Legalizing gay marriage is counter productive, just eliminate state involvement. Why should the government be involved in religious or matters of personal belief like the idea of marriage?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
There is a million years of evolution behind the visceral repulsion to deviant sexual activities.
Time to grow up then.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Marriage is not a personal belief.
Byzantine:Monogamous heterosexual copulation stacks up favorably against homosexual unions or polyandrous unions for a variety of biological, psychological and social reasons.
So you have some good causal evidence showing this?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Byzantine:Venereal disease, E. coli, and AIDS come to mind.
So heterosexuals don't get those STDs?
Byzantine:And the fact that homosexuals are unable to transmit their genetic line.
Really? Homosexuals are unable to reproduce? I guess all those stories I have seen about them reproducing with the opposite sex must be false, right?
Byzantine:Polygamous/polyandrous societies are dysfunctional.
What is "dysfunctional"?
Byzantine:What you end up with is a few alpha males and a lot of angry, unwed beta males who either take their productivity elsewhere, or they stay and fight blood feuds.
Or you just end up with a lot of infidelity. What is your point?
Byzantine:There is a million years of evolution behind the visceral repulsion to deviant sexual activities.
It is always funny when people take their own perceptions and preferences and assume THEY are the result of evolution. Really, it is the sound of one hand clapping.
Evolution is not a linear process.
Tough shi'ite. You know what backs up all those Victorian sensibilities? Biological reality. The gods of evolution don't care about hip, young attitudes, and dysfunctional people who can't reproduce themselves will be replaced.
Do tell, how do heterosexual couples produce homosexual children? Have you resolved this question? Or are you regurgitating conservative dogma? Oh and what is the incidence of venereal diseases, AIDs &c. amongst heterosexual couples who practise unprotected sex? But it's meaningless in the end. Evolution indeed will leave the dinosaurs in the dust, and that includes all its forms... including technological. But go on trying to rationalise your very subjective, touchy-feely revulsion to what people do in their own time.
Byzantine:It's a pretty simple analysis: which practices enhance the likelihood of you having grandchildren?
Basically your saying homosexuality conflicts with the sort of "Selfish Gene" theory of evolution. Not being able to have kids certainly confirms this but why is this relevant to the topic at hand? We, and you, also do not know nearly enough about ourselves to really make any meaningful argument against homosexuality as a model of copulation.
Byzantine: Spideynw: So heterosexuals don't get those STDs? Did I say that? The point is they do, particularly when they have promiscuous sex.
Spideynw: So heterosexuals don't get those STDs?
Did I say that? The point is they do, particularly when they have promiscuous sex.
You offered it as evidence that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality. I concluded you were claiming heterosexuals do not get the diseases.
And yes, both heterosexuals and homosexuals get the diseases when having unsafe sex.
Byzantine:I don't see migration flows moving to countries or to areas of this country where Big Man social organizations predominate.
I don't see people moving much, period.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Quite. Now if only some people could apply that same idea to gay marriage.
I'm guessing you have the same repulsion to left-handed people, of which I am one? Oh, you don't? Aha. So what you're saying is that you're trying to justify your hatred by being inconsistent. Gotcha. Your objection is clearly based on nothing logical.
Protip: attempting to justify your irrational hatred of those who make you feel like less of a man is no different from how the KKK feels about blacks. Grow up.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Byzantine:Venereal disease, E. coli, and AIDS come to mind.They all happen in heterosexuals.
Stop being so obtuse; the likelihood of venereal diseases, AIDS, etc is much greater with homosexual men than heterosexual men. Last time when it came down to this, statistics won the day over your appeals to emotion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:They all happen in heterosexuals.
sicsempertyrannis:Stop being so obtuse
sicsempertyrannis:Stop being so obtuse; the likelihood of venereal diseases, AIDS, etc is much greater with homosexual men than heterosexual men. Last time when it came down to this, statistics won the day over your appeals to emotion.
And my guess is that they are much greater among heterosexuals than lesbians. What is your point?
Wow. Just wow. It never ceases to amaze me when somebody like Byzantine shows up on the scene with his great evolutionary, social, or biological "reasoning" as a case against homosexuality to cover up their innate hatred of something that repulses them.
I have been a promiscuous bisexual now for seven years, and I have never come down with aids, HIV, or any STD. I do this by practicing safe sex. I don't get it? Whatever.
As for the whole evolutionary dead end or "extending" your life by having children BS, is just that, BS. I never have, nor will I ever, have any children. I have no interest in having my own. I'm quite happy being the "cool uncle" in my family.
All of this is just subjective, though. It's not a consistent line of thinking with everybody. It's your own personal view, nothing less, nothing more. Maybe it's time for Byzantine to get off his make-believe "moral high horse" and grow up. This is the effing 21st Century, for godssake. This sort of "byzantine" attitude should have died out by now, in my not most humbles of opinions.
You observe, but you do not see.
Byzantine:I am pretty sure I don't want another man's **** anywhere near my *******, so speak for yourself. But again, if you need guidance in such matters, it's real simple: which is most likely to get you grandchildren?
I meant as a species. I was not referring to what you want personally. How do you know that homosexuality isn't the result of evolution? Anyone can speculate on why things 'are' using evolution as the grounds for their argument. What if Homosexuality evolved as a direct reaction to the fact that two heterosexual adults often can not raise a heterosexual child for the life of them? Maybe it is a sociobiological development that homosexuals exist because statism has lead to hunger and poverty, now we can have productive members of society that do not create yet another mouth to feed.
The point is who knows? I don't think you can argue that evolution is guided by the same invisible hand as the market and that the ultimate goal of all evolution is to create another copy of yourself... we simply do not know that much about life.
The point is not that they don't produce them. The point is that they will never produce them in numbers even approaching a significant amount. And in the event a society ever does, then within a couple of generations it will be replaced. And you can rage against biological reality all you want, but that's what's going to happen.
Too bad biological reality so far has not led to the extinction of homosexuality... probably because a belief that it should hinges on ignorance of it?
For those couples who don't practise safe sex, quite high. Again, there's a reason for those social mores.
Fixed.
Jon Irenicus:biological reality so far has not led to the extinction of homosexuality... probably because a belief that it should hinges on ignorance of it?
Hear, hear.
Does it really matter if someone likes or hates homosexuality? Usually on topics of personal preference, we usually just leave it at that. Someone can like or hate something and have some rationale for it, but as long as they don't force anything on me or people close to me, I don't really care.
All this stuff about "attitudes changing" is the kind of trash I want to get away from. I hear it about homosexuality (which I don't feel strongly about either way, since it doesn't matter to me) global warming, oppression against the poor, minorities, etc... Other people's attitudes just don't matter. Their actions do.
If we didn't have to deal with the problem of government, this stuff would only matter to us as much as it applies to us. The constant spotlighting of this issue in the mainstream media is more of a red herring than anything.
Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?
Individualist: Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?
It's legitimizing the government as the sculptor of culture and society, so I'd say no. It's not the government's business what a union of people is. And why make it people? Why not people with animals? I think a move from marriage-licensing to the granting of a civil union between people is more a win for marxism than liberty. Some marxists believe that the government should change according to the will of the people and the "attitudes of today". And it is doing that.
"Granting" is still licensing. Most people don't understand what a license is. A license is permission to do something illegal. The state makes marriage illegal, without a license. The state makes opening a business illegal, without a license. You must petition for, and obtain explicit permission from the state to do these things.
Tweaking the licensing system is really just tinkering around the edges.
Byzantine:A society that encourages homosexual unions and other outlier practices will eventually face its own extinction.
you have no backing for this. Couldn't an argument be made that Homosexual couples on a whole are more productive then heterosexual couples because they do not need to spend huge amounts of time raising their offspring? I know this is the reasoning behind free market wage gaps between men and women. If we assume that and we trust the invisible hand then we must conclude that they have a positive effect on the economy they are part of and thus raise the life quality of those around them (the majority being heterosexuals).
It seems to me that if you believe evolution is a matter of genes trying to procreate copies of themselves then homosexuals will never create a majority. However I think the societies that tolerate homosexuality will have greater quality of life, hell... seems that way today doesn't it?
Byzantine:Byzantine-minded folks who value children and sexual reproduction are going to live on.
No, you're going to die out too. Someone else will live on.
Byzantine:I don't think I ever said the practice shouldn't be tolerated and yes, tolerant societies are nice, depending on what they tolerate.
So you want to live in a society that tolerates homosexuality? What about exstinction?! Dont come back and argue semantics of the word tolerate with the word encourage to me, I don't see how it changes your argument.
Byzantine:Yes, and the vast majority of them will have the same sexual practices and attitudes toward children as me. Which, of course, you realize is what I'm saying.
I realize what you are saying. You value your life by your genes being carried forward.
Not everyone does. You should be happy you have less competition in the gene pool and future generations of Byzantines will rule the universe.
liberty student: Byzantine:Yes, and the vast majority of them will have the same sexual practices and attitudes toward children as me. Which, of course, you realize is what I'm saying. I realize what you are saying. You value your life by your genes being carried forward. Not everyone does. You should be happy you have less competition in the gene pool and future generations of Byzantines will rule the universe.
I do not value this, myself. However, 4 years ago, two of my friends got married to each other, and the male friend found out he was impotent. They asked me to be a donor, so they could have a child.. they are raising my genes as I type this. I don't care if the child ever knows she is carrying my genes. But I have been the "cool uncle" whenever I've seen her. So I guess my genes won't die out after all?
Well, in any case. However you believe, Byzantine, I would say that marriage/unions are not the matter of the state. It shouldn't be something they regulate, for whatever reason. I know what you are saying, but it just doesn't make since some central-seated seat of power some 3000 miles away from you, or anyone else, should have any power over an individual's personal life.
I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.
And the rest of them will be homos. As it alwyas was. There is no point.