Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,726
54,730
136
Pr0d1gy said:
Why would we need to reduce the number of homosexual members of our species? So you are basically saying that a monkey is more evolved in it's views and ideology than you are?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality from a human perspective. From an evolutionary perspective we generally accept that the 'purpose' of it is to reproduce as much as possible, and clearly having members of your species who don't reproduce wouldn't be helping in that regard.

There could of course be myriad other advantages to having gay members in a population that might outweigh it, and that's sort of what scientists are researching when it comes to homosexuality and evolution. It's not meant to be a judgment that being gay is bad.
 
C

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
crashtestdummy said:
I've always seen it as a side effect of the need to make humans intensely sexual. Human sexuality is incredibly complicated. Wiring someone to be strongly attracted to a specific specific set of features, personalities, and phermones is a non-trivial endeavor, even with a billion years of evolution behind it. As you said, it's unlikely that there is a single "gay gene". It is likely a mix of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that decide sexual orientation. It might have been possible, for example, to reduce the number of homosexual members of our species, but at the price of making us less interested as a whole in reproduction.
Click to expand...

One of the wiser comments I've read in this discussion.

I recall years ago reading an article that showed a correlation between homosexual males and increased fertility in females in the same family.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,726
54,730
136
crashtestdummy said:
I've always seen it as a side effect of the need to make humans intensely sexual. Human sexuality is incredibly complicated. Wiring someone to be strongly attracted to a specific specific set of features, personalities, and phermones is a non-trivial endeavor, even with a billion years of evolution behind it. As you said, it's unlikely that there is a single "gay gene". It is likely a mix of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that decide sexual orientation. It might have been possible, for example, to reduce the number of homosexual members of our species, but at the price of making us less interested as a whole in reproduction.

Of course there are also inherent biological advantages to bisexual behavior as well, which is why you see a very high rate of it in many animal species.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting way of looking at it, that the hypersexualization of our species had some 'unintended' consequences.
 
AnitaPeterson

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,001
508
126
Kadarin said:
Wow. Um...



This is the same reason why infertile and elderly people should never be allowed to marry. In fact, the only reason why anyone should ever have sex at all is for the explicit purpose of having children.

Long, well thought out post.. my ass. It's a shit post with completely bogus reasoning. "If homosexual relationships are allowed to be codified in marriage, humanity will be in danger of dying off." LOL WTF.
Click to expand...

Correct.

OP, your educational bias is showing. You're trying - and that goes to your credit - but are (so far) unable to step aside the traditional paradigm.
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Bring back polygamy.

Lesbians will hire straights so they can have children? Either that or they will gang rape men to produce offspring.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
LunarRay said:
That is a legal argument and one that is personal rather than an opinion of the court...

My point was and is: IF ERA had been ratified then all Rights and marriage is one of them, could not be denied because of the sex of the couple... boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl... It is a rational argument! It would no doubt be a 5/4 decision but possibly a 9/0 if the entire court saw the underlying basis for the ERA as eliminating Sex from any criteria of marriage as in jobs and earnings...

Edit: It is important to note that you, in the last bit of the penultimate sentence, include sex as the criteria... and that is excluded if ERA were law. The ERA sought to create equality were it did not exist...
Click to expand...
I agree, and well said.

LunarRay said:
Not sure your meaning of the first and second... but the point I understand.

Privacy is the key word... IT provides the means to do as you say... There may be 'Western' Nations that do not include abortion or when it is permitted as the US does.

I, legally, believe a fetus becomes a citizen - a human being - when it becomes viable... can survive without the mother... each case is different and requires an expert opinion for each...

I, personally, believe that upon conception a human has been created and abortion terminates that situation...

So, which 'bible' do I apply?... Well... the Constitution when it involves others and my belief in God when it concerns me.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree with you. Roe v Wade was a horribly flawed decision as written, and philosophically I wish the justices had based it on private property rights rather than privacy, but it's essentially a pretty sensible balance between the rights of the genetically unique human fetus and the mother who is the only one capable of succoring that fetus until it is viable outside of the room.
 
Todd33

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Jesus H, wall of text. too much to read, sound like a bunch of fallacies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom