New Hampshire becomes 6th US state to legalise gay marriage

[FLOZi]

I'm religious, but i don't see anything wrong with it, as allowing them to live together will only make them die out through genetics.

The more we suppress these gay people into marrying and procreating with females, the more gay generations will be born.

I guess you think the disabled shouldn't be allowed to procreate with 'normal' people either, in order that they can 'die out'.

Good to see support for fascism is still riding high in land of the free.

I love to see that people who are uneducated in controlling their emotioness roam free in the internet.

I have a disabled member to my family, and i know they like homosexuals can lead productive lives.

I DID NOT say i want to start a holocaust or anything of the sort, i simply said, through limited reproduction of a defective gene that leads to less homosexuals.

More natural breeding, less defects, stronger population

And before you go on, no homosexuality is not natural, as it goes against how reproduction works, and effectively is a negative outcome to the human race.


I believe you shouldn't blame the people who are homosexuals, but we should try to eliminate the problem as its negative step to human growth ect.

Only yes, that is exactly what you are proposing.

[Pxtl]

There are no moral positives and negatives in biology. Darwinean reproduction is not a moral imperative - being "more fit" does not mean "better", it just means "more fit".

Therefore, the fact that homosexuality is, from a Darwinean perspective, evolutionarily unviable doesn't mean crap. Yes, if homosexuality genetically selected, then it will quickly breed itself out in a permissive society where they don't have to hide in the closet and have wives and kids. This is possible.

But it is not a "good thing". It might not even be a "bad thing". It's just a thing.

I mean, since we're talking about science fiction (real-world implications in a far-flung future of untested theories) then you can look at The Forever War, a novel where a man travels to the future and finds out that everybody's gay - the government started encouraging and even genetically engineering for homosexuality so that the population could be controlled directly by the government, rather than allowing overpopulation to spiral out of control.

Darwinean fitness is a terrible yardstick to measure humans, because it means that Octomom is kicking our asses.

[PicassoCT]

Forever War! Pxtl brings in great Ammo & Supplys against DarwinSimplifiers... although that means we will end up as Ken the Man, a telephatic Collective.. the Haldeman future go for it..

And as God is (Dogma sourced) a Woman and he had something with Mary.. i guess he loves Lesbians..

[Neddie]

If civil unions were granted the same benefits as marriage, the alternative term would probably be preferable. Marriage is an awfully corrupt construct, and the term rather contains negative, rather than positive, implications. I see no sanctity in it.

Gota, that would be why I utilized sarcasm and illustrative comparison to co-opt and subvert the term. It is "whining" in so far as all sociopolitical movements are.

[Panda]

If civil unions were granted the same benefits as marriage, the alternative term would probably be preferable. Marriage is an awfully corrupt construct, and the term rather contains negative, rather than positive, implications. I see no sanctity in it.

Gota, that would be why I utilized sarcasm and illustrative comparison to co-opt and subvert the term. It is "whining" in so far as all sociopolitical movements are.

I think that "whining" only really helps when coupled with problem solving and the right (this concept is not as clear as everyone likes to say it is.) intentions.

[Neddie]

It clearly works with the wrong intentions, as evidenced by the deregulation of numerous industries during the eighties, or the collapse of upper class taxation during the same period.

[tombom]

It clearly works with the wrong intentions, as evidenced by the deregulation of numerous industries during the eighties, or the collapse of upper class taxation during the same period.

Don't get me started :'(

Also I seriously can't understand accusations of "whining" against people trying to make changes in a democratic society.

[jcnossen]

Yes, if homosexuality genetically selected, then it will quickly breed itself out in a permissive society where they don't have to hide in the closet and have wives and kids. This is possible.

IIRC according to the book "living with our genes", statistically speaking male homosexuality has a correlation with females in the same family getting their first period earlier in life. This would mean more time for the females to make babies, thereby maintaining the number of male homosexuals.
I guess that if the male gays also have kids because of a repressive society, then the number of gays would actually rise. Or not, since earlier periods shouldn't matter that much in todays world.

[Panda]

It clearly works with the wrong intentions, as evidenced by the deregulation of numerous industries during the eighties, or the collapse of upper class taxation during the same period.

Look, I know that Socrates was poisoned for asking all kinds of seemingly silly questions, but what?

[Evil4Zerggin]

Yes, if homosexuality genetically selected, then it will quickly breed itself out in a permissive society where they don't have to hide in the closet and have wives and kids. This is possible.

IIRC according to the book "living with our genes", statistically speaking male homosexuality has a correlation with females in the same family getting their first period earlier in life. This would mean more time for the females to make babies, thereby maintaining the number of male homosexuals.
I guess that if the male gays also have kids because of a repressive society, then the number of gays would actually rise. Or not, since earlier periods shouldn't matter that much in todays world.

Correlation is not causation, etc.

[jcnossen]

I know, but you don't get it..
It about a genetic factor. Male reproduction is lowered (because of gayness), so in order for these gay genes to survive in the population, something else has to compensate by increasing rate of reproduction.

[lurker]

Yeah, I don't even see an implication of a causation there.

Only yes, that is exactly what you are proposing.

What are you reading in his original post that I'm not? It's saying not to force gay people to breed if they don't want to, and making a flawed prediction based on that. Nothing more. In fact, if you were responding to what he actually said, the post I quoted would be against gay marriage as a form of genocide. As far as I can see you're tilting at windmills.

Marriage I am against, only for the sanctity of the term. Civil Unions (when put in place with exactly the same rights etc as marriage) I'm all for.

I think I agree with what you want here, but not the method. I see two ways of handling this to avoid segregational issues. The first is the current, gay marriage. The other is to have the state not offer anything called marriage, just civil unions for all couples, go to a church/etc. if you want marriage.

[FLOZi]

He's still advocating genocide, even if by liberal (and flawed) means.

[lurker]

No he is not. "Let them not breed more openly" isn't genocide. The desire to see something bred out isn't advocating genocide.

[Neddie]

Positive eugenics.

[Felix the Cat]

Oh great, you guys made me unlurk, you bastards.

@Spawn_Retard: Social Darwinism? ROFL! Seriously, we don't have enough social Darwinists these days. Hurrah for eugenics - let us purify the human gene pool!

@genetics: We don't know what proportion of homosexuality is genetic, and what proportion is due to other factors.

We also don't know whether the genetic portion of homosexuality is an adaptation that has been selected for, or is a random mutation that reliably and regularly shows up in >1% of the human population.

We're pretty sure that it is NOT an inherited trait, for obvious reasons.

It seems more likely that it's an adaptation, based on what we see of homosexuality in other animals. Homosexuality is seen predominantly in social animals - ones that live in groups, generally family groups. It's only rarely seen in solitary animals. If it were a random mutation, we'd see an equal prevalance of homosexuality among solitary animals as among social animals.

If it's an adaptation, that means that it helps each individual to spread its genes - even the gay ones. The key here is that social animals live in family groups. They share largely the same genes - largely the same adaptations. So, if some small percentage of a certain extended family group being homosexual helps that family group spread its genes more than simply having 1% more reproductive individuals, homosexuality would in fact be selected for - and the homosexual individuals would in fact be spreading their genes simply by existing.

I guess we could draw an analogy with ants - worker ants don't reproduce; however, by helping the queen to survive, thrive, and produce new queens and kings, they spread their genes.

I have no idea how homosexuality would help a family group spread its genes - only that a genetic component implies that it does, or else it would be selected against. That would leave us with a random component, which we've already determined is very unlikely for purely statistical reasons. Homosexuality being a random mutation is also unlikely for biochemical reasons. Sexuality is a very complex process that is not fully understood. Each gene simply codes one amino acid for inclusion in a protein. Proteins contain hundreds to thousands of amino acids. A point mutation - the most common random mutation - would have to first cause a different amino acid to be encoded (the coding itself contains a first line of defense against excessive mutation - amino acids are coded by sequences of 3 bases, or codons; many amino acids are coded for by codons that are similar - for example, glycine is coded for by any sequence starting with GG - GGA, GGC, GGG, GGT.); it would next have to be on a functional area of DNA (a significant area of DNA is occupied by genes that don't do anything); it would next have to significantly affect the coded protein's function - many amino acid substitutions have negligible affect and don't cause the protein to function differently; it would finally have to make this single protein change in a way that causes an individual to be sexually (and in humans, romantically) attracted to the same gender. This is highly unlikely. The other possible random mutation would be a sort of copy error, extra chromosome, etc. - these cause various disabilities, such as Down's syndrome; however, if this were the case, we would have known by now.

@lesbianism: Did you know that the Bible doesn't prohibit lesbianism? If homosexuality is such a mortal sin, I wonder why lesbianism isn't even mentioned? I've heard fundamentalist Christian extremists say that AIDS is a plague sent by God upon the sinful homosexuals. If that's the case, why is the rate of AIDS infection among lesbians virtually zero? (Not to mention the racist implication of the theory, that all of the Africans with AIDS are just collateral damage because God doesn't care about black people.)

@gay marriage: I'm for getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. However, if the government wants to be in the marriage business, it needs to stop discriminating against gays. "Separate but equal" institutions doesn't cut it.

@New Hampshire: New Hampshire could be a turning point. The state recognized gay marriage by law, not by court ruling - there's no room for ultra-conservative wingnuts to bitch about activist courts.* New Hampshire is also fairly conservative; the state voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and is generally considered a "swing state". Of course, New Hampshire has its own unique "Live Free or Die" identity, so I wouldn't expect this to set a precedent for, say, South Carolina to recognize gay marriage next week.

*Ultra-conservative wingnuts were demanding that "activist courts" stop "legislating from the bench", and let gay marriage be determined by laws passed by state legislatures. (A viewpoint that I am sympathetic to.) In the case of New Hampshire, that obviously doesn't apply... so what do the ultra-conservative wingnuts do? Well, I read the opinion of one - he said that the NH legislature and the governor overstepped their bounds in recognizing gay marriage, and demanded that the issue be put to a popular vote! Fortunately, other, more rational conservatives called him out for being an idiot, and pointed out that, in the American representative system, laws are passed by elected representatives in the legislature, not by popular vote.

[KaiserJ]

fags are the best, they predict weak areas in the women you target so you can concentrate on your macro rather than your micro.

must be easy being gay, seems convenient.

[Apollo]

lol @ eveyone making themselves feel supiror by using the word "whinning" alot. THATS ALL IT IS.

[Elkvis]

@lesbianism: Did you know that the Bible doesn't prohibit lesbianism? If homosexuality is such a mortal sin, I wonder why lesbianism isn't even mentioned? I've heard fundamentalist Christian extremists say that AIDS is a plague sent by God upon the sinful homosexuals. If that's the case, why is the rate of AIDS infection among lesbians virtually zero? (Not to mention the racist implication of the theory, that all of the Africans with AIDS are just collateral damage because God doesn't care about black people.).

Actually the true biblical texts are incredibly vague on the topic of homosexuality at all. Most of the confusion comes from poor and downright deceitful translation.

Most of the original texts are not particularly clear; and there is much debate over what certain words actually mean. It most surprising that homosexuality quotes fall in this category.

[Forboding Angel]

No they aren't.

At what point is this unclear?

"If a man should lay with another man, it is an abomination to the lord."

That's unclear?