Same sex marriage

[MrDudeMan]

What you are saying isn't necessarily true, assuming genealogy plays a role in whether someone is gay or not. Recessive genes can express themselves the same way a mother and father that both have brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes.

Say a family has three kids, one is gay and two aren't. Even if the gay child never has kids, there are recessive genes that can be passed on by the siblings to their children. Depending on what recessive genes their partners have, different outcomes can occur. Again, this is of course assuming genealogy plays a role in homo/hetro.

Sure, I buy that completely, but as soon as the recessive gene expresses itself and the person only desires to have same sex relationships, it stops propagating to offspring, at least in this simplistic model.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes, and I agree with what you're saying which is specifically why I stated the exception to which you're responding. There were many posts in this thread about what is natural and at a very basic level being gay doesn't fit.

What I don't get is what definition of 'natural' you are using that does not include following your genetic instructions as to who to mate with? Are you claiming that being gay is supernatural or that it is created by technology? That seems to be the only two alternatives to not being natural.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't have time to read the entire thread.

Then perhaps stay out of the thread.......because you are coming across as being ignorant of the subject...

 

[MrDudeMan]

What I don't get is what definition of 'natural' you are using that does not include following your genetic instructions as to who to mate with? Are you claiming that being gay is supernatural or that it is created by technology? That seems to be the only two alternatives to not being natural.

I said natural in terms of reproduction. I called out this exception on my own specifically because I recognize it as being 'natural' in some sense, but the original, basic model of how being gay isn't natural in terms of reproduction was my primary point. By your own account, being gay and following your genetic instructions to choose a mate may be natural in terms of what you feel the urge to do, but the result won't be capable of producing offspring without outside intervention, thus rendering it unnatural. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but it seems right to me at the moment. I'm open to suggestions, though.

 

[dank69]

Yes, and I agree with what you're saying which is specifically why I stated the exception to which you're responding. There were many posts in this thread about what is natural and at a very basic level being gay doesn't fit. We're able to override it and/or use technology to spread the genes anyway, but it's not natural in terms of sexual reproduction which was my original premise. I very clearly delineated sexual reproduction from day to day behaviors several posts ago. Instead of arguing for a very broad, immeasurably difficult set of variables, it's easier to focus on a low level argument that can be easily explained or modeled, which is what I did. It's possible to then use that model as a basis for more complex arguments or points such as the one we're discussing right now.

Being gay does not fit the definition of being unnatural at any level.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sure, I buy that completely, but as soon as the recessive gene expresses itself and the person only desires to have same sex relationships, it stops propagating to offspring, at least in this simplistic model.

From the gay child, but the siblings can also be a carrier. Humanity still moves forward if they have kids, even if the gay child doesn't.



(General comment, not directed specifically at you MrDudeMan)
Anyway, the whole argument around procreation is silly at best. There are seven billion of us, many of us sexing and having kids. A small percentage of people are gay. If gay marriage becomes legal at a federal level, the percentage of gay people and people having kids doesn't change. Just another house of cards argument.

 

[fskimospy]

I couldn't possibly be less emotionally involved with this. It makes absolutely no difference to me what anyone does or why they do it. I very literally spend no time thinking about this issue from any perspective except the science of reproduction.

If that's your only perspective, how have you gotten the science of reproduction so wrong? Considering you're currently fighting half a dozen people who are dogpiling you about your lack of understanding you look like you have some work to do.

Your own wiki link, which is extremely solid evidence by the way, has a contrary evidence section that states basically the exact opposite point you're trying to make.

Yes, it states that other studies have disputed this idea. The preponderance of the evidence finds a link, however.

Secondly, I almost took you seriously until you showed your cards about not understanding the difference between the existence of homosexuality and the propagation of the genes that govern it. Someone who is clearly a board certified geneticist (you, right?) should be able to differentiate those concepts.

Is this projection? You clearly have basically no understanding about how genetics work, as if you did you wouldn't be trying to argue that genes relating to homosexuality must naturally die out barring an unnatural intervention.

Oh and I noticed you conveniently ignored the prevalence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Whoops.

 

[dank69]

I said natural in terms of reproduction. I called out this exception on my own specifically because I recognize it as being 'natural' in some sense, but the original, basic model of how being gay isn't natural in terms of reproduction was my primary point. By your own account, being gay and following your genetic instructions to choose a mate may be natural in terms of what you feel the urge to do, but the result won't be capable of producing offspring without outside intervention, thus rendering it unnatural. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but it seems right to me at the moment. I'm open to suggestions, though.

Yes, you are using the wrong word.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sure, I buy that completely, but as soon as the recessive gene expresses itself and the person only desires to have same sex relationships, it stops propagating to offspring, at least in this simplistic model.

That is the problem with you argument, it is an overly simplistic argument. There is all sorts of genetic combinations that could lead to useful genes that would be reinforced 90% of the time, but when they are expressed in combination with another set of genes that is also reinforced 90% of the time they create a non-reinforced expression. In this scenario that genetic combination would never be 'weeded out' of the genetic pool.

In this case homosexuality is as natural as albinism.

 

[MrDudeMan]

If that's your only perspective, how have you gotten the science of reproduction so wrong? Considering you're currently fighting half a dozen people who are dogpiling you about your lack of understanding you look like you have some work to do.



Yes, it states that other studies have disputed this idea. The preponderance of the evidence finds a link, however.



Is this projection? You clearly have basically no understanding about how genetics work, as if you did you wouldn't be trying to argue that genes relating to homosexuality must naturally die out barring an unnatural intervention.

Oh and I noticed you conveniently ignored the prevalence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Whoops.

Actually, a few people are hurling insults aimlessly, a few others are engaging in actual debate, and then there's you doing whatever it is that you're doing. I'm not seeing the dogpile.

If the preponderance of the evidence found a strong link, you'd send me to a better article than wikipedia. Anyway, it could be true, but it still makes absolutely no difference and doesn't refute what I said.

Considering the complex interactions of genes and assuming they're related to being gay, they're never going to die out, but a gay person can't pass along their genes, regardless of if they're gay as a result of their genetic makeup or not, without outside help.

I ignored the animal homosexuality point on purpose because it doesn't change anything. You're not nearly as clever as you believe yourself to be.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Yes, you are using the wrong word.

A very strong argument indeed. I'm open to suggestions, not pointless and idiotic one-liners, which may be all you're capable of delivering based on past experience.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I said natural in terms of reproduction. I called out this exception on my own specifically because I recognize it as being 'natural' in some sense, but the original, basic model of how being gay isn't natural in terms of reproduction was my primary point. By your own account, being gay and following your genetic instructions to choose a mate may be natural in terms of what you feel the urge to do, but the result won't be capable of producing offspring without outside intervention, thus rendering it unnatural. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but it seems right to me at the moment. I'm open to suggestions, though.

So, all you are actually saying is that homosexuals can not reproduce with other homosexuals of the same sex as them with out technological assistance? I would hazard that everyone here would accept that as a given. So, it does not seem to be a very useful statement.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Actually, a few people are hurling insults aimlessly, a few others are engaging in actual debate, and then there's you doing whatever it is that you're doing. I'm not seeing the dogpile.

If the preponderance of the evidence found a strong link, you'd send me to a better article than wikipedia. Anyway, it could be true, but it still makes absolutely no difference and doesn't refute what I said.

Considering the complex interactions of genes and assuming they're related to being gay, they're never going to die out, but a gay person can't pass along their genes, regardless of if they're gay as a result of their genetic makeup or not, without outside help.

I ignored the animal homosexuality point on purpose because it doesn't change anything. You're not nearly as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If the only point you're trying to say you've been defending this whole time is that a man having sex with a man cannot have a child that way, then yes. I think we all agree with you.

But I don't see what that has to do in any way with who can marry one another or why I should care if it is two guys. Homosexuals aren't a huge percentage of the population, I don't see how legalizing gay marriage in this country would somehow change that. I don't think it's going to make any more people catch homoitis if they can be legally married.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That is the problem with you argument, it is an overly simplistic argument. There is all sorts of genetic combinations that could lead to useful genes that would be reinforced 90% of the time, but when they are expressed in combination with another set of genes that is also reinforced 90% of the time they create a non-reinforced expression. In this scenario that genetic combination would never be 'weeded out' of the genetic pool.

In this case homosexuality is as natural as albinism.

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. I agree and even stated that the model is simple, but it's not useless either.

 

[MrDudeMan]

If the only point you're trying to say you've been defending this whole time is that a man having sex with a man cannot have a child that way, then yes. I think we all agree with you.

I was addressing a slew of posts earlier in the thread that were confusing the word natural and/or using it inappropriately. That was the original intent, anyway, but it also developed into a way to discuss genetics.

But I don't see what that has to do in any way with who can marry one another or why I should care if it is two guys. Homosexuals aren't a huge percentage of the population, I don't see how legalizing gay marriage in this country would somehow change that. I don't think it's going to make any more people catch homoitis if they can be legally married.

I agree. It has nothing to do with the original topic nor do I care who people choose to marry.

 

[dank69]

A very strong argument indeed. I'm open to suggestions, not pointless and idiotic one-liners, which may be all you're capable of delivering based on past experience.

There is nothing in the definition of natural that references procreation in any way, shape or form.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I was addressing a slew of posts earlier in the thread that were confusing the word natural and/or using it inappropriately. That was the original intent, anyway, but it also developed into a way to discuss genetics.



I agree. It has nothing to do with the original topic nor do I care who people choose to marry.

:thumbsup:

 

[SMOGZINN]

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. I agree and even stated that the model is simple, but it's not useless either.

But it is useless if it leads us to the wrong answers. Clearly your simplistic system is leading us to a conclusion that is not supported by real world evidence, therefor it is worse then useless, it is counterproductive.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, a few people are hurling insults aimlessly, a few others are engaging in actual debate, and then there's you doing whatever it is that you're doing. I'm not seeing the dogpile.

If the preponderance of the evidence found a strong link, you'd send me to a better article than wikipedia. Anyway, it could be true, but it still makes absolutely no difference and doesn't refute what I said.

Considering the complex interactions of genes and assuming they're related to being gay, they're never going to die out, but a gay person can't pass along their genes, regardless of if they're gay as a result of their genetic makeup or not, without outside help.

I ignored the animal homosexuality point on purpose because it doesn't change anything. You're not nearly as clever as you believe yourself to be.

You said this:

Being gay isn't a horrible mutation like being born without a dick in my opinion, but the genes responsible for being gay can't pass themselves to offspring unless nature is circumvented or gay people engage in heterosexual activities even if only to breed.

This is clearly, undeniably false. You said something dumb. Just accept it and move on.

 

[MrDudeMan]

But it is useless if it leads us to the wrong answers. Clearly your simplistic system is leading us to a conclusion that is not supported by real world evidence, therefor it is worse then useless, it is counterproductive.

Considering no one knows for sure what causes people to be gay, you can't say it leads us to the wrong answers. It's a very simple black box model that doesn't necessarily point to any particular conclusion. Even if it's entirely incorrect, which I'm not saying it is or isn't, it's not counterproductive to discuss it.

This is clearly, undeniably false. You said something dumb. Just accept it and move on.

I made an overly simple statement, sure, but what I said isn't undeniably false. I'm okay if you think that, though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Already explained it, thanks.

Anything that you do, that if everyone would do it, would lead to your death or the death of the entire human race, its not a good thing and should not be celebrated as such.

So don't do it. Nobody is asking you to suck a cock.

Do you think preventing gay marriage is going to somehow minimize homosexuality or eliminate it? Take that possibility away and what are you left with? Answer: A civil rights issue.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yes, and I agree with what you're saying which is specifically why I stated the exception to which you're responding. There were many posts in this thread about what is natural and at a very basic level being gay doesn't fit. We're able to override it and/or use technology to spread the genes anyway, but it's not natural in terms of sexual reproduction which was my original premise. I very clearly delineated sexual reproduction from day to day behaviors several posts ago. Instead of arguing for a very broad, immeasurably difficult set of variables, it's easier to focus on a low level argument that can be easily explained or modeled, which is what I did. It's possible to then use that model as a basis for more complex arguments or points such as the one we're discussing right now.

This low level argument is only valid insomuch as a higher level one can be derived from it. If it ends up not panning out in the higher level discussion, then it is of little ultimate consequence. I still think that homosexuality is as natural as anything can be said to be. Take any population and a certain percentage of homosexuality usually arises in it "naturally", as in without any notable "unnatural" influences, after all.

I think that the relevance of assigning homosexuality the term "natural" or "unnatural" needs to be examined though. Are we making a judgement against homosexuality if we declare it "unnatural"? Are we aligning ourselves against it? We've already determined in this and many discussions on other subjects that simply declaring something "natural" doesn't mean it's good for us automatically. I think the same should be true for the opposite term as well. If that's true then arguing about it is pretty meaningless. If something can be unnatural, yet good for us, or natural and still bad for us, then why are we wasting so much time on nailing down exactly which one homosexuality is? Even if one side wins the argument, it can't be said to affect any of the more relevant issues, such as same-sex marriage for instance. Being "natural" isn't any better criteria for determining whether two people should marry than it is for anything else it turns out.

 

[MrDudeMan]

This low level argument is only valid insomuch as a higher level one can be derived from it. If it ends up not panning out in the higher level discussion, then it is of little ultimate consequence.

That's exactly what happened, though, so it was useful and relevant. I never said it would be the deciding factor in genetics for the remainder of human civilization.

I still think that homosexuality is as natural as anything can be said to be. Take any population and a certain percentage of homosexuality usually arises in it "naturally", as in without any notable "unnatural" influences, after all.

This is precisely why I narrowed the scope to only reproduction.

I think that the relevance of assigning homosexuality the term "natural" or "unnatural" needs to be examined though. Are we making a judgement against homosexuality if we declare it "unnatural"? Are we aligning ourselves against it? We've already determined in this and many discussions on other subjects that simply declaring something "natural" doesn't mean it's good for us automatically. I think the same should be true for the opposite term as well. If that's true then arguing about it is pretty meaningless. If something can be unnatural, yet good for us, or natural and still bad for us, then why are we wasting so much time on nailing down exactly which one homosexuality is? Even if one side wins the argument, it can;t be said to affect any of the more relevant issues, such as same-sex marriage for instance.

That's a good point. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's correct. More on topic and along the line of your last point: it seems to me that the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage are doing so from a position of oppression based on religion. I know there are people who don't fit that mold, but it's unnerving how many people want to suppress the rights of other people because of a religion that the other person isn't forced to follow. Nothing about it makes any sense.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You people arguing for gay marriage are misguided. I feel sorry for the arguments you have made.

 

[nehalem256]

Take that possibility away and what are you left with? Answer: A civil rights issue.

Except it isn't a civil rights issue. There is no right to same-sex marriage. It is an invented concept. You can't pull something out of your ass and call it a right.

And even same-sex marriage supporters basically admit this. By claiming that gays are being discriminated against by traditional marriage they are flat out admitting that sex is central to the idea of marriage. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see why heterosexual relationships are, and always have been, regarded differently by society than homosexual ones.