Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

I don't understand why we should give particular credence to your ideas of what is "normal" and what is not. Is being handicapped normal? Does that make wheelchair ramps a "special right" for folks in wheelchairs? What part of homosexual marriage do you believe is a "special right"? Most of us look at it as giving them the same rights as straight people - that is, marrying the person that they love.

Right. And allowing homosexual couples to marry is simply ensuring them the same rights as other couples. Plenty of people get married and don't have kids. Should we prevent them from doing so?The fact is, your idea of marriage is simply one of many different ideas. I'm of the opinion that marriage is a social arrangement avaliable to couples. And the civil institution of marriage has to take everybody's view into account. And as for the religious, no one's saying that your church is going to have to marry gay people. But if my church wants to, it's unconstitutional of you to try and stop them. They can adopt, like many straight couples are forced to. Fertility is not a prerequsite for marriage. Allow gay marriage, and that's just what will happen. Any two people can gain the benefits of marriage. Kin selection.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2004]

Here's the abstract from an article that hits the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality in greater depth:

quote:

---

An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success.

​

Dewar CS.

​

Kildean Day Hospital, FK8 1RW, Stirling, UK. colin.dewar@fvpc.scot.nhs.uk

​

The existence of homosexuality in humans poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Exclusive male homosexuality has a catastrophic effect on reproduction and yet inherited factors appear to contribute to it. Previous attempts to resolve this conundrum are inconsistent with aspects of evolutionary theory. Additional limitations are as follows. Until recently, accounts of homosexuality have paid little attention to the probable existence of adaptive bisexuality in ancestral populations, from which further variations in sexual orientation may have evolved. Secondly, previous explanations have concentrated on the ancestral environment of two to three million years ago as the determinant of modern sexuality, when more recent influences are likely to have had considerable impact. I argue in favour of a longitudinal rather than cross-sectional model of the ancestral environment. Thirdly, they have often ignored the possibility of variable phenotypic expression, whereby those individuals with a genetic propensity for homosexuality exhibit different and adaptive qualities on most other occasions. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that homosexual men have superior linguistic skills compared to heterosexual men. This may be the result of an adaptive feminising effect on the male brain and apply to many practising heterosexuals. Other adaptations to the recent ancestral environment may include enhanced empathy, fine motor skills and impulse control. By drawing together these contributing factors an evolutionary basis for homosexuality can be demonstrated.

---

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}
at PubMed.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

True. We usually consider a condition "abnormal" when it leads to debilitating effects.This is not true of homosexuality by itself, as it is with Parkinson's or Down's. That's why the AMA and other medical/psychological groups no longer classify it as abnormal.

I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains?

It's not really clear to me what you're talking about. Perhaps you're just simply repeating the empty arguments of same-sex marriage's reactionary, moralist opposition without thinking about them? What, besides the 1000+ Federal rights accorded to, and only to, married couples?And to continue the same analogy - what do the African-Americans lose by gaining their own public water fountains? Why does that necessarily follow? Moreover - how can dogs consent to marriage?

No, you're just avoiding my question. It's a simple one, but apparently it was too subtle, so let me ask it explicitly - if we rejected "seperate but equal" accomodations for black people, why should we accept them for gay people? Perhaps, but it hardly seems reasonable to discriminate against people now assuming that they won't even exist in the future.And what makes you think everyone will get the treatment in the first place? Or that it will work on everyone? It seems to me that the hypothetical "gay cure" doesn't solve any issues; it makes them more complicated.

Perhaps, but many black leaders have expressed solidarity with gay persons precisely because they recognize that the struggle for equality is exactly the same. Not racial rights, civil rights. There's no such thing as "racial rights." There's merely equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Asked and answered. When I replied to this and asked you why seperate "but equal" accomodations, public facilities, etc. represented a civil rights violation for black people - plus that there's more than 1000 Federal rights granted only to married couples - how didn't you understand that as the answer to your question?I'm just curious what kind of mental block is going on here for you, since it appears that we're right back where we started.

They turn straight when they get out.Look, think of it like this. If you jack off, are you gay? Cuz technically it was a dude's hand on your junk?No, right? Because it's more about what's going on in your head than what's going on below the belt. Plenty of gay men have had sex with women; they were thinking of guys, usually, while they were doing it, which is how they came to understand that they were gay. And sometimes straight people have gay sex because it's all they can get, like kids in boarding school or prison inmates. Artifical restrictions on sexual access aren't fruitful in regards to determining orientation. It's people's free behavior that is indicative.

Sure, sounds the same to me. Because they don't get all the same technical rights as married people. There's 1000 Federal rights they don't get, at least, that apply only to married people - not to civil unions, which don't exist. Again, asked and answered. Why did we specifically reject the doctrine of "seperate but equal" for minorities? How do you think you can have the exact same thing under two names, when the laws say only "marriage", not "marriage or civil union"? Apparently you have a mutation in your gene for "effective argumentation", since I'm still waiting for you to present a rebuttal that isn't simply the repetition of your point.

Really? You have, perhaps, an example of that?

You got the impression, or there's actually a passage to the book dedicated to advocacy for the right to fight in parking lots?My favorite Beastie Boys song, after "Root Down", is "Fight for Your Right"; but that song shouldn't be taken as evidence that the Beastie Boys are the leaders of a serious movement to enact a Constitutional amendment enshrining the right "to paaaarrrr-tee!"In other words, there are people that are talking about "rights" in an ironic, sardonic, or otherwise non-serious sense; then there are people who are actually talking about real rights, like people pushing for government recognition of gay marriage. On the other hand, you bringing up the Hells Angels is indicative of the fact that, like many of gay marriage's opponents, you don't really take this issue very seriously, despite the fact that people's families are on the line here.

See what I mean? You're not the least interested in taking this seriously.But real people's families are on the line, here. I simply can't understand how jokers like you think that's funny. Is it funny, to you, when two women can build a family together, raise children, have joint ownership of property - do everything married people do, literally - but when one of them comes down with an illness, her partner can't see her in the hospital?That's funny to you? That's just like your enthusiasm for your sailboat? It's a big fucking joke, I guess.Christ, I hate the fact that people like you even have a say in any of this.

That seems to be the exact opposite of the popular opinion, in fact. But let me ask you this - if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice?Clearly, choice has nothing to do with the legal issue in this regard. Regardless of gays choosing to be gay or not, not allowing them to marry is discriminatory. I don't see that special laws are necessary. In fact, clearly it's your side that requires special laws to discriminate, as evidenced by the movement to amend the Constitution to "define marriage". So the question is really why you think straight people need special laws to privilege them above others? I've just argued that it doesn't make any difference. If straight is just a choice, why should straights have special laws and a special kind of relationship just for them? Who says they don't? Sibling marriage has been common throughout history; it's only recently been made illegal out of eugenic concerns.