Gay Marriage - a secular view

---

Bold text in the following post is text added or changes after I originally made the post._________________________________________________________>>>"This caused another problem, though. Like many other species, we are sexually competitive. We will fight over the right to be sexually exclusive with a potential reproductive partner. When two dominant males met the first order of business was the fight to see who would have access to the females of the group. This made for small groups, as the urge to find a reproductive partner would end up making non-Alpha males leave, or get kicked out of, the group."This seems to be describing some kind of herd mentality, of human reproduction strategies, that modern science does not support. Scientific research shows the reproduction strategies of early humans were far more in line with that of the bonobo chimpanzees (see LiveScience.com for the article you'll have to do a search, I don't have the time. I believe it is about a year and half or maybe two years old. For a short cut search look at this link in their sex myths quiz. I believe, this was also reported on 60 Minutes though I would have no idea how to search for it with them). (The following is paraphrasing of the article as best I remember it.) That is to say, sex in early humans was not merely a means of reproduction but also a way of socializing, establishing community (as in, a socially cohesive group)and possibly settling differences in a non-violent manner. >>>"We might not have survived as a species if marriage hadn't been invented."Even though research suggests we never employed it's use, why would the herd strategy (for lack of the proper term) of reproduction fail our species when it worked so well for countless others.>>>"...a male would be able to exclusively attempt to fulfill his reproductive rights..."When or where in the natural world has reproduction ever been a right. It's an opportunity.>>>"With the advent of a dedicated partner with whom a male would be able to exclusively attempt to fulfill his reproductive rights, he now had no need to be instantly competitive with any other male he encountered. With the entire group agreeing that male A and female A were not to be poached on sexually, the fights stopped and the groups began to grow into societies, and then ultimately civilization and the ability to work together developed."The reasoning there is faulty, I think. The coupling of a pair in a pluralistic groups is not required for genetic diversity and furthermore, pairing up is not an economically efficient strategy for reproduction, in such groups. If it's accepted that early humans where somewhat promiscuous then the offspring of the group would have multiple fathers, unlike the one or two in the herd strategy that has been put forth. The significance of this, is that stronger, dominate males of our species would then likely kill the offspring of competing males to ensure the survival of their own offspring and that is a reason pairing off occures in humans, outside of the ability to provide food for high care offspring. Genetics does not require it, and males competing for the right to breed works advantageously in countless other species, pairing off provides little, if any, advantage in most pluralistic societies. Therefore, the only reason, I see, left for pairing off is to protect a father's young from other member of the society to which he belongs. There will be more success in defending the young if the mother and father work together to fight off the stronger aggressor who is trying to ensure survival of his own linage.>>>"I didn't say that marriage was about reproduction, I said it was about exclusive exercise of reproductive rights. Having children isn't the issue, it's that we no longer fight over the right to try."That chain of reasoning may be correct for the scenario presented but the problem is what is present is not supported by, and is in fact counter to, all current credible science. Therefor the conclusion drawn is inaccurate at best.>>>"...exercise of reproductive rights."Reproduction is an opportunity not a right. Rights do not exist in the natural world. Only opportunities, actions, and consequences exist in nature.

Yeah Angel, we better dump our blokes quick now this enlightened soul has been kind enough to share the fruits of his wisdom and inform us of our real status! - Quick, where's there a gay bar? One with no gay men in it, since we're lesbians of the man-hating variety!

According to my Law teacher, in Canada. There is no more need for femenism. Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect everyone Yay!! I saw a feminist propoganda poster. It showed some woman about to slit a mans throat! in the corner it said 'Vendetta'. I have no clue how this is even allowed, but hey! Freedom of speech? no? Looks like Fem-nazis are allowed ?? Why can't women and men comprehend that we are equal ?Read up a bit on FeminismWhoray for Equality!

I know that this issue is a stressful one for you, so let me say first that I appreciate you taking the time to join the discussion. >What cannot be given to us through a civil union verse marriage is unity/equality. You’re basically asking us to be different that the rest of the population by forcing us to have a Civil Union instead of marriage. How would you feel if the tables were reversed and you were forced to get a Civil Union when everyone else in your country (And basically world) gets marriage? It’s just another way to segregate and make people feel different and out of place, not to mention not feeling equal.<I understand where you are coming from, but I suspect that what you are looking for isn't unity/equality, but rather 'sameness'. That way the union a gay person is in would be indistinguishable from a heterosexual one, and when people say someone is married they wouldn't be able to tell whether they were gay or straight. I understand where you are coming from, but let me explain why I think that is a bad idea.I am black. In a forum like this, that kind of declaration is very much like the one you make when you say that you are gay, because people from here on will see that as part of me when they see my username on the board. I am now committed. To most people it won't make a real difference even though they will remain aware of it, but for some it will. That's just something I live with. I'm sure you, of all people, understand this.Now, I also fully understand the desire to remain anonymous when it comes to things that distinguish me from others. Even now when I see the little blocks on a government form that ask for my racial group, I am tempted to write "None of your business!" I suppose I could too. There is no requirement for me to tell people who won't see me that I am black, just as there is no requirement for you to tell them you are gay. Still, I'll bet that little check blocks asking your sexual orientation are pretty rare, aren't they? The problem arises when I find myself wanting to check "white" instead. To address your question above, why indeed should I be forced to check the "black" box when most of the population checks the "white" box? If the law were changed to change the definition of the term "white" to mean "any person who seeks equality with the racial majority", then I COULD check that box. But that isn't the meaning of the term, and if I checked "white" I would be lying. My equality with whites in this country doesn't come from changing the meaning of "white" so I can check it in those little boxes (which is really 'sameness' and would simply cause confusion), nor does it come from me hiding in any way the true nature of my racial background. I am from a different race. I am equal, but I am NOT the 'same', and there's no getting around that. You have a different sexual orientation and there's no getting around that either, especially if you contend that your orientation is inborn. What is left is to acknowledge the difference and to make certain that it isn't used against you. That's the purpose of those little boxes, but in order for them to work they also highlight me to anyone who might want to treat me differently because of my race. Then again, so does a single look at me.

Self-explanitory. "Equal rights" is a vehicle a group of man-hating lesbians used to begin the second wave of feminism in the 60's. If you dig into it further, you'll see that it's women's superiority, not equallity, that is being pushed by modern feminists. They're not the same group of folks who gave women the right to vote many years ago. The agenda has changed.< Dude. Wrong thread for this. REALLY, wrong thread. Thanks for understanding.

"OMG im a man hating lesbian and never knew!!!! *stunned*"

:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

That's not what I said and you know it. I doubt you were old enough to start much of anything rebellious in the 60's...except maybe a temper-tantrum, if even that. (You too Starfish).

PS - According to your post, starfish, you haven't bothered to dig into it any further. 'Nuff said.

PPS - I see by his post that Lanky "gets it".

"Dude. Wrong thread for this. REALLY, wrong thread. Thanks for understanding."No problem. My only hope is that it might be understood that the same vehicle {"equal rights" vs "equality"(being the same)} is being used by both feminists and gays. That was truly my only reason for bringing it up.

This seems to be describing some kind of herd mentality, of human reproduction strategies, that modern science does not support. Scientific research shows the reproduction strategies of early humans were far more in line with that of the bonobo chimpanzees (see LiveScience.com for the article you'll have to do a search, I don't have the time. I believe it is about a year and half or maybe two years old. added: for a short cut search look at this link in their sex myths quiz. I believe, this was also reported on 60 Minutes though I would have no idea how to search for it with them). (The following is paraphrasing of the article as best I remember it.) That is to say, sex in early humans was not merely a means of reproduction but also a way of socializing, establishing community (as in, a socially cohesive group)and possibly settling differences in a non-violent manner.< Now YOU are the type of person I like to have discussions with. Thanks for joining.What you are saying is correct, but you are missing the link between where were were THEN and where we are now. The articles you mention go too far back. If you look at early human civilization you find kings or rulers with harems, exactly the same sexually that you describe as the "herd strategy" (and since that term works as well as any, I suggest we keep using it). We definitely made the transition somewhere, because we are very sexually competitive now. Perhaps the size of a group held together by sexual socializing is limited, and so to build larger groups something else was needed. I'll do some digging.>Even though research suggests we never employed it's use, why would the herd strategy (for lack of the proper term) of reproduction fail our species when it worked so well for countless others.<That's not correct. Research suggests we didn't begin with it. That we had (have) it is evident in our history, even recent history. The survival of herds depends on a number of things. First is the size of the herd. Herd animals like zebras use the size of the group in a small area to limit the damage done by predators to less then the reproductive powers of the group as a whole, and there are hundreds of each sex represented in the group. Their advantage is their food supply. We cannot eat grass. Other herds are more capable of fighting off predators - cattle and wildebeast and larger animals fit this description, and again they have the advantage of a food supply that can handle thousands of them in a group. A group of a thousand or more pre-civilization humans would have difficulties with both predators and food, so our group size was limited to below what could sustain predation and we need a different strategy, either escape or better weapons than we are born with. Trees provided escape in the periods the articles you mention cover, but we eventually left them. I suspect we needed larger groups than the bonobo style sexual socializing could provide for, and that we eventually became sexually competitive is self evident. Rules were needed, and marriage was one of the first. Granted it wasn't marriage as we know it now, but it was a pairing or possibly a sub-grouping. It was socially recognized though, and that's the point.>When or where in the natural world has reproduction ever been a right. It's an opportunity.<I might have been mixing past and present a bit. In this country now it is a legally recognized right. In Skinner v Oklahoma the Supreme Court said, "This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race -- the right to have offspring." >The reasoning there is faulty, I think. The coupling of a pair in a pluralistic groups is not required for genetic diversity and furthermore, pairing up is not an economically efficient strategy for reproduction, in such groups.< You said a lot more, but this post will be humongous if I quote it all. The loss of efficiency here is made up for by the gain in efficiency in both survival odds of members of the group from outside threats and survival odds from the benefits of civilization, which itself is a result of less competition and more cooperation. The threat to offspring from other males does happen in some species (lions notably), but it was never truly an issue among humans.>Reproduction is an opportunity not a right. Rights do not exist in the natural world. Only opportunities, actions, and consequences exist in nature.< Perhaps, but we are speaking of the "right to marry" as it exists in the civilized world (as opposed to the natural world) and whether is applies to gay pairings. I see all rights as accrued to the individual, and the right to marry as an individual's right to join in a socially recognized union with a member of the opposite sex. That gays frequently (but not always) choose not to exercise this right was part of the dissent in the recent Massachusetts Goodrich decision that I agree with.

I understand the comparison because I have used it myself. But being a black man I would think you’d understand the need and desire for equality, or “sameness” you as desires to say it.I’m going to use summarizing because I have a headache at the moment lol. Your analogy on the checking box, no one forces you to check the “black” box. I know a few black people that refuse to mark the black box and instead check “other” or in some cases there is a box to remain anonymous. But what people are asking us to do is to take Civil Unions and put us in a special class of people simply because we are gay. If we have Civil Unions and people ask my partner and I how we are classed, are we to say we are “United” not married?My whole point is forcing a minority group to separate from the majority for the purpose of marriage is simply segregation and degrading that minority. If the government wishes to give us a union that’s identical to marriage, than they need to give us marriage. Don’t give us something that makes us feel like second rate citizens that aren’t deserving of something that every other heterosexual person in the country can have. If I am forced to pay the same taxes, than I was identical rights. Thing you need to remember is that yes you being black you might be different that white people only on the basis your skin color is not the same. But regardless of your skin color you are allowed the same rights as a white person. But regardless of a gay persons skin color they are denied the same basic rights every other citizen has.

Okay, I admit, I hardly read anything in this thread, and i shouldnt be replying this to Eddie but to the OP, but shh.
Just my oppinion, a single "why not?"
im gay myself, and don't have any intentions to get married, I wouldn't marry a girl (ofcourse, this is if I would be straight), and I wouldn't want to marry a guy, just because marriage means nothing to me. Yet, for people that want to marry, I dont see the big fuzz about it, let them marry. Seriously, a marriage is just another bonding between two people that LOVE each other, and if a male can love another male, or a female can love another female, they should be able to get married. It's not much use for me to discuss this since where I live gay marriages are allowed, but I hope the entire world will allow it, someday *optimistic*

Eddie

I understand the comparison because I have used it myself. But being a black man I would think you’d understand the need and desire for equality, or “sameness” you as desires to say it.<But that 'sameness' is an illusion. It's a lie, because while I AM equal, I am NOT the same and never will be. Why should I lie to both myself and others and say I am the same when I'm not? It's far better that we all learn to accept our differences, and in a world where James Byrd Jr. was dragged behind a truck by a noose only 8 years ago, and his grave defaced only 2 years ago, I understand there are risks. Accepting differences may be the harder road, but it's the better one. >Your analogy on the checking box, no one forces you to check the “black” box. I know a few black people that refuse to mark the black box and instead check “other” or in some cases there is a box to remain anonymous.< True, but I still can't check the "white" box until the word "white" is redefined. In your case this would be the same as deciding NOT to enter a civil union (if and when they are available) and not letting it be known that you are gay. That is certainly an option, but you (and they) are depriving everyone of the change to learn about and celebrate differences. The people you describe are permitting their fear of being singled out for being black to isolate them from the protections available for minorities under the law as well. You certainly can't claim you were discriminated against if you hide the fact that you are a minority!>But what people are asking us to do is to take Civil Unions and put us in a special class of people simply because we are gay. If we have Civil Unions and people ask my partner and I how we are classed, are we to say we are “United” not married?< That term would work, and I've heard "partnered" as well. As a minority, I have learned that I cannot stop people from being prejudiced. All I can do is to protect myself from the effects of their prejudice, and for that I need the law. If Civil Unions are made available to everyone (which is how I would do it) it still doesn't highlight gays as gay, but it can appropriately provide everything except 'sameness', which is a lie anyway. If you could rewrite how our society and legal systems treat marriage, would you? Is there anything you would do differently? I know I would, and civil unions may provide exactly that opportunity. The thing to remember is that the nature of a relationship is determined ONLY by the individuals within that relationship. There is an assumption that married couples have sexual relations, and if they don't that is grounds for divorce. There was even a time when it was considered illegal for a wife to deny her husband sex! He could force her, and it wasn't considered rape if they were married! With the advent of recent legal decisions, including things like the Lawrence v Texas decision of 2003, the right of the state to pry into our bedrooms has vanished, which means that truly different relationships can be tried. Roommates can be "partnered" and reap the benefits of medical determination, inheritance, pooled finances, tax consequences (tax treatment of marriage isn't really a benefit!), and we could leave out the things like alimony, the assumption of sexual relations, the assumption of paternity, etc that currently are part of marriage. Brothers or sisters could be partnered in a household and benefit tremendously. With the recent changes in the law it doesn't HAVE to be about sex the way marriage is. >My whole point is forcing a minority group to separate from the majority for the purpose of marriage is simply segregation and degrading that minority. If the government wishes to give us a union that’s identical to marriage, than they need to give us marriage.< Civil unions wouldn't be identical to marriage, but they would be equal to it. That's my point, equality without 'sameness', without confusion over what is what. Another thing, you aren't truly forced to separate from the majority in the case of marriage. You CAN marry, as all that requires is a member of the opposite sex willing to marry you. Earlier I mentioned former NJ governor McGreevey as an example of a man who is both gay and married (with children). Whether or not you have sex is your business nowadays. Whether or not you love each other is as well, since a marriage license doesn't ask either of these questions. Now in the modern world with today's standards, marrying someone you don't love doesn't make a lot of sense, but it happens all the same. Just ask Anna Nicole Smith. You see, marriage isn't about love, even though we now use love as an indicator of a potentially good partnership. Ultimately marriage is a pairing of a man and a woman for WHATEVER reason, be it love, sex, or one of them found the other on Ebay and paid through PayPal (you've heard of Russian brides for sale, right?). Love may help determine what will be a good relationship, but it isn't what defines marriage.

A quick off-topic question; I am not all that computer literate, and I'd like to be able to put neat links in my posts. Could someone explain just how I can get http://www.goodreferencewebsite.com (just an example, don't click it) to show up as a single word link, ie click here ? Thanks.

I understand you point, I really do. But at the same time I just see no point in instituting a new form of legalized marriage when we already have something in use. Personally seems like a lot of hassle to construct Civil Unions when it would just be easier to let homosexuals use the word marriage.Though you might like to think Marriage is just a word and people do it all the time whether in love or not (though yes I understand you are correct that people use the ceremony freely) there are still a lot of us, gay and straight, who look at marriage as much more than an piece of paper. I look at it as a special ceremony under the eyes of god uniting two people who love each other. Could I possibly obtain this from a Civil Union, sure but why should I have too? Why should I be treated differently than any other citizen of this country? It seems very backwards to me.>In your case this would be the same as deciding NOT to enter a civil union (if and when they are available) and not letting it be known that you are gay.Personally I don’t care if people know I am gay, I’m not ashamed of who I am. I have said this many times on these forums… Being gay is not what I am, just a small part of who I am. But on the same token I don’t like going around flaunting I am gay, not because I’m ashamed but because it’s not needed. Being gay just isn’t that big of a deal that everyone wants to make it out to be. I think if people would really open their eyes and minds they would see that someone being gay is so trivial to whom a person is. So, maybe that’s why I am against Civil Unions because people are making such a big deal out of something that most gay people don’t make a big deal out of themselves. Basically, if we’re not making a big deal out of being gay, why should anyone else? They don’t have to live our lives. It comes down to people learning to mind their own business and let people live their lives how they see fit.Anyways that was a mini ramble but it’s basically how I feel. I honestly think it’s just a matter of time before we are allowed to marry. Until than I’ll be here to fight the battle the best I can with the resources I have.

to show up as a single word link, ie click here ? It's part of the macros, use the hperlink under Instant UBB Code titled "URL" and it'll walk you through the rest.

I apologize for my brevity and lack of sitations but my time is somewhat short today. That being said, I do want to respond.

>>>"The articles you mention go too far back. If you look at early human civilization you find kings or rulers with harems, exactly the same sexually that you describe as the "herd strategy" (and since that term works as well as any, I suggest we keep using it)."

The "herd strategy", with regard to kings and rulers, has more to do with the exercise of power and nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with an overarching reproductive strategy for humanity as whole. In all of the cultures (note that I didn't say religions), that I am aware of, where polygamy was common place it's existence had more to do with a lack of male partners. A lack do, mainly, to war or to a lessor extent other outside factor. While these factors lead to what on the surface looks like a herd strategy, in actuality, they have nothing to do with any natural reproductive strategy.

>>>"Research suggests we didn't begin with it. That we had (have) it is evident in our history, even recent history."

"It" being a herd strategy of reproduction, where and in what cultures?

>>>"I suspect we needed larger groups than the bonobo style sexual socializing could provide for, and that we eventually became sexually competitive is self evident."

The competitiveness sited here has nothing, as far as I can see, to do with a "herd strategy" for reproduction. Moreover it's not even the same kind of competitiveness. The competitiveness here has more to do with winning the favor of a receptive female not to exert dominance over other males. Male competition was in hunting and battle, things that showed his ability to provide and protect. In other words males engaged in these competitions with other males to find favor with a receptive female, rather than to win a harem. In the case of humanity nature seems to favor a couple working together, in cooperation, to successfully rear the offspring. In the herds and packs, that I am aware of, where males, do, battle for the opportunity to breed the rearing of the offspring is left, for the most part, to the females. In those cases the male is not, so much, seeking the approval of the females, as I believe is seen in humanity, his importance is reduced to being little more than a sperm donor.

"The loss of efficiency here is made up for by the gain in efficiency in both survival odds of members of the group from outside threats and survival odds from the benefits of civilization, which itself is a result of less competition and more cooperation."

I concur, to a point, but the type of competition discussed here, I don't see as being endemic to human nature. Again, the competition is to win favor, not to drive away all other males by force of dominance.

>>>"...but we are speaking of the "right to marry" as it exists in the civilized world (as opposed to the natural world)..."

Are we talking about philosophy or natural sciences? If we are speaking about abstract concepts such as matrimony and civilization I think philosophy would make a better vehicle for the dialogue.

>>>"I see all rights as accrued to the individual, and the right to marry as an individual's right to join in a socially recognized union with a member of the opposite sex." Emphasis added

Secular or not, that is a philosophical belief that has nothing to do with reproductive strategies, herd or otherwise.

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but I am not seeing the connection that any of this has to homosexual equality in modern America. Would you please clarify that for me?

If you have a Civil Union, do you get the same benefits of marriage? Like, can you be on your partners health insurance?

"If you have a Civil Union, do you get the same benefits of marriage? Like, can you be on your partners health insurance?"Sure...I mean, why not? A lot of companies already recognize "significant others" (regardless of marital status) for purposes of benefits...medical, dental and otherwise. I work at one such company, and I know there are several others...with the number increasing all the time.

>If you have a Civil Union, do you get the same benefits of marriage? Like, can you be on your partners health insurance?

Yes, in theory a Civil Union would give the same exact benefit to gay couples as Marriage would give to Straight couples. But there are certain people who feel gay people should not be allowed the word marriage because we'll "taint" it's meaning and for some off reason it would lead way to people marrying their pets etc etc. Craziness if you ask me.

Then why the hell not just let it be marriage? Am I wrong in thinking this is just stupid?

Not stupid at all sweetie.. that's my thoughts completely!