Gay marriage in Australia

[DrZoidberg]

That is not how evolution works. All that is necessary for the trait to be selected is that jealous people have more babies than non-jealous people. No rationalisation or understanding is necessary.

That is what I said. No rationale or understanding. The trait is selected through its own success. i.e. jealous males rear more of their own kids and less of their rivals without understanding why.

I don´t understand then why you keep claiming that pair-bonding is natural. If it was true we would NOT be jealous. Jealousy can only evolve in a species where philandering is common and expected. Jealousy proves the exact opposite of what you think it does.

 

[mojorising]

^Total rubbish.

Pair-bonding means we regard a specific partner as committed to our relationship so we are jealous of their potential infidelity.

If living in some kind of hippy tribal commune, where anybody could shag anybody, was our evolutionary heritage then we would not have developed sexual jealousy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

^Total rubbish.

You use that from time to time. It doesn't mean as much in an argument as you might think it does...

Pair-bonding means we regard a specific partner as committed to our relationship so we are jealous of their potential infidelity.

But if the whole species evolved for pair-bonding, who would have the potential for infidelity?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hence it is likely women had a substantial role to play in the choice-making of pair-bonding.

All this is your opinion.
And as we all know, an opinion without 3.1415 is an onion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

^Total rubbish.

Pair-bonding means we regard a specific partner as committed to our relationship so we are jealous of their potential infidelity.

If living in some kind of hippy tribal commune, where anybody could shag anybody, was our evolutionary heritage then we would not have developed sexual jealousy.

Make up your mind. Either we´re naturally inclined for pair bonding, in which case nobody is unfaithful, or we´re not. In which case we have a propensity for being unfaithful. In the first case jealousy would not have evolved, and in the second case it would.

 

[mojorising]

We are evolved for pair bonding which entails evolution of sexual and emotional jealousy.

Male jealousy

A woman is inclined to seek a stable and faithful partner who will bring home the bacon. If early humans had made the connection between sex and pregnancy (probably around the same time we evolved language) then she may be inclined to cheat to genes from a higher status rival male (even without the rational connection she could be evolved to cheat to get better genes from a rival higher status male). Her husband is evolved to be jealous (sexually) of this because the evolved pair-bonding can be cheated on to increase the strength of the females progeny.

Female jealousy

A man is inclined to pair bond and then provide the bacon to his family. If his wife ages and another younger female begins to look like a more attractive sexual prospect then his wife gets jealous over the potential emotional infidelity where her man could philander and then form a new pair-bond (and start supporting another brood) so that is evolved female jealousy (emotional).

In both cases the jealousy arises from the original pair-bonding behaviour and is to do with the welfare and fitness of progeny (even if the rationale is not explicitly understood by the actors).

 

[Keith&Co.]

A woman is inclined to seek a stable and faithful partner who will bring home the bacon.

But your two theses are that we EVOLVED FOR this trait and that this trait is so powerful, we risk damage to society if we try to mess with it.

If it's so powerful, we would not be able to act against such a strong biological need. She would pick a partner and the pair bond would keep them both faithful. At least, in your fantasy biology.
If it's not such a powerful biological mandate that it can prevent adultery, then it's not something we need to give a shit about in the operation of our culture.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot maintain that it's the one and only way human sexuality was meant to work and also that we evolved a means of dealing with it when it doesn't work that way.
You just sound more and more like a YEC.

 

[mojorising]

Jealousy is an emotional motivation for dealing with infidelity before it goes wrong as we can take preventative measures to stop the infidelity. Pair-bonding and partner-jealousy (for sexually distinct reasons) form a mutually coherent basis for partly explaining human sexual strategy.

The evidence for pair-bonding as an evolved behaviour is before your eyes in the almost universal behaviour of human cultures everywhere. Men take wives. It seems like even the most basic assertion of the most obvious features of the human species are things you want to dispute as some kind of academic exercise.

We are evolved to pair-bond and for men to take wives. It is a strategy that has succeeded evolutionarily and partly defines the species. The recent cultural acceptance of homosexuality as something that society will tolerate as opposed to not tolerate is fine but it does not follow that we are obliged to redefine the fundamental cultural institutions that have grown up around our evolved pair-bonding behaviour.

Homosexuals should be satisfied with the tolerance and measured acceptance that society now extends them and be happy with that.

A homosexual partnership is substantially different thing to a heterosexual marriage because men are different to women.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We are evolved for pair bonding which entails evolution of sexual and emotional jealousy.

Male jealousy

A woman is inclined to seek a stable and faithful partner who will bring home the bacon. If early humans had made the connection between sex and pregnancy (probably around the same time we evolved language) then she may be inclined to cheat to genes from a higher status rival male (even without the rational connection she could be evolved to cheat to get better genes from a rival higher status male). Her husband is evolved to be jealous (sexually) of this because the evolved pair-bonding can be cheated on to increase the strength of the females progeny.

Female jealousy

A man is inclined to pair bond and then provide the bacon to his family. If his wife ages and another younger female begins to look like a more attractive sexual prospect then his wife gets jealous over the potential emotional infidelity where her man could philander and then form a new pair-bond (and start supporting another brood) so that is evolved female jealousy (emotional).

In both cases the jealousy arises from the original pair-bonding behaviour and is to do with the welfare and fitness of progeny (even if the rationale is not explicitly understood by the actors).

So what you´re saying is that monogamy is not natural for our species. Then why should society promote pair bonding and fidelity at all?

I also think you are overly simplistic. The truth is that humans are capable of having multiple partners, no partners, as well as monogamy and also serial monogamy. It all depends on their situation at that time and their needs then. It changes. People change over the course of their lives. I suggest we let nature run its course and we let humans engage in whatever sexual behaviour is natural for us. Ie not try to force people in doing stuff that goes against their desires and wishes. We can´t police against broken hearts. It´ll get emotionally messy no matter what legal strategy we chose to take.

One thing that conservatives often overlook is that it can be extremely emotionally damaging to be in a relationship, or faithful within a relationship, that has since long stopped working. Sometimes we need to be unfaithful to survive emotionally. It can also be the necessary push a person needs to end a dysfunctional relationship. We have a tendency to stay in a relationship long after its stopped being healthy.

 

[Jokodo]

Jealousy is an emotional motivation for dealing with infidelity before it goes wrong as we can take preventative measures to stop the infidelity. Pair-bonding and partner-jealousy (for sexually distinct reasons) form a mutually coherent basis for partly explaining human sexual strategy.

The evidence for pair-bonding as an evolved behaviour is before your eyes in the almost universal behaviour of human cultures everywhere. Men take wives. It seems like even the most basic assertion of the most obvious features of the human species are things you want to dispute as some kind of academic exercise.

We are evolved to pair-bond and for men to take wives. It is a strategy that has succeeded evolutionarily and partly defines the species. The recent cultural acceptance of homosexuality as something that society will tolerate as opposed to not tolerate is fine but it does not follow that we are obliged to redefine the fundamental cultural institutions that have grown up around our evolved pair-bonding behaviour.

Homosexuals should be satisfied with the tolerance and measured acceptance that society now extends them and be happy with that.

A homosexual partnership is substantially different thing to a heterosexual marriage because men are different to women.

You're not arguing anymore, if ever you were. You're clearly proselytising at this point.

Just so you know: Proselytising is against the forum rules.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The evidence for pair-bonding as an evolved behaviour is before your eyes in the almost universal behaviour of human cultures everywhere. Men take wives. It seems like even the most basic assertion of the most obvious features of the human species are things you want to dispute as some kind of academic exercise.

It's not that universal, certainly not of 'human cultures everywhere.'
We dispute that your assertion is accurate, yes.
Not as an academic exercise, but just because your bullshit isn't true.

but it does not follow that we are obliged to redefine the fundamental cultural institutions that have grown up around our evolved pair-bonding behaviour.

Now, imagine someone saying that about whites and blacks wanting the right to marry each other.
Or about women wanting to be able to say 'no' to an offer of marriage expressed to their parents.
Or about people wanting to get divorced.
It's just kind of bigoted babble, isn't it?

So this whole issue will one day be on the list to, as stupid reasons people used to give for discrimination. Their skin, their religion, their nationality, their gender, their gender preference, their market value, their nation lost the war, their tribe couldn't defend them....

 

[Keith&Co.]

going back to your beginning, mojo

There seems to be a pervasive atmosphere of assumption in the Australian press just now that everybody is OK with the cultural institution of marriage being redefined to accommodate the legal needs of the gay community.

Please point out what, in the 1961 version of the Marriage Act, needs to be redefined to accommodate the legal needs of the gay community?

We really don't think we're redefining marriage, just extending the groups that can participate. In other words, ending the discrimination against some members of our culture.

You haven't shown how MF/MM/FF marriages differ to any great extend.
You haven't shown how the tiny change affects any other citizens in any reasonable way.
And you're mostly trying very hard to discriminate against people who help make up the culture you're trying to claim almost sole-ownership of.

Can you back any of that up?

 

[mojorising]

^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.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Actually, that does not follow.
If you think it does, I would ask you to present a valid argument from "men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional evolved attributes", to "the marriage of a man and a woman is significantly different to the pair-bonding of 2 men or 2 women."

That aside, a key issue is in which sense some differences are significant. For example, a difference in height from 1.6m to 2.05m may well be a significant difference in one context (say, when it comes to playing basketball), but an insignificant one in a different context (i.e., when it comes to playing chess).

For example, it may well be that when two women have a pair-bonding relationship, the way in which they relate to one another is psychologically very similar to the way in which a woman would usually relate to a man, in terms of sexual attraction, trust, friendship, and so on.
Why would then the difference in sex would be different when it comes to the use of a word, or when it comes to adoption?

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.

a. In which sense do you mean it's of "inherent value"?
b. Who is behaving immorally if the word "marriage" refers to some same-sex relationships as well? (i.e., who is the person who shouldn't redefine the word, but does or did).
c. What is your evidence that the English word "marriage" (and related words like "marry", "spouse", etc.) does not already refer to some same-sex relationships?
Going by the way in which most people appear to use the word, it seems that it does refer to some same-sex relationships already. What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?
Let me try to give you an direct example.
In this Wikipedia page on Portia de Rossi, Ellen DeGeneres appears listed as "spouse". Moreover, it says that they got married in 2008.
You seem to be implying that those are errors in the Wikipedia page, that they're not married, etc. What is your linguistic evidence in support of that conclusion?
I'm not talking about evidence about how people used the word "marriage" (or some other words in other languages in the past), but about how native English speakers use the words in the present-day world.

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.

You still insist on the issue of the causes. I already pointed out that when it comes to adoption, the causes of homosexuality and/or bisexuality only would matter indirectly, in relation to their fitness as parents.
As long as there is no good reason to suspect that they would not be fit as parents (and you're free to provide them), then there is no good reason not to allow them to adopt children.
How does the causes factor into your equation?

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.

But even if that were the case, for that matter it may well be that in some states of the US, most men find it distasteful to have to watch a White woman and a Black man kissing and cuddling in public. But surely, that's no good reason to ban interracial marriage. They should deal with it. Why should the matter be handled differently in the case of same-sex public displays of affection?

ETA: nor is the taste of those men a good reason to ban the displays of affection in question.

 

[Metaphor]

But even if that were the case, for that matter it may well be that in some states of the US, most men find it distasteful to have to watch a White woman and a Black man kissing and cuddling in public. But surely, that's no good reason to ban interracial marriage. They should deal with it. Why should the matter be handled differently in the case of same-sex public displays of affection?

Evidently there's a minority of people who feel being upset constitutes criminal action by the people who engaged in behaviour that caused them to be upset.

Now, while reading the opinions of morons on the internets sometimes upsets me, I don't start asking the government to criminalise morons from airing their opinions on the internet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

^If you agree that men and women are significantly different creatures with different physical and emotional evolved attributes

Significant enough to justify discrimination? No, i do not agree.

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.

Not even close to following, no.
Any two individuals will bring different things to a marriage. Not all women are nurturing. Not all men are disciplinarians. The bandwidth of differences between any two heterosexual marriages overlaps any two homosexual marriages, rather than the two forms being separated by a gulf of differences.

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.

I don't believe in it because every time you assert this mythical cultural heritage, your critics point out how poor it stands up to scrutiny.
History does not reflect your view of 'traditional marriage.'

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

Circular.
You want to treat gay partnerships differently, and use that desire as an example of why they should be treated differently. That's cheating.

3. Distaste - I maintain...that most heterosexual people ...actually find it distasteful to have to watch 2 members of their own sex kissing and cuddling in public.

Why would this matter a damn in restricting basic human rights?
How about lepers? Do we take their rights away because it's disturbing to look at them?
Or any military vets with artificial limbs? Those things really squick me out. I mean, right up the wall. But look at me, sitting here NOT demanding their rights be restricted for the sake of my nausea.

The last point is not in relation to marriage

Then fuck it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

mojo, do you really not see a small problem with this?
You're trying to claim that your changes will preserve our 'culture.'
But right now, you're not noticing that 'our culture' has changed.
It is 'our culture' that tolerates gay men kissing in public.

It doesn't matter a fuck if that's because the majority wants to watch gay men kissing in public or because the majority just is afraid of being labeled as 'bigots.'
Either way, WHATEVER is the truth, it's our culture that's NOT TOLERATING BEING A BIGOT!
Either the majority thinks it's okay, or the majority thinks that they have to act AS IF it's okay with them.

There's no way that 'the gays,' alone, could force this change on everyone else in the culture without some significant assistance from the straights.

The culture you're trying to save DOES NOT EXIST, Mojo. Move on. Grow up. Or stew quietly in your own bile, either one.

But your hate is not a good basis for legislation, nor does it allow you to honestly see what you're talking about.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you´re against gay marriage, then don´t marry a bloke. It´s really as simple as that. This entire debate and issue is bizarre.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

But even if that were the case, for that matter it may well be that in some states of the US, most men find it distasteful to have to watch a White woman and a Black man kissing and cuddling in public. But surely, that's no good reason to ban interracial marriage. They should deal with it. Why should the matter be handled differently in the case of same-sex public displays of affection?

ETA: nor is the taste of those men a good reason to ban the displays of affection in question.

You've not replied, so I think you may be thinking the comparison is unfair, perhaps because you intuit somehow that men normally find PDAs between men offensive because of some evolved mechanism, whereas there is no similar mechanism in the case of race. But I'm afraid that that is not a reasonable basis for a ban on PDAs (I would argue that even if that mechanism existed, there would be good reasons to think it's not part of morality, but something that distort it. But it's almost certain it does not exist).

Let me make some points:

a. There is no record of a negative reaction to homosexual behavior in any other primates. Homosexual behavior is common in some species (such as bonobos), and uncommon in other species, but there is no record of a negative reaction to such behavior in any species. If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence.
One can easily find links to papers studying homosexual behavior observed in different primate species (e.g., http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541216
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02735477 http://www.researchgate.net/publica...iors_in_Free-Ranging_Female_Japanese_Macaques ) (There are plenty more, of course. I'm not picking those for any particular reason). But I've not seen a single case in which there is such negative reaction to same-sex relations (there is third-party interference sometimes, but the same happens in the case of opposite-sex relations). If you have any example at all, please provide the relevant link.

So, it seems your theory would require that a mechanism developed exclusively in humans to somehow be offended (morally offended, right?) if one observes people of the same sex engaging in DA, but not if one observes people of the opposite sex doing that. But there seems to be no reason to think that there would be an adaptation of that sort in the case of humans, as it provides no advantage one can think of - and if it did, why don't any other primates have it?

b. Across time, reactions to same-sex behavior in human culture are widely varied. While in some places, homosexual practices were severely punished (by death even), in others were not punished or even seen as a negative; there is a range in between. That perception of offense is hardly a trait found cross-culturally.

c. You intend to punish certain same-sex behaviors (specifically, some PDA) on the basis of an intuition that you have but is based on no evidence, as you admit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Since gay people can ONLY have children that they actively seek with intent, this biases them drastically towards behavior that develops their child rather than contributes toward their neglect, irrespective of biological relationships.

Now THAT is an interesting thought. Good point.