Thanks, Scorn.  This is indeed something to be optimistic about.

What in the world could be so threatening about this?

a)it’s ungodly, because it’s forbidden in the Bible
b)it’s weird, because it’s something most of us don’t do, and we don’t want to think about it, because maybe we’re weird too…

Well I was wrong - I am posting again.

I’m not sure if someone’s already said this, but maybe a good reason to not have homosexual marriages is because any kids that they adopt (or concieve with female couples) are perhaps more likely to become homosexual. This looks bad evolutionary, as a race of pure homosexuals will most likely die out.

However it also struck me that maybe this is exactly what evolution intends - maybe humans have dominated long enough and something has decided that it is time for us to end. Maybe a similar idea as with the dinosaurs? Or maybe a lesser form, just trying to control the human population before the world is eaten up.

But how could this be? Even some people who have no idea that there are greater than 6 billion humans on earth and have no contact with any outsiders are gay.

Some mysteries only time will tell. The others are there for discussion.

maybe a good reason to not have homosexual marriages is because any kids that they adopt (or concieve with female couples) are perhaps more likely to become homosexual.

No, their kids will be more likely to be ACCEPTING of homosexuals, not to “become” homosexuals. I think more acceptance is a great thing. And I think you’re right about the world needing some kind of population control, so maybe accepting the life choices of some people whereby they are gay and do not have children, or maybe are straight and do not have children will help control the world’s population. Also, by gay people adopting children, those children can be raised in loving homes rather than foster homes and whatnot.

Err, sorry, not to say foster homes aren’t loving, but being fully adopted makes for a much more stable life than being bounced from foster home to foster home.

Anonymous spoke through the cowl of his Bat-mask:

Well I was wrong - I am posting again.

*GASP!*  Who didn’t see *that* coming?!

Anonymous: I’m not sure if someone’s already said this, but maybe a good reason to not have homosexual marriages is because any kids that they adopt (or concieve with female couples) are perhaps more likely to become homosexual.

The main reason no one has said this already is because it’s idiotic.

That is, unless you have some statistical evidence to present which shows that children who live (or are brought up by) homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual. 

Anonymous: This looks bad evolutionary, as a race of pure homosexuals will most likely die out.

That’s only if there’s a “homosexual gene” that ONLY homosexuals could “pass on” . . . right?  Cuz REAL heterosexuals don’t “pass on” homosexuality - right? 

I’m sure your high-profile alter-ego has all this documentation at his fingertips . . . 

Anonymous: However it also struck me that maybe this is exactly what evolution intends - maybe humans have dominated long enough and something has decided that it is time for us to end. Maybe a similar idea as with the dinosaurs? Or maybe a lesser form, just trying to control the human population before the world is eaten up.

What the fuck are you babbling about?  Are you saying that humans are gonna go extinct because of homosexuals?  What about all of those hetersexuals fuckin’ away out there? 

Anonymous: But how could this be? Even some people who have no idea that there are greater than 6 billion humans on earth and have no contact with any outsiders are gay.

I’ve tried, but I simply cannot parse this statement.  Mind if I run it through your Bat-Computer?

Anonymous: Some mysteries only time will tell. The others are there for discussion.

In order for there to be “discussion”, there has to be some logical premise submitted for consideration.  I’m still waiting for one from you . . .

any kids that they adopt (or concieve with female couples) are perhaps more likely to become homosexual.

Emphasis added. Do I hear you say that homosexuals procreate, thus rendering your own hypothesis moot?

However it also struck me that maybe this is exactly what evolution intends

Evolution does not intend anything.

Anonymous - However it also struck me that maybe this is exactly what evolution intends

Elwed - Evolution does not intend anything.

Gee, Elwed, ya beat me to it.  But this illustrates a common, basic mistake; to anthropomorphicize the universe.  Emergent processes just are.  Yet I hear people all the time speak as if evolution were working toward some goal (which is usually humanity). 

The basic mistake is contained in the question; “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?“ It assumes evolution is a directed process, and ignores divergence leading to diversity.

I think our species pretty much has that whole, “Be fruitful and multiply” thing down.  A few non-reproductive behavioral variations will certainly not hurt.

This looks bad evolutionary, as a race of pure homosexuals will most likely die out.

However it also struck me that maybe this is exactly what evolution intends - maybe humans have dominated long enough and something has decided that it is time for us to end. Maybe a similar idea as with the dinosaurs?

This certainly does a number on my worldview, Anonymous.  So it wasn’t an asteroid, or volcanoes, or hay fever that killed off the dinosaurs:  they just all up and turned queer.  One would have thought, however, that we would have found some fossil record at the K/T boundary of the humongous gay dino bars…

One would have thought, however, that we would have found some fossil record at the K/T boundary of the humongous gay dino bars…

No no no - intelligent design leaves no traces.

In the last post I used some poor choices of words. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I am homophobic.

Beau Tochs - That is, unless you have some statistical evidence to present which shows that children who live (or are brought up by) homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual.

This is a good point. I don’t have any evidence that what I said is true, but this is the way that some people think. It could be right, could be wrong. I don’t necessarily believe it either. The whole issue is very political.

elwedriddsche - Do I hear you say that homosexuals procreate, thus rendering your own hypothesis moot?

Assuming that the previous idea about homosexuals being more likely to bring up homosexual children is correct (just bear with it for a minute) then perhaps the vast majority of the human race would be gay in the future (continuing the trend from the last 50 years or so of the increase of homosexuality).

At this point, my chain of thought was that a race of homosexuals will probably have less than 2 children per couple, reducing the population over time. This thinking is probably flawed because I was imagining a race of more primitive beings with a smaller population than humans.

Even if the human race were 100% homosexual, I expect that they would come to some solution like you pointed out. I was just thinking that a process originally driven by biological urges would not happen without them.

The amount of homosexuals in the world today gives a fair indication that homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead end.

elwedriddsche - Evolution does not intend anything.

I should have said the future, and I could have used a better word than intend, but you get the general idea.

decrepitoldfool - Yet I hear people all the time speak as if evolution were working toward some goal (which is usually humanity)

Right. There is nothing to tell us that evolution is moving towards anything - people like to believe it though. I guess this is similar to believing in God. It is probably just a person’s own way of dealing with the hoplessness of the situation.

zilch - This certainly does a number on my worldview, Anonymous.  So it wasn’t an asteroid, or volcanoes, or hay fever that killed off the dinosaurs:  they just all up and turned queer.

I just meant that once upon a time, the largest, most dominant animals on the planet were wiped out very quickly. Maybe it will happen again?

Anyway it was just a thought.

Intelligence breeds unhappiness

Anonymous

I’m a bit behind in responding to this thread, but bear with me…

Beau Tochs - That is, unless you have some statistical evidence to present which shows that children who live (or are brought up by) homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual.

This is a good point. I don’t have any evidence that what I said is true, but this is the way that some people think. It could be right, could be wrong. I don’t necessarily believe it either. The whole issue is very political.

Yes, some people do think what you said is true. According to a number of studies that have been done those people are incorrect:

“Children raised in homosexual households will become gay.“ The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, “If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay”. Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of “significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals”. - Source: Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It doesn’t take much searching to look this data up on your own.

Assuming that the previous idea about homosexuals being more likely to bring up homosexual children is correct (just bear with it for a minute) then perhaps the vast majority of the human race would be gay in the future (continuing the trend from the last 50 years or so of the increase of homosexuality).

At this point, my chain of thought was that a race of homosexuals will probably have less than 2 children per couple, reducing the population over time. This thinking is probably flawed because I was imagining a race of more primitive beings with a smaller population than humans.

It’s a moot point, but you’ve got some faulty assumptions working in the above argument. Namely that homosexual parents will always end up raising homosexual kids. Even if the assumption that homosexuality is a choice and not an issue of genetics turned out to be true there’s nothing that says all children of homosexuals would choose to emulate their parents in adopting that lifestyle.

Even if the human race were 100% homosexual, I expect that they would come to some solution like you pointed out. I was just thinking that a process originally driven by biological urges would not happen without them.

The amount of homosexuals in the world today gives a fair indication that homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead end.

The fact that there are a number of animal species in the world in which homosexuality is common yet the species continues to thrive proves right there that homosexuality isn’t the threat to continued existence some folks like to think it is.

Right. There is nothing to tell us that evolution is moving towards anything - people like to believe it though. I guess this is similar to believing in God. It is probably just a person’s own way of dealing with the hoplessness of the situation.

Hope is largely a matter of attitude and perspective. I don’t see anything hopeless about a Godless universe or means in which Evolution takes place. Indeed, the fact that constant change is the norm is what gives me hope for the future.

I just meant that once upon a time, the largest, most dominant animals on the planet were wiped out very quickly. Maybe it will happen again?

Maybe? I’d argue probably. The difference being that we may have the foresight and ingenuity to avoid that fate should the day arrive again. Of course, we also have the means of doing ourselves in long before some natural event such as a killer asteroid has a chance to do it for us.

The fact that there are a number of animal species in the world in which homosexuality is common yet the species continues to thrive proves right there that homosexuality isn’t the threat to continued existence some folks like to think it is.

Well, that depends on how you define “homosexuality”.  True, male-male and female-female sexual behavior has been observed in numerous animals, but males who exhibit exclusively gay sexual preference are only know from two species: humans and sheep.  What this means, if anything, is unclear.

In any case, two things do seem clear.  One, the human race is in no imminent danger of dying out because of homosexuality.  Two, no matter what the cause of homosexuality is, it is not a sin or a crime.

Don’t ask me for the source- I read that too long ago- but scientists estimate that gays make approx 5% of the population, whatever the climate towards them. Obviously it is hard to tell in repressive cultures, as people will stay in the closet, but the evidence seems to show its fairly steady.  Also there appears to be correlation between number elder brothers of men and the number of gays.  (ie a higher proportion of 5th sons are gay than 1st sons).

Richard Dawkins argues against the ‘blame the gene’- he gives the analogy of a blanket stretched by tangled ropes- any adjustment of one will pull others so changing the shape of the blanket in unpredictable ways.  To blame the shape of the blanket on one rope is therefore irresponsible.

Question for procreasionalist marriage supporters- I have 2 kids and a vasectomy- can I still get married next year?

Only to another man! 

———————————————>

Not a man (trust me on this…)

Because it was a civil ceremony done at County Hall you are not allowed to have ANY religeous references. The right wing press got very upset when Robbie Willams song Angels was banned from one office.

We now have civil partnerships in Britain. Not marriage, but every one treats them the same- they are called Gay Marriages. As far as I know it confers the same rights.