Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[cheesehead]

Just find an agreeable judge ...

[jasong]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

all except exposing yourself can happen in the bedroom at last check.

rape and molestation are basically unconsented sex, public nudity I believe can be caused by the public being able to see your nudity from outside ( or last thing I read on the topic, which was from a version of the pocket criminal code of canada 2002 I believe), and polygamy is have multiple sex partners ( nothing about this can't be done inside).

Okay, let me spell it out for you. When people say that government is supposed to stay out of the bedroom, they're talking about privacy. Moral views aside, the government shouldn't have any say into a person's sexuality. As far as they're concerned, a marriage where there's no sex and a marriage where there's sex every day should look the same from a legal perspective. The term "gay marriage" attached to a law implies that they are concerning themselves with people's sexuality.

In my mind, the proper way to approach things is not to talk about sexuality, but whether or not to extend marriage rights to people of the same gender. Since, as I said, it isn't the government's business to care about your sexuality, religious views about sexuality aren't really relevant to the marriage laws. Of course this would then mean that people who aren't attracted to each other sexually could get married for other reasons. For instance, I might have a male friend that I'd want to marry simply for the purpose of lower taxes.

There are many reasons to be in favor or against same sex marriage, but I think sexuality should be left out of it since, as I said, sexuality isn't the government's business.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Those for it view it as a "civil rights" issue. Those against it view it as a "changing the family structure" issue.

Those against gay marriage for this reason will not be led to want to change the definition of marriage after seeing gay neighbors any more than seeing single parents succeeding in raising children would lead them to want to promote that form of parenting above the ideal (both a father and a mother). Further, if (as is the central issue in America) this is a civil rights issue, then when marriage is opened up to the LGBT crowd, polygamy will follow.

The problem is, regular marriage as it is now in the US has become such a sham that it alone has led to millions of single parents raising kids alone. I'm terrified to think what the divorce rate is in America. The way I see it, "seeing single parents succeeding in raising children" is a sign that marriage as it is now is wrong and needs to change. The heterosexuals clearly aren't doing right; having been denied such, I suspect most (of the initial) homosexual marriages will be much more love-ful (what's the right word there?) than your average "normal" marriage.

I used to be against gay marriage, or at least gay-adoption-of-kids, fearing the "oh, what does your mommy/daddy do?" -- "I have two dads/moms" -- "Weirdo! (insert much teasing, insulting and bullying here)". Since I stated that view in a class on our constitution, however, I've heard mostly good things about the adoptions that have gone through. I would still maintain that two loving gay parents can provide more of a childhood than a single parent of any sort are capable of. In the near term outlook then, I think that gay marriage can be nothing but a good thing for society.

Edit: tl;dr: The "standard family nucleus" derived from "normal" marriage is already dead, IMO. Gay marriage will help that nucleus recover somewhat.

Addendum: Even if polygamy were un-outlawed after gay marriage was legalized, what's wrong with that?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

The problem is, regular marriage as it is now in the US has become such a sham that it alone has led to millions of single parents raising kids alone. I'm terrified to think what the divorce rate is in America. The way I see it, "seeing single parents succeeding in raising children" is a sign that marriage as it is now is wrong and needs to change. The heterosexuals clearly aren't doing right; having been denied such, I suspect most (of the initial) homosexual marriages will be much more love-ful (what's the right word there?) than your average "normal" marriage.

I would agree with you that the marriage structure in our nation needs to change.

In particular, we need to do away with "no fault" divorce laws. We need to remove incentives for unwed people to have babies, or monetary incentives to stay unwed.

As for which parenting styles are better for children: there are a lot of studies which have been done and which are being done. Many of them have huge flaws in their methodology, unfortunately. (Some claim to show that homosexual parenting does lead to increased homosexuality in the children, and others claim to refute this assertion. etc...) As time goes on, and we can see the effects of this parenting style on children, we will have more studies available.

However, uniformly, studies show that being raised by one's natural biological parents is the best situation across the board.

I used to be against gay marriage, or at least gay-adoption-of-kids, fearing the "oh, what does your mommy/daddy do?" -- "I have two dads/moms" -- "Weirdo! (insert much teasing, insulting and bullying here)". Since I stated that view in a class on our constitution, however, I've heard mostly good things about the adoptions that have gone through. I would still maintain that two loving gay parents can provide more of a childhood than a single parent of any sort are capable of. In the near term outlook then, I think that gay marriage can be nothing but a good thing for society.

Adoptions are almost always better than not being adopted. I would agree with you that far.

Claiming that being adopted is better than being raised by one of your parents; I think you would need to clarify exactly what you were talking about there.

The "standard family nucleus" derived from "normal" marriage is already dead, IMO. Gay marriage will help that nucleus recover somewhat.

IMO, gay marriage will erode the societal reason for marriage even further, making it solely about the desires of the couple being married. This would divorce the concept of marriage completely from the ages-old societal goal of creating the most stable environment in which to raise children.

Statistically, homosexual couples are much, much less likely to raise any children (others things being equalized).

Addendum: Even if polygamy were un-outlawed after gay marriage was legalized, what's wrong with that?

I personally am not knowledgeable about the literature on polygamous family structures. But those concerns shouldn't be ignored outright.

[Zeta-Flux]

Speaking of methodological flaws in previous studies: new study challenges established view and is gay parenting bad for kids?

[cheesehead]

Andrea S. Camperio Ciani, who has headed at least one previous study of linkage between male homosexuality and female fecundity^* has just had results of a new study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Abstract:

"Factors Associated with Higher Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Homosexual Men"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...785.x/abstract

Introduction.  Recent evidence suggests that sexually antagonistic genetic factors in the maternal line promote homosexuality in men and fecundity in female relatives. However, it is not clear if and how these genetic factors are phenotypically expressed to simultaneously induce homosexuality in men and increased fecundity in their mothers and maternal aunts.

Aims.  The aim of the present study was to investigate the phenotypic expression of genetic factors that could explain increased fecundity in the putative female carriers.

Methods.  Using a questionnaire-based approach, which included also the Big Five Questionnaire personality inventory based on the Big Five theory, we investigated fecundity in 161 female European subjects and scrutinized possible influences, including physiological, behavioral, and personality factors. We compared 61 female probands who were either mothers or maternal aunts of homosexual men. One hundred females who were mothers or aunts of heterosexual men were used as controls.

Main Outcome Measures.  Personality traits, retrospective physiological and clinical data, behavior and opinions on fecundity-related issues were assessed and analyzed to illustrate possible effects on fecundity between probands and control females.

Results.  Our analysis showed that both mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men show increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men. A two-step statistical analysis, which was based on t-tests and multiple logistic regression analysis, showed that mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men (i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.

Conclusions.  Our findings are based on a small sample and would benefit from a larger replication, however they suggest that if sexually antagonistic genetic factors that induce homosexuality in males exist, the factors might be maintained in the population by contributing to increased fecundity greater reproductive health, extraversion, and a generally relaxed attitude toward family and social values in females of the maternal line of homosexual men. Camperio Ciani AS, Fontanesi L, Iemmola F, Giannella E, Ferron C, and Lombardi L. Factors associated with higher fecundity in female maternal relatives of homosexual men. J Sex Med **;**:**–**.

The following article, about that study, seems aimed at those who, like me, were not previously familiar with the term "probands":

"'Gay Gene' Survived Evolution As It Is Carried By Mothers Who Have More Children, Study

Male homosexuality is inborn and may be triggered by a gene carried by mothers, new findings suggest."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/201...-evolution.htm

Male homosexuality is inborn and may be triggered by a gene carried by mothers, new findings suggest.

Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality as a trait would not last because it discourages reproductive sex with women and therefore procreation.

However a new study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, found a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who are prone to have significantly more children compared to the maternal relatives of straight men.

Researchers led by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, say that the findings of the link between homosexuality and female fertility strongly support the "balancing selection hypothesis," which suggests that a gene which causes homosexuality also leads to high fecundity or reproduction among their female relatives.

The team noted that the "gay man gene" may not get passed down directly, but instead survive through the generations through future generations making their male inheritors gay.

Researchers analyzed the personality and fecundity of 61 females who were either mothers or maternal aunts of homosexual men to 100 females who were mothers or aunts of heterosexual men.

Originally the team thought the reason why women who inherited the "gay man gene" might have more babies is simply because it increased androphilia, or attraction to men, thus making the male inheritors homosexual and the female inheritors more promiscuous.

However, after analyzing the personal characteristics of 161 female maternal relatives of homosexual and heterosexual men, researchers changed their hypothesis and suggested that rather than making the women more attracted to men and therefore more promiscuous, the "gay man gene" appears to make female inheritors more attractive to men.

"High fecundity, that means having more babies, is not about pleasure in sex, nor is it about promiscuity. The androphilic pattern that we found is about females who increase their reproductive value to attract the best males," Camperio Ciani told Life's Little Mysteries.

The team found that the gene appeared to make women more fertile, have fewer gynecological disorders and fewer pregnancy complications. The findings also suggest that gene led to women who were funnier, happier, more extroverted and more relaxed, leading them to have fewer family problems and social anxieties.

. . .

- - -

^* Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C (November 2004). "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity". Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 (1554): 2217–21. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2004.2872. PMC 1691850. PMID 15539346.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

Interesting study. Thanks for linking it. I always find it interesting how the news interprets what a study states:

(i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.

The findings also suggest that gene led to women who were funnier, happier, more extroverted and more relaxed, leading them to have fewer family problems and social anxieties.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

cheesehead,

Interesting study. Thanks for linking it. I always find it interesting how the news interprets what a study states:

The article seems to be based on the full text of the study rather than only the abstract. (E.g., "balancing selection hypothesis," which the article seems to be quoting as the researchers' words, does not appear in the abstract.)

Shouldn't it also be interesting how you decided which phrases to boldface there? What is your intended implication?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The article seems to be based on the full text of the study rather than only the abstract. (E.g., "balancing selection hypothesis," which the article seems to be quoting as the researchers' words, does not appear in the abstract.)

Shouldn't it also be interesting how you decided which phrases to boldface there? What is your intended implication?

Yes, I think that it is interesting how I decided to do what I did. Since I am the one who did it, and I am fairly introspective, how about l venture an educated guess. :-) I would guess that I bolded the two portions because I read them as directly contradictory. I don't see "reduced family stability" and "divorced or separated...more frequently" to be compatible with "fewer family problems." (My intended implication was the very minor, but in my opinion obvious, point that news articles are not entirely reliable interpreters of studies.)

I'm interested to see if you can demonstrate your guess that somehow the full test of the article demonstrates "fewer family problems." Please demonstrate that claim.

[philmoore]

I have read of research demonstrating a correlation between having an older brother and the probability of a male being homosexual, with speculation that the hormonal interaction between the mother and the elder son influences the later gestational environment of the younger son. If this is true, we would of course expect a correlation of male homosexuality with increased family size. I am just pointing out that the assumption of a "homosexuality gene" is not necessary to explain the sort of correlations seen in this study.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I have read of research demonstrating a correlation between having an older brother and the probability of a male being homosexual, with speculation that the hormonal interaction between the mother and the elder son influences the later gestational environment of the younger son. If this is true, we would of course expect a correlation of male homosexuality with increased family size. I am just pointing out that the assumption of a "homosexuality gene" is not necessary to explain the sort of correlations seen in this study.

This is an important observation i.m.o.
Another factor is the problem of identifying an individual's sexual orientation. You have to ask them. And the answer, sometimes, will be "heterosexual" even when the person has strong but repressed attraction to their own gender. This repression could be inversely related to having female relatives with the characteristics identified by the study (extraversion, etc), which could easily be another non-genetic link: female relatives influence the environment in which a person grows up, and this environment could in turn affect whether a gay person is able to "come out".