Mr_Adams wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
Yes, but this particular behavior doesn't cause anyone else harm, so why should it be prohibited?
There are absolute benefits to legal recognition of unions. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed those same benefits?
As a libertarian, I don't particularly believe that there is any reason for the government to say one way or the other who gets married. You shouldn't need a marriage license from the state, it's none of their buisness. Some sort of legal "union" perhaps, but only for legal purposes.
I agree here, its just that marriage is an easy way to combine everything from joint ownership to medical decisions in emergencies to inheritance to custody. Therefor, I believe it is cost effective for the state to recognize these unions. However, it is a debate point, sure.
Mr_Adams wrote:Why, for example, can a man live with multiple women, and have physical relationships with them all, and there is no problem (I am referring to Hugh Hefner), but can't be married to more than one of them? Why does the government have a say in that?
This is a good point, but one for another thread. Its not related to the homosexuality issue.
Mr_Adams wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:If you are an evolutionist: There is no biological advantage to homosexuality. the gene causing this effect would NOT be passed along, for obvious reasons.
This just shows a misunderstanding of evolution. As long as the occurance were not a significant portion of the population, there is no problem. Its even possible that there is some kind of slight benefit. (though this gets into way off topic issues).
The individuals portraying the gene would not naturally reproduce. You would be able to trace a family history of homosexuality if it were a recessive gene. As far as I've heard, neither of these things has been done, therefore it can not be linked to genetics.
No, what I meant is that there are many traits that get carried on for no apparent reason. The selection part only comes into play in certain instances.. particularly times of "crisis"... be it us using antibiotics in our bodies (and therefore "selecting" for the more resistant bacteria, which is why antibiotics are growing less effective) or some other event.
Beyond that, there might be some reason why this persist that actually is an evolutionary advantage even if we cannot see it immediately. Homosexuality is very much found in much of the heterosexual animal world by-the-way, so it cannot be entirely negative. As an example of how a behavior might seem contrary to evolution, but really is not, there is a bird (cannot remember which one) where the young will stay an extra year with their parents under some circumstances. At first, it seems contradictory.. they stay instead of going out and having their own young. However, in this case, it turns out that we are more closely related to our siblings than our children, so it actually makes sense, genetic-wise, to ensure the siblings survive.
I am not saying I see any particular evolutionary advantage to homosexuality in humans, just saying you cannot dismiss it so readily. In humans, I suspect it is tied into the whole male-female continuum. It could be that part of what makes men homosexual is related to the part that makes some men more nurturing or some other trait (perhaps even an enhanced libido, etc.). It could be that weeding out the genetics that lead to homosexuality (and it is almost certainly a complex mix of genes, there is no "gay gene") would lead to far more aggressive males or some other negative issue, which might be very much contrary to the species survival. I am most definitely NOT saying this IS the case, I am just saying these things are very, very complicated.
In many cases, we see the "benefit" of a gene only in long retrospect. And, there are many traits in human beings that are not objectively beneficial, yet we have still evolved them.
