[Nuclear1]

Totally agree.  Marriage is a fundamental right, even if because it's so essential in (American) society.  I mean, you can give people civil unions and give them all the same legal rights, but it's still not the same thing.

free broad band internet and cars are now fundamental human rights.

Source?

Also, I'd agree that the principles those represent are certainly rights--rights to information, communication, and transportation are certainly essential.  (Again, simply because they're so essential to being productive world citizens)

[BengalTiger]

It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.

You can't 'not buy it'.

Also, for reference, since I doubt you clicked the link:

How does over-dominance and sexually antagonistic selection improve survival of individuals/species involved?
Do those 2 perps not make an individual with them an evolutionary by-product?

Also- do only homosexuals provide resources to their siblings (in the cases of both animals and humans)? If not, than it's no way of evolutionary favouring homosexuality.

Another thing is that in the case of humans, the social glue and solving intrasexual conflict are attained by other means than homosexual behavior, such as war or hanging out with your buddies (unless hanging out with your buddies would fit within the definition of homosexual behavior- I'm no expert here).

I've also never heard of a human case where people practiced reproduction with someone of the same gender only to move on to a heterosexual relationship when they figured everything out.

And last, but not least- which of our ancestors used indirect insamination? And does indirect insamination involve relationships between 2 males, or is it one male using the other as a 'proxy'?

P.S. Lots of animals fight (often to the death) over females, food and territory. Why are so many of us against wars, which are so common in nature?

[General Battuta]

How does over-dominance and sexually antagonistic selection improve survival of individuals/species involved?
Do those 2 perps not make an individual with them an evolutionary by-product?

It improves the fitness of males/females with the trait. Individuals of the opposite gender end up as homosexuals. The trait improves the fitness of one gender more than it harms the fitness of the other, so it is, on net, selected for.

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionary byproduct.' If the trait is selected for, then it is selected for.

Also- do only homosexuals provide resources to their siblings (in the cases of both animals and humans)? If not, than it's no way of evolutionary favouring homosexuality.

Of course not; in many cases homosexuality is not at all involved (see Florida scrub jays.) Yet in some cases homosexuals are better because they do not ever use resources for their own siblings, and in these cases they are selected for. All that matters is whether individual fitness is maximized by homosexuality. If it is, homosexuality evolves.

Furthermore, it is unwise of you to assume that you can make a claim like 'if this is so, then this is so' without actually gathering field data and running the math. People seem to have it in their heads that this is a political issue rather than a scientific one, and therefore can be addressed with rhetoric.

Another thing is that in the case of humans, the social glue and solving intrasexual conflict are attained by other means than homosexual behavior, such as war or hanging out with your buddies (unless hanging out with your buddies would fit within the definition of homosexual behavior- I'm no expert here).

You are surprisingly wrong. Think about Greece, the Sacred Band, and numerous other examples. Homosexuality is a common 'glue' practice.

I've also never heard of a human case where people practiced reproduction with someone of the same gender only to move on to a heterosexual relationship when they figured everything out.

...there are millions of such cases worldwide.

And last, but not least- which of our ancestors used indirect insamination? And does indirect insamination involve relationships between 2 males, or is it one male using the other as a 'proxy'?

Please read the image you quoted again.

P.S. Lots of animals fight (often to the death) over females, food and territory. Why are so many of us against wars, which are so common in nature? [/color]

It doesn't make one bit of difference whether a trait is natural or not any more. We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago. This argument is simply a scientific explanation of how homosexuality evolved. (Politically, it counters the common outcry that homosexuality is 'unnatural' and 'wrong.)

For example, humans are biologically classified as non-monogamous promiscuous maters, on both the social and reproductive levels. Yet most modern societies are socially monogamous (even though historically this has not been true.)

[Bobboau]

We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.

bull, everything we do is natural.

[Herra Tohtori]

Let's say we've transcended purely instinctual behaviour then (although that might not be true in many cases).

Though same could be said of great apes and probably many cetaceans. At any rate the notion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Opposition of war or violence in general has nothing to do with the fact that violence exists naturally everywhere. The difference is the reasons for the violence. Animals fight and kill for defending themselves, their territory or their pack, or to acquire food. Chimpanzees and humans, though, seem to have more complicated reasons for massive organized violence agaisnt other groups. While being natural, that's not a reason to condone and accept starting wars.

Or in more general terms; whether or not something can be classified as "natural" is irrelevant regarding the acceptability of the thing (mostly because "natural" can be considered a tautology just like Bobboau and I consider it to be; everything that happens in nature is by definition natural; everything is in nature, therefore everything is natural) . The criteria that should be used in evaluating things is Kant's categorical imperative (or other ethics if you so choose).

...of course, here we run into comparative ethics and what criteria should be used to classify different things as acceptable and non-acceptable. Mainly, whether you choose deontological or consequential approach... and which branch of those you pick as your poison.

[General Battuta]

We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.

bull, everything we do is natural.

It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.

It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.

[Bobboau]

It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.

It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.

I'm not sure if that was agreement or disagreement...

[Herra Tohtori]

I'm not sure if that was agreement or disagreement...

It was a politician's answer.

[Titan]

We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.

bull, everything we do is natural.

It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.

It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.

Are you saying that our society's technology and culture allows us to do wierd, whacked out things that we couldn't do in nature?

... because I have no idea what you just said. And I just realized that the previous sentence makes no sense, and proves that people from Rochester have an accent.

[General Battuta]

Since we are a species of animal, all our behavior is inherently natural.

We choose to place moral valence on actions using rhetoric like 'natural' and 'unnatural', though, and while inaccurate it still carries weight.

[Titan]

Since we are a species of animal, all our behavior is inherently natural.

We choose to place moral valence on actions using rhetoric like 'natural' and 'unnatural', though, and while inaccurate it still carries weight.

Oh.

I like to think that everything we do can be explained in some way by that's how we evolved, and to a degree, that's how we would act regardless of whether or not we had sentience. It just makes sense to me.

[General Battuta]

Well, that last statement is wrong. We would not behave the same way without sentience. Sentience is part of our evolutionary heritage and it changes our behavior.

[Titan]

Emphasis on to a degree. I meant most of our behavior such as cliques and hoarding chocolate can be traced to something that we would be doing regardless.

[BengalTiger]

Or in more general terms; whether or not something can be classified as "natural" is irrelevant regarding the acceptability of the thing.

Which means that while some animals display homosexual behavior, it doesn't mean that people should accept such behavior among each other.
As such I disagree with the argument that there should be something like gay marriage because animals do it and "it's natural".

[General Battuta]

That argument has not been made.

The argument that has been made is that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation, one that arises in many species.

Instead, gay marriage should be accepted because equality is a fundamental human right. Because gay people are as genetically determined as straight people, they cannot justly be discriminated against.

[General Battuta]

And - yeah, double post - it's important to note that homosexuality has often been tarred as unnatural and therefore worth discriminating against, and it's critical to counter that argument if justice is to be achieved.

[Bobboau]

I can see the strategic reasoning, but I think you should condition your argument with a "if it's unnatural then..." rather than simply accepting the premise.

[BengalTiger]

That argument has not been made.

Well it appears often in discussions such as this one.

The argument that has been made is that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation, one that arises in many species.

If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.
The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.
And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.
All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.

In other words, I'm not convinced that the argument that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation is correct.

And - yeah, double post - it's important to note that homosexuality has often been tarred as unnatural and therefore worth discriminating against, and it's critical to counter that argument if justice is to be achieved.

Same thing goes with promoting it.

[General Battuta]

You clearly did not read or understand the papers in question.

Please reread them until you understand the concept of inclusive fitness.

The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.

Yes they do. They get more offspring than they would by being straight.

And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.

No, they get passed down because homosexuality increases their chance of being passed down (in the case of inclusive fitness.)

All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.

No they are not. Because they are 50% shared with siblings, they are passed down by the siblings. In fact, they are passed down better than they would be if the individuals were heterosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would be selected against and vanish.

If homosexuality were not a natural occurrence it would not arise naturally and independently in so many species. Furthermore, there are so many mating systems out there that assuming homosexuality is somehow a 'defect' is absurd. There are far weirder practices in the natural world.

[Rian]

If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.

Infertility is treated as a disorder because people who want to have children are unable to have them. When people don’t want children, they often induce artificial infertility by means of birth control or sterilization, suggesting that the crucial difference is whether or not the condition interferes with the person’s life goals.

Bearing that in mind, who are you to tell gay people that there’s something wrong with them when they’re happy the way they are? Who are you to tell them that they cannot live their lives as they choose, on the basis of a characteristic that they have no control over? If you are the one preventing them from living full, satisfying lives (through political opposition to equal rights), then perhaps you are the pathology.