they cause.

You can't make it sexuality-specific without making it sex-specific. A statute that tries to ban same-sex public displays of affection under the title of "indecency" or "lewdness" by implication bans some things for women that are allowed for men. If Anne, who is bisexual, is living in a polyamorous triad with Pete and Mary, your proposed policy would make it illegal for Mary but not for Pete to kiss their girlfriend in public. That's discrimination by sex. And why stop at proscribing who can kiss Anne? There are, or used to be, quite a number of "heterosexual people (men in particular)" who find it distasteful to watch women in non-feminine clothing, or engaging in non-feminine behaviours (whatever that may be according to local lore). So, by your logic, banning women from wearing trousers or smoking in public is also OK as long as someone has the intuition that a majority will take offence.

Keep digging that hole.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It seems strange that it is such a fundamental part of our modern lives if pair-bonding was not practised before modern culture evolved.

You have a strangely limited view of 'culture,' mojo, yet you're quite willing to project it in all directions.

I was just reading a vintage Playboy magazine. In and of itself, that's a very odd industry if we evolved to see sex as a private thing. All those women i can never hope to attract as a mate making themselves very not-private for my benefit. And that's just smut, not the out-and-out pornos where people have sex on camera. They used to do it for money, but nowdays they just seem to have a need to undress if someone's pointing a camera at them.


Anyway, the cartoon was one about culture. There's a long-held cliche about something called the Missionary Position. The gag is that indigenous people everywhere were enjoying themselves and having a wonderful time, with public nudity, either full or partial, until these nosy Europeans showed up and tried to convince everyone that there was a deeply important need to alter their practices.
People should be clothed, including boobies, and people should feel ashamed about not being clothed, and they should be very ashamed about sex. And the sex they should have should only be for procreation, not fun. Thus the 'missionary position' being the only approved way, no matter what the culture itself had been doing when the invasive parasites arrived.

The cliche spread and persisted because your claim of what we are evolved to do with our sex lives was something these people imposed in the name of their god.

Not something that everyone else was already doing naturally. In fact, the new system was laughable to many observers.

The culture you practice, mojo, is not anywhere near universal, and never has been.

 

[mojorising]

Now, imagine someone saying that about whites and blacks wanting the right to marry each other.

It is funny you should mention that because I had a GF from Kenya in 2010 and I felt quite conscious of the attention we garnered in public. I could feel people looking at us (there are not many Africans in Australia) and I was conscious of not kissing and cuddling her publicly as much as I would normally.

I don't think the sexuality taboo is quite the same thing though since racial specificity is really just skin deep. Mixing it up racially requires society to absorb the idea that race is just skin deep which they are eventually able to do. But sexuality is not skin deep. It forms the most basic part of the human psyche so when we see someone behaving in a sexually odd way it is not something we can just rationalise in the same way. They are fundamentally different type of human really because their sexual behaviour is so odd and even inexplicable in rational terms compared to the normal sexual behaviour.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is funny you should mention that because I had a GF from Kenya in 2010 and I felt quite conscious of the attention we garnered in public. I could feel people looking at us (there are not many Africans in Australia) and I was conscious of not kissing and cuddling her publicly as much as I would normally.

I've been through that, too.
It's a matter of some interest in the South (of the US) because so many people there think it's wrong.
It was a matter of some interest in the North, because at the time we married it was rather rare, and people tried to figure out which of our kids was 'ours' and which were mine from a previous marriage.

don't think the sexuality taboo is quite the same thing though since racial specificity is really just skin deep.

My point was not that they're the same thing.
My point was that our current culture does not accept people being denied rights because of their skin color, or because someone is upset, or entranced, or offended by the sight of two people kissing and cuddling in public.

It's a bogus reason to justify discrimination.

Mixing it up racially requires society to absorb the idea that race is just skin deep which they are eventually able to do.

Yep.

But sexuality is not skin deep. It forms the most basic part of the human psyche so when we see someone behaving in a sexually odd way it is not something we can just rationalise in the same way.

Yes, it is.
It' something two people are doing that has fuck-all to do with you.
Just like your Kenyan date.

They are fundamentally different type of human really

Just not in any way that stands up to scrutiny...

Again, how would you react if someone started saying that Jews are fundamentally different types of humans?
You'd think he was a bigoted wacko that shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth, maybe?

because their sexual behaviour is so odd and even inexplicable in rational terms compared to the normal sexual behaviour.

But it's not inexplicable. You just choose to pretend that you have the expertise to dismiss any explanations offered so far.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mixing it up racially requires society to absorb the idea that race is just skin deep which they are eventually able to do.

So, they can get used to race, but not homosexuality?

I joined the Navy in 1980.
On my first submarine, there were two sonar techs that helped me through a lot of my qualifications. Always had time, knew EVERYTHING about the sub, knew who to get what checkouts from and what they'd ask...great guys.
But they were always touching me. Arms over my shoulders, sitting really close on the bench. I complained to my chief who told me to shut the fuck up. I was on submarines, now, and there's no room, no privacy, and men will touch me, that sort of thing.

So about a year after that, they both got out of the service.
And got married.
It wasn't recognized by the government, not in 1982, but they had the ceremony. I wanted to go, but the homophobia on the command was insane. The Lieutenant swore to me that if I attended, the Navy would consider me a homosexual and drum me out of the service. And 80% of the crew insisted they were feeling nauseous to find out that a gay had touched them all those times.... My chief, the buck-up-and-handle-it guy actually puked. Made my whole year.

------

Last year, the Army chose to deny spouse benefits to same-sex couples. Caused a bit of a stink.
Before that was resolved in court, though, the senior Marine had a press conference about the samesex couples in his service. His message was 'We're Marines. We support our people. And we support the people who support our people.'

The fucking MARINES, a service which had more institutional homophobia when I entered the service than even the submarine fleet, has STOOD UP FOR their people. They're going to get used to it as a matter of honor. Not because a court has forced them to. But because it's the right thing to do.

So I really think you need to reevaluate this whole 'they're so different' argument.

If the US Marine Corps can see the person behind the sexual drive, anyone should be able to.

 

[Rhea]

^If you agree that men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional evolved attributes then it folows that the marriage of a man and a woman is significantly different to the pair-bonding of 2 men or 2 women.

Obviously no one here is trying to change you mind n whether homosexuality is "gross" to you. It doesn't really matter to any of us if it is. What is being discussed is how shallow and false are the arguments that you have put forth to defend legislating your right to not be made squeamish.

Your arguments are all shallow and flawed. They are TERRIBLE arguments. You should really just stick to the truth, that YOU think it's icky and you'd like to courts to enforce you never having to feel icky, because somehow you think you are entitled to that.


I DO NOT agree that woman and men are "significantly different creatures." We are the same creature. We have ranges of physical and emotional attributes, the medians of which are possibly in different places.

You seem to be making the argument - over and over again - that the difference between ANY man and ANY woman is greater than the difference between any two men or any two women. I'd like to see you address this, please. Do you really believe, as you have repeatedly claimed, that there is NO overlap between the physicality and emotionality of men v women? Is this accurate, you think this? Or not?

Factually, it is utterly and demonstrably false. There is HUGE overlap. You can find, probably for as much as 60% of the population, men and women who are equals on these things. Some outliers exist, but the bulk of the population disproves your claim.

My "pair bonding" is much MUCH more similar to that of two lesbian friends who are married than it is to the pair bonding of my heterosexual parents. By a LONG shot.

So no, not only do I not agree with your premise, the facts don't agree with your premise. You premise is proven wrong.

You say that doesn't matter but I say it does matter for 3 reasons.

It certainly doesn't matter enough to deny people rights over it.

1. Cultural - The cultural heritage (which I know you don't believe in) of marriage as between a man and a woman is something of inherent value and should not be redefined. Homosexuals can create a new cultural meme for their pair-bonding rituals.

Describe the inherent value in such a way that it is obviously, exclusively and always true for heteros and obviously not and never true for homos.

This is where your false premise is most easily revealed. ANY heterosexual couple that gets married without the intent to bear children, or without the ability to personally bear biological children is IDENTICAL to a homosexual marriage. IDENTICAL. They can remain childfree and be married, they can have children from previous marriages and be married, they can use artificial insemination and be married, they can adopt and be married. IDENTICAL.

Why should they create a "new cultural meme" when the thing they are doing is IDENTICAL to what millions of hetero married couples do? Really, this makes zero sense.

2. Legal - Extending the original legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals gives them access to rights which I think they have no claim to, particularly in relation to adoption of children (since we do not understand the causes of homosexuality yet) - I know you disagree with this. Laws already exist or can be created to cater for their needs w.r.t. their pair-bonding activities.

Do you know the cause of left-handedness? Alzheimer's? Empathy? Spacial Awareness? Epicanthal folds? Bent dick? Does the knowledge or lack of it have ANYTHING to do with ability to parent? Should people with these attributes not be allowed to parent because we don't know "the cause"?

Think this through. It's a bankrupt notion. It is just an excuse to try to get your anti-icky law passed, it's not a real argument in itself.

3. Distaste - I maintain (without any proof, it is my intuited belief) that, even if they don't want to admit it, for fear of being seen as bigoted, that most heterosexual people (men in particular) actually find it distasteful to have to watch 2 members of their own sex kissing and cuddling in public.

"This has nothing to do with marriage, but I recognize that my argument is so weak I'm throwing everythign I can at it in the hopes of confusing you and making you overwhelmed with the understanding of my anti-icky campaign."

It's pretty dishonest to even put this in there about marriage when you even acknowledge yourself that it has nothing to do with marriage. Careful, you may become known for dishonest conversation...

The last point is not in relation to marriage but in relation to rights (or just social rules) regarding public displays of affection. We have general 'indecency' and 'lewdness' laws which are vary vague and can cover anything or nothing according to interpretation but I think the laws should be sexuality-specific and be more strict with regard to homosexual displays of affection due to the offence I believe that they cause.

You think the laws should deny rights from certain people on the basis of you think they are icky. JUST LIKE society did to you and your Kenyan girl. You thought society was right to pressure you like that? It didn't bother you at all?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think the sexuality taboo is quite the same thing though since racial specificity is really just skin deep. Mixing it up racially requires society to absorb the idea that race is just skin deep which they are eventually able to do. But sexuality is not skin deep. It forms the most basic part of the human psyche so when we see someone behaving in a sexually odd way it is not something we can just rationalise in the same way.

You're changing the subject in the middle of your argument.
First, you're talking about the alleged "sexuality taboo", which in the context of your argumentation is the claim that humans feel morally offended by PDAs involving same-sex couples of the same sex.
Then, you switch to "sexuality is not skin deep", and you're talking about sexuality in general - a much broader topic -, rather than about this specific taboo.
Given that your contention is that the alleged taboo is not skin deep, and by "not skin deep" you mean it's somehow part of human evolved psychology, I already replied to that contention in a post you have not addressed. Clearly, the alleged taboo seems to be skin deep, and yet you want to ban people on the basis of it.

They are fundamentally different type of human really because their sexual behaviour is so odd and even inexplicable in rational terms compared to the normal sexual behaviour.

It's explicable in rational terms: they feel attracted to each other, so they express that sometimes. That the causes of same-sex attraction aren't known isn't the point; for most of history, the causes of any sexual attraction weren't known, either.
But that aside, why do you think their behavior is so odd?
Homosexual behavior happens in plenty of non-human primates (perhaps all, even if in some of them not frequently), with no adverse reaction from other members of the species and sex.

 

[Jokodo]

^If you agree that men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional evolved attributes then it folows that the marriage of a man and a woman is significantly different to the pair-bonding of 2 men or 2 women.<snip>

If you agree that men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional attributes then it follows that an employment contract between a man and woman is significantly different to one between two men. If that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to barring women from working, it isn't a good enough reason for banning same-sex marriages, because the argument is parallel.

 

[Jokodo]

By your logic, wrt adoptions, we should strictly give preference to people living a communal lifestyle. Whether the people are homosexual, or heterosexual, or both, shouldn't matter because, according to you, people can be expected to keep their sexuality to themselves, with the result that the kids will never even know who's doing whom.

I don't think this is a realistic picture of the tribal life of our ancestors. I think pair-bonding was still practised even during times of pre-history but I will have to research this a bit more.

It seems strange that it is such a fundamental part of our modern lives if pair-bonding was not practised before modern culture evolved.

I didn't say pair-bonding didn't exist. I said your platonic ideal of a marriage as modelled on 1960s suburban middle-class life is a product of history and barely existed as little as a hundred years earlier. Those are two different concepts, and consequently two different claims - only in your head are they the saim.

I said that domestic units where almost always larger than today's nuclear families. That doesn't mean everyone's sleeping with everyone, but it does mean that a kid has access to more than two adults living in the same household as attachment figures. From the perspective of the kid, a much more important dimension than who's sleeping with whom.

There often was a privileged relationship between two individuals, and if the longhouse became overcrowded, folks would expect them to either stay together or move into the new one together*, but you'll find very little evidence in the ethnographic record of father-mother-children constellations living a life as multi-headed hermits and seeing the rest of the extended family only for sunday barbecues.

*though not universally - some societies don't practice moving in with your children's other parent at all, with both the mother and the father staying with their parents and the father taking a role more akin to what would be a godfather in Christian societies - someone who takes an interest in your development, a frequent giver of presents, a close adult friend, but not really a member of the family. In many more societies, while couples do move together, the father is for the most part just one of several adult males in the core group - to the point where many languages don't even have means to distinguish linguistically between "father" and "uncle".

 

[mojorising]

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?

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?

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

That would depend on the environment, wouldn't it?
I mean, statistically we could probably establish a connection between homosexuality and Saturday Morning Cartoons. Or peanut butter. A great-grandfather that worked wood. Boy bands.

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?

What's the factor there, though? Having older brothers?
That's not entirely under control. Our second child, which we agreed upon and sought to produce, turned out to be twins. And, funny enough, it was the 2nd one born that turned out to be gay, not the 3rd one.

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?

JUST to avoid homosexuality?
No.

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?

For statistics? No.

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.

Oh, i'm well aware of what you think i'm giving the kid by making such choices for them.
But what if the statistics are wrong and it's the DNA that's the real issue? What if by trying to program my kids to being straight, I end up just screwing them up mentally out of some bigotry on my part?

Kind of like when the RCC tried to force left-handed kids to write right-handed? Just created more problems than it 'corrected' for something that wasn't really an issue.


So, having no evidence at all and being unable to persuade anyone based on your subjective views, you're asking us if we'll be emotionally persuaded by pretend evidence?
If it's not a matter of other people, but our own families, will we persist in our support of their freedom and their rights?

With all due respect, mojo, shove it up your nose.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow. So, I really don't get why you want people to be heterosexual, mojorising. It makes no real sense. Why do you want kids that can't really improve relationships via sex with full half of all the people they are exposed to? Sex is a social glue of sorts, and being able to share that universally would be far preferable to being 'gay' or 'straight'.

So I guess the real question, why such a vested interest in ensuring kids are heterosexual?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Even if your arguments here were valid, why would that constitute a good reason to deny gay marriage in this case?

There's lots of things about our ancetral heritage which we have (or should have) outgrown as a species.

In our ancestral societies, letting the physically strong do whatever they want and having everyone else submit to them was an effective and necessary setup of society because it helped to ensure that the members of society were as physically strong as possible and this increased the survivability of the tribe. That historical fact isn't a valid reason to let the stronger people today bully, dominate and steal from those who are weaker than them.

In our ancestral societies, raiding a neighbouring tribe and raping the women there was an evolutionarily successful strategy to increase the number of your own offspring while having someone else spend the time and energy to raise those offspring. That historical fact isn't a valid reason for people today to drive over to the next town for a bit of raping on the weekend.

So, regardless of how reasonable or flawed your analysis of ancestral societies might be, why should anyone care? Why should "Banning gay marriage made sense in ancestral societies and therefore it makes sense today" be seen as a more reasonable statement than "Bullying and dominating those weaker than you made sense in ancestral societies and therefore it makes sense today" or "Strategic acts of rape made sense in ancestral societies and therefore it makes sense today"?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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:-

If you don't address my arguments - the ones replying to specific claims or arguments you make -, I'm not sure what the point of addressing your questions is. It looks a bit like a monologue, and the questions seem personal, instead of about the matter at hand.

In any case, I don't and won't have children, and I would need more information about your extremely unrealistic scenario (any scenario in which I have children is extremely unrealistic, and you're making it even more unrealistic by assuming we have the information about homosexuality you suggest). Maybe I would just not oppose whatever the mother chooses. But that's not a question about matter at hand, but about what I would do in an extremely unrealistic situation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that's not a question about matter at hand, but about what I would do in an extremely unrealistic situation.

I suspect he hopes to make us confront the fact (in his estimation) that we're ultimately uncomfortable with homosexuality and would, like him, eradicate it if we could.

and while it's true that as a parent, I would do just about anything to protect my kids from harm, he's never been able to convince me that homosexuality poses a threat of any sort. That it constitutes 'harm' to a person, in and of itself. At least, any more than being a heterosexual causes or is harm to a person.
Both are subject to STDs. AIDS doesn't have a gender preference preference. Both can fall in love with bad persons. Both can get hurt by a lover leaving them. And so on and so on....

But if he could get us to say, "ooh, no, I wouldn't want an icky gay kid in my family,' maybe we'll realize we're actually on his side and the majority really sides with him.

FFC for that.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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

It depends on what that environmental factor was.

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?

Probably not, unless the class itself was good. If it was fluff, I'd rather not waste my child's time when they could be doing things which are more educational, more fulfilling, or even just more fun.

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?

If my kid wanted to play those games, they could play those games. It's not something I've ever done as a child, so I wouldn't be the one to suggest it.

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.

Remember, if you and people like you stopped being tools about homosexuality, it would be a very easy experience which would fall comfortably within normal expectations and have no real impact on the fulfillment my hypothetical child has in life.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

No. Why would I? Do you assume we are all bigots here? If my kid was gay I think that would be Faaaabulous I don't mind that it may decrease my chance of becoming a biological grandparent. Why should I care about that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

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.

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

Yes. But only because society is so damn homophobic. If there didn´t exist people like you, I wouldn´t take those steps.

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?

But that is actually true. The more older siblings you have the more likely you are gay. It´s just a fact about homosexuality that science does not understand.

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?

No. Because it would be a horrendous waste of that child´s life. Assuming that the only thing about that after school environment was hanging out and doing nothing.

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. But only because I´d feel like a complete idiot. The straightness in my child is not important enough for me to do this.

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.

My gay friends are fine. My gay friends with children also have children. So their gayness is a non issue regarding the chances of me having grandchildren. I know this for a fact. So it´s not much of an argument. I don´t think normality as such is a worthwhile goal. That in itself is not enough of a motivator for me to make any kind of effort to "cure" my child.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I suspect he hopes to make us confront the fact (in his estimation) that we're ultimately uncomfortable with homosexuality and would, like him, eradicate it if we could.

If that's what he's going after, it's the wrong question to ask, in this context. Apart from the fact that it's a personal question instead of a question about what people in that situation morally should do or shouldn't do, it skews the results in a number of ways, which I will address in my next reply to mojorising.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

mojorising, I'm not and will not be a parent.

But suppose I had replied to your scenario in the way that supports reducing the chances 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?

Suppose I had answered "yes", what would you have reckoned on that basis?

For example, let's say that the question were:

Q1: Let's 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 increase their chances of getting a PhD, would you enroll your youngest male kid in the after-school class?

If I replied "yes", it would be unwarranted of you to conclude that I'm uncomfortable with people who do not have a PhD, or that I morally disapprove of not having a PhD, even if I had a preference, all other things roughly equal, that my son got a PhD.

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