Should Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions for commited Homosexual Couples be legalized in the entire United States?


Want to post a match question to the forums?

It's easy! Simply click the "open for debate" link on any match question.


Nov 6, 2013

If you are still living in Florida, it won't get legal there. That is one of those Christian states down in the South-east.


Nov 9, 2013

Voting on a thing doesn't change human nature. A man cannot breastfeed a baby. The biology doesn't  care about your laws. Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait, and it has always been so for at least 400 million years ago. Even if 90% ppl decide to issue law which declares that pigs can fly, it won't change the fact they can't.

So plus/minus one more state to "legalize" (really, introduce) SSM doesn't matter much. I was interested, however, about how many people enter SSM marriages in countries where such marriages are legal long time ago. I found no such info. 

Seemingly, most gay ppl don't need SSM marriage anyway. But letting general public to know that won't be good for gay rights, of course? So LGBT advocates are hiding the truth so its hard to find. They are cherrypicking "evidence" and silencing others. There's an edit war on wikipedia now. Pro-LGBT ppl don't want to have a reference to an article in SCIENTIFIC, PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL. Because, if a link exists people could read it, and it won't be good for gay rights.


Nov 10, 2013

You will probably not find any information on SSM in countries where it was legal a long time ago, because there was not even 1 country where SSM was legal  a long time ago.

For the past few thousand years people of the opposite sex were considered to be an essential part of a marriage.

Same sex marriage was only invented by divorce lawyers a few years ago.


Nov 15, 2013

Voting on a thing doesn't change human nature. A man cannot breastfeed a baby. The biology doesn't  care about your laws.

Oh. I don't know about that...

I'm fascinated about these other "facts" you claim are true.

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait, and it has always been so for at least 400 million years ago.

I don't suppose you've read exhaustively on the subject, since clearly you've missed a bevy of viable theories that explains how useful the trait could be for our ancient ancestors. See "Gay Uncle" Theory. Calling homosexuality "maladaptive" is just ill-educated pseudo science language used by social conservatives to make themselves seem as intelligent as the people they are arguing against.

Sure it sounds impressive, but there's no actual scientific weight to it.

Seemingly, most gay ppl don't need SSM marriage anyway. But letting general public to know that won't be good for gay rights, of course?

I like these generalizations of yours.  They make you seem like you know what you're talking about. I mean, if you look at the CDC's numbers on straight marriage, you'll find that an increasing majority of hetros don't want it either.

But even if marriage is a thing which is going out of style, that doesn't mean that the state should stop aspiring to deliver equal rights to people regardless of their sexual preference.


Nov 15, 2013

Although the CDC is a federal government agency, it is not located in Washington, it is in Atlanta. The people who work there are stupid rednecks. You can't take anything they say seriously.

Remember Jeff Foxworthy, and his "you might be a redneck" jokes? The high school he went to is only a few miles away from the CDC. Perhaps this is where he learned about stupid rednecks.


Nov 15, 2013

I had interest in evolutionary biology long before I started paying attention to LGBT rights drama. I thought, "dirersity, cool". But when I became familiar with methods right activists use...

and, it is you and Democrats who spread junk science on LGBT subject:

average Democrats give the same answer as uneducated people

average Republicans give the same answer as people with some education.

Of course, there ARE *OTHER* topics where Democrats might spread truth and Reps junk science, but that is offtopic.

"Gay uncle theory" is junk. Father shares 1/2 genes with his offspring. Uncle shares only 1/4 genes with his nieces. In order for "gay uncle theory" to work, gay uncle has to be TWICE as helpful to raising nieces as father, which is beyond imagination.

Now, if you ask me what biologists really think how "gay genes" might have survived in population, it's like sickle-cell anemia: the same genes which increase fertility/desire in heterosexuals, might create same-sex desire when found in opposite gender. it's like having your computer overclocked: you get more performance, at the expense of increasing risk of fault.

if a male becomes gay, it's not because of "gay genes", but it is because of the same genes which make heterosexual females to be attracted to males, erroneously activated in a male might make him gay. it's fault.

there is a benefit for having two separate sexes - and there are genetic mechanisms evolved because of that. in mammals males are marked with Y chromosome. in birds females are marked with W chromosome. in ants and bees, males have haploid genome. and there is no gay gene. because all such genes were filtered out by natural selection.

most of lgbt right supporters insist that being gay is inborn. science has not proven that. if it had, it would have opened way to detecting sexual orientation in fetuses and selectively aborting them. (note I don't have problem with someone selectively aborting heterosexual fetuses and retaining others).

you don't want that. you don't want knowledge. because someone else might use that knowledge to do what you don't like. therefore you spread lies over everywhere.

also... marriage isn't a right - it is a treaty.

if it's a treaty between two gays who mutually agree to cease having sex outside their relationship, i'm for it

if it's a treaty where the state and other people must give benefits to a couple and couple has no responsibility whatsoever - i'm against it. it's misuse of wellfare.

"marriage equality" is a misnomer -- because "equalizers" don't argue for polygamous marriages or for incestous marriages. and there's many more ppl who want to enter polygamous marriage than people who wish to enter same-sex marriage. your "progressivism" and "liberalism" is very anti-democratic.


Nov 15, 2013

If you had a view in evolutionary biology that wasn't informed by your own politics, you would understand that the concept behind the "Gay Uncle" theory isn't about the direct spreading of genes from individual to offspring.  The idea is that villages or communities prosper as a gestalt, and the presence of unattached members who don't have their own children helps the community prosper as a whole.

And really, it's just only one theory-- one that I favour since I think it explains quite a bit pretty neatly. 

if a male becomes gay, it's not because of "gay genes", but it is because of the same genes which make heterosexual females to be attracted to males, erroneously activated in a male might make him gay. it's fault.

This theory is based on what, exactly? There are quite a few studies that have proven a biological element to homosexuality. There are multiple indicators show that there's more than a fluke behind  how this is an ingrained part of humanity-- not the least of which is that there isn't a single culture that lacks this proclivity, regardless of what part of the world they're from.

As to your poor parallel you brought up, Sickle Cell Anemia really only occurs in very insular communities who have a proclivity to inbreed, allowing that weird fluke to continue. 

The right we should be speaking about  is that everyone should be treated the same under the law.  For as long the government dispenses special rights for essentially entering a marital pact, it should aspire to deliver those privileges equally.

(Personally, I think it's rediculous that the government gives those privileges at all.)

And just like Loving v. Virginia brought about the ability for mixed race couples to marry, the definition of marriage is being expanded further to apply to gay couples too. If polygamous people, or cousin-fuckers want to lobby the government for further amendments, they're entitled to do so. 


Nov 16, 2013

As to your poor parallel you brought up, Sickle Cell Anemia really only occurs in very insular communities who have a proclivity to inbreed, allowing that weird fluke to continue.

Nuh-uh. Sickle cell anaemia is more common in people of Black African descent. The same gene sequences that encourages dark skin (and is positively selected for in the tropics because it protects against sun burn) are also responsible for promoting susceptibility to sickle cell anaemia.

Genetics is kinda weird like that. We'll probably find a thousand years down the line that the same genes that cause ginger hair are also required for being able to psychically control hyperspace engines, or something equally improbable. Most genes that don't outright kill their owners before puberty usually have some benefit.


Nov 16, 2013

Unlike some fools who speak only one language and proud of it, I speak three and I'm still learning. I have greater choice of what I can read. Most of biology I read was in English, so it wasn't biased by "your own politics" in any way.

As of sickle-cell anemia, you are lying again and won't excuse when proven so

The prevalence of the disease in the United States is approximately 1 in 5,000, mostly affecting Americans of Sub-Saharan African descent, according to the National Institutes of Health.[56] In the United States, about 1 out of 500 African-American children and 1:36,000 Hispanic-American children born will have sickle-cell anaemia.[57] It is estimated that Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) affects 90,000 Americans.[58] Most infants with SCD born in the United States are now identified by routine neonatal screening. Forty-four states along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands currently provide universal neonatal screening for SCD.[59][60] Sickle Cell trait occurs among about 1:12 African-Americans and 1:100 Hispanic-Americans.[61] It is estimated that 2.5 million Americans are heterozygous carriers for the sickle cell trait.[62] 

The carrier frequency ranges between 10% and 40% across equatorial Africa, decreasing to 1–2% on the north African coast and <1% in South Africa.[55]

It's more common in blacks because blacks come from Africa where malaria is abundant. So in such places natural selection has maintained  sickle cell trait in significant frequencies.

Analogy between SCD and homosexuality is bad, because SCD is a genetic condition (it can be tested prenatally, etc.) and homosexuality is learned experience.

>This theory is based on what, exactly?

>The right we should be speaking about  is that everyone should be treated the same under the law.

Homosexuals can enter regular marriage in any legislation. They don't want it? There is no right "to marry a person who I love". If a some person is very unattractive and nobody wants to marry them, don't you think their "rights" have been violated? 

A man and woman can have their genetic child by natural means, and that's what marriage is about. I think proud childfrees should be stripped of benefits, rather than homosexuals given them.

Black is an identity. A black man and a black woman produce black children. Immediately after birth, everyone sees that their children are black (or of mixed color if wife cheated with non-black man). Everyone knew that, and there was legislation based on that.

Homosexuality is a behavior. Nobody can know if a child is gay or not until the child grows up. Now, if you want for your words to have some scientific basis upon them, you have to show some means of predicting sexual orientation of newborns. It's how science works.




Nov 16, 2013

Anyhow, to get back to the topic of the question itself, the state has no business legislating anything to do with marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Marriage is a contract between to consenting adults and the religious institution of their choice. No state involved. Find a religion that approves of gay marriage, and have a gay marriage with my blessing (in both senses of the word).

A marriage should have absolutely no legal consequence, because the state should have no business in a religious contract, or vice versa.

What the state should be doing is legislating civil unions. This should be defined as a series of tax breaks and legal rights between two consenting adults. Religion should have no voice in deciding who can have a civil union.



Nov 16, 2013

If you search through this thread you will find another theory about the gay gene that a more intelligent person posted.

Essentially, In the past gay people lived in a community of straight people who would hate anyone who was gay. So the gays needed to pretend to be straight. The best way to do this is for a gay man to marry a lesbian and breed. Most straight people would think this proves they are straight. This also allows the gay gene to be passed on to the next generation.

So, if you think gay people would become extinct because their sexual orientation is a handicap, the above explains why the gay gene survives.

Now if the liberals force everyone to think homosexuality is good, and all the gays marry someone of the same sex and they get their children by adopting orphans from Africa, then the gay gene will become extinct, as will the gays.

So if someone is telling you that gay marriage is acceptable, he may have a hidden agenda, he actually wants the gays to become extinct. So if he does this in your Country and gets thrown in jail for doing this, it serves him right!


Nov 16, 2013

I'm confusing Sickle Cell with Tay-Sachs. Apologies. I'm an artist, not a scientician, dammit!  

Regardless, unlike Sickle Cell, where it has links to  a very specific set of cultural backgrounds, we see homosexual traits in every culture on earth-- and in many species outside of our own.  Assuming that it's some sort of flaw that escaped natural selection is a stretch that I would say is an indication of your own bias.

Do a quick search for "Homosexualtiy and Heredity" and try and read the stuff that the majority of academics are speaking about rather than social conservatives publish.

And "black" is just a genetic trait that affects melanin levels. It's not an identity.  Just as homosexuality is a genetic trait (at least, in part) that affects pair bonding and sexual attraction.

It's the same argument, you see?


Nov 16, 2013

"Do a quick search for "Homosexualtiy and Heredity"

If you do the search in Russian you will find that nobody thinks homosexuality is an inherited trait.


Nov 16, 2013

Cut the crap Caveat, You like gay marriage because you see it as a means to eliminate those marriages that gay men and women do to prove they are straight, and if these marriages are gone the gays will be extinct.


Nov 16, 2013

If you do the search in Russian you will find that nobody thinks homosexuality is an inherited trait.

Well, that'll be why the instruction was to search for "Homosexuality and Heredity", and not for "Гомосексуализм и наследственность".



Nov 16, 2013

Oh, you can apologize, cool. Alas, you don't understand how natural selection works. It works with genes, not traits. If there is no gene for a trait, natural selection cannot eliminate it. Suppose there is a mouse who lives in green vegetation. Those birds and reptiles who have good color vision can easily see gray mouse, from their point of view the mouse has trait "easy to spot on green background". It would be advantageous for it to have green fur, and if there was a gene for it, natural selection would propagate this gene in higher frequencies. But there are no gene for it, and no matter how much time will pass, you won't see green mice. They have only limited choice (from black-brown-grey-white range) to choose from. 


We all have blind spot in our each eye. Natural selection hasn't fixed it for millions of years, and never will. We have appendix. We can't produce vitamin C and lots of other vitamins, that our remote ancestors were able to produce. 


Blacks not only have higher melanine levels (in that case there would be no segregation laws), but other shape of face, hairs, teeth, limbs somewhat different, mentality, on average, lower intelligence, higher likelihood of comitting crime.


If you read Dawkins' "Selfish gene", you will understand association between xenophobia and in-group cooperation.


I read a lot. Here is a twins study from Sweden, where they tried to survey ALL twins in the country (thus minimizing biases which plagued earlier studies)


Note that they have hidden true results of their research and the abstract suggests that homosexuality has moderate genetic component and they have omitted confidence intervals (which are huge), but if look into the text, you will find true results 


twins probandwise concordance: 18% MZ vs. 11% DZ (males)


22% vs. 17% (females)


so, if one twin is gay, the other twin is most likely straight anyway. The difference in concordance is small and not statistically significant. If homosexuality was primarily genetic, one would expect results like 80% MZ vs. 25% DZ.

Because MZ twins share all their genes and DZ twins share only 1/4, we would expect that concordance between DZ twins should be closer to concordance between random individuals, not MZ twins. MZ twins are more likely to be together all the time (recruited for movies, shows, etc.) so they are exposed to various environmental factors as well.


Note that many twin pairs didn't respond anyway. this probably explains difference in cordordance, the better coverage is, the smaller is the difference.


>It's the same argument, you see?


it's not. blacks cannot pass as whites, not only paint, but also extensive surgery would be needed.

Race vs. sexual orientation has nothing in common.

race: totally genetic, predicable. you cannot have MZ twins which are of different race.

orientation: no genes known for it, undpredicable. There's more discordant MZ twins than concordant pairs.

if, for some reason, all population changed their skin color, quite a few things would happen.

if, for some reason, all population became homosexual (not bisexual) humanity would head towards extinction. blacks lived for millenia in africa without intervetion of whites. homosexuals cannot live without heterosexuals


Nov 17, 2013

I can read Russian. Obviously I have greater knowledge what Russians think than you. Compared to you, even thecaveat looks smart.

BTW there is no need to explain how "gay gene" persisted, because there is no gay gene. Every time a "gay gene" was found, it was proven wrong when larger and correct sampling was used.



Nov 17, 2013

My point was that the body of information on the topic that is written in Russian is not as big as that written in English.

Nov 17, 2013


I don't understand what you are referring to.

Probably you misunderstood my post which I addressed to Chaeddd. Oops, that's my fault.

Even though is true that the body of information in Russian is much smaller, reading in more than one language helps to eliminate bias. By the way: the Russian Wikipedia is much, much more pro-LGBT than English.


Nov 17, 2013

One of the concepts in the gay gene theory I mentioned is that many gay people make believe they are straight. Therefore if they are taking part in a survey, they will answer that they are straight. This will screw up the survey.

So if a person is a child of a gay man and a gay woman, he will tell you " My parents have gotta be straight, otherwise I would not have been conceived."

These are theories that are unproven. I won't profess to know what causes homosexuality. This thread is not about being gay. It is about how gay marriage is a scam that was invented by divorce lawyers.

I am not making a statement on whether being gay is good or bad, I am asking why have the gay people been allowed to redefine marriage, when all the other kinds of people have not.

Post a comment