• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

I think we are stuck in a loop, one that still doesn't provide any argument against SSM
 
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Evolution doesn't only favour heterosexuality, it also favours monogamy. Monogamy isn't solely a religious or cultural construct because back in the Stone Age a fatherless family would've had far more difficulty in defending and feeding themselves. A promiscuous father would've had less ability to raise children with multiple partners in prehistory where resources were far more limited and the child maintenance payments were less enforceable due to an absence of a court system. So the more special, unique, rebellious and intense the desire for a specific person, the more likely it'd continue as a monogamous relationship. Thus any trait correlated with monogamy at the expense of promiscuity is evolutionarily viable. Not all homosexuals are monogamous in the same way that heterosexuals can switch partners, but evolution works over 1000's of years and so only a slight long-term correlation is sufficient for a trait to pass on.
 
Michael McMahon said:
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Evolution doesn't only favour heterosexuality, it also favours monogamy. Monogamy isn't solely a religious or cultural construct because back in the Stone Age a fatherless family would've had far more difficulty in defending and feeding themselves. A promiscuous father would've had less ability to raise children with multiple partners in prehistory where resources were far more limited and the child maintenance payments were less enforceable due to an absence of a court system. So the more special, unique, rebellious and intense the desire for a specific person, the more likely it'd continue as a monogamous relationship. Thus any trait correlated with monogamy at the expense of promiscuity is evolutionarily viable. Not all homosexuals are monogamous in the same way that heterosexuals can switch partners, but evolution works over 1000's of years and so only a slight long-term correlation is sufficient for a trait to pass on.
Click to expand...
You're about two years late with that post.
 
Michael McMahon said:
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Evolution doesn't only favour heterosexuality, it also favours monogamy. Monogamy isn't solely a religious or cultural construct because back in the Stone Age a fatherless family would've had far more difficulty in defending and feeding themselves. A promiscuous father would've had less ability to raise children with multiple partners in prehistory where resources were far more limited and the child maintenance payments were less enforceable due to an absence of a court system. So the more special, unique, rebellious and intense the desire for a specific person, the more likely it'd continue as a monogamous relationship. Thus any trait correlated with monogamy at the expense of promiscuity is evolutionarily viable. Not all homosexuals are monogamous in the same way that heterosexuals can switch partners, but evolution works over 1000's of years and so only a slight long-term correlation is sufficient for a trait to pass on.
Click to expand...

Either you failed to read the complete BBC page or you thought others wouldn't take the time to read it. When one does read down the page, they will find that Prof Vasey had a few more words to say:
"Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down."

Mr McMahon needs to do a bit more reading — The puzzle of monogamous marriage
"The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages."
 
Somerville said:
"The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages."
Click to expand...

Monogamy existed well before the foundation of the world's oldest religion of Hinduism 4000 years ago; perhaps not always as a structured marriage but as a loving relationship. There are plenty of benefits of monogamy to society but it's not physically compulsory since anyone is capable of being biologically promiscuous. One reason promiscuity might be less common is simply because people psychologically prefer monogamy rather than out of an inability to get multiple partners or cultural taboos.
 
Michael McMahon said:
"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Evolution doesn't only favour heterosexuality, it also favours monogamy. Monogamy isn't solely a religious or cultural construct because back in the Stone Age a fatherless family would've had far more difficulty in defending and feeding themselves. A promiscuous father would've had less ability to raise children with multiple partners in prehistory where resources were far more limited and the child maintenance payments were less enforceable due to an absence of a court system. So the more special, unique, rebellious and intense the desire for a specific person, the more likely it'd continue as a monogamous relationship. Thus any trait correlated with monogamy at the expense of promiscuity is evolutionarily viable. Not all homosexuals are monogamous in the same way that heterosexuals can switch partners, but evolution works over 1000's of years and so only a slight long-term correlation is sufficient for a trait to pass on.
Click to expand...
It isn't really a paradox if evolution. Evolution likely doesn't follow logic

Monogamy is mostly religions partially cultural. Evolution would be better served if males had harems. The males in a tribe wouldn't have to be the patriarch. Or even related to one another.

Having multiple female partners increases the likelihood of procreating.

Marriage has nothing to do with this. Marriage was more of an issue of property acquisition and inheritance. That's why up until quite recently marriages were arranged often rarely done it of love.
 
Lisa said:
That is news to me.

You can only be legally married to one person but you can have consensual sex with as many adults as you want to or you and your partner agree to.
Click to expand...
Well maybe not as many as you want but with as many that are willing to have sex with you ;)
 
CLAX1911 said:
It isn't really a paradox if evolution. Evolution likely doesn't follow logic

Monogamy is mostly religions partially cultural. Evolution would be better served if males had harems. The males in a tribe wouldn't have to be the patriarch. Or even related to one another.

Having multiple female partners increases the likelihood of procreating.

Marriage has nothing to do with this. Marriage was more of an issue of property acquisition and inheritance. That's why up until quite recently marriages were arranged often rarely done it of love.
Click to expand...
Several species of primates and birds are monogamous. Oddly enough, it is more common among birds than mammals. 90% of bird species form monogamous pair bonds and a handful of species practice true monogamy and mate for life. I think humans may be the only mammal that practices true monogamy and it seems rare within our species. Misattributed paternity, where a man ends up unknowingly raising offspring that are not biologically his, is less likely in cultures that promote monogamy and marriage. Other primates have males who kill the offspring of other rival males so they can breed with their females, and that kind of infanticide is not evolutionarily viable if larger, more cohesive societies are needed to compete against other tribes.
 
CriticalThought said:
Several species of primates and birds are monogamous.
Click to expand...
a lot of primates including humans aren't.
Oddly enough, it is more common among birds than mammals. 90% of bird species form monogamous pair bonds and a handful of species practice true monogamy and mate for life. I think humans may be the only mammal that practices true monogamy and it seems rare within our species. Misattributed paternity, where a man ends up unknowingly raising offspring that are not biologically his, is less likely in cultures that promote monogamy and marriage.
Click to expand...
without paternity tests we can't know this.
Other primates have males who kill the offspring of other rival males so they can breed with their females, and that kind of infanticide is not evolutionarily viable if larger, more cohesive societies are needed to compete against other tribes.
Click to expand...
well humans behave vastly differently than every other primate.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It isn't really a paradox if evolution. Evolution likely doesn't follow logic
Click to expand...

The who idea of discriminating against gay couples for adoption rights totally whitewashes the right of single male porn addicts to adopt stepdaughters!
60E84DBB-0151-4850-BF25-1B5873BED1B2.jpeg
Zoey Kush

I’m not sure how clean your internet search history has to be to appease the adoption mediators(!):
“Only two single men have applied to adopt a child in Ireland since 2004, new figures reveal.
One man applied to be assessed as suitable to adopt in 2009 and another in 2012, according to the Child and Family Agency.”
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...gle people who,sent to the Adoption Authority.
 
Rich2018 said:
There isn't any good arguments to start with.

There are NO good, non-religious arguments against SSM.
Click to expand...

How about a biological argument? The main reasons for marriage is to propagate the race (which, interestingly, is what the Bible says). You might say that people mainly marry for love but that's only been for for the past 100 years or so.

There are NO good emotional arguments for gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
How about a biological argument? The main reasons for marriage is to propagate the race (which, interestingly, is what the Bible says). You might say that people mainly marry for love but that's only been for for the past 100 years or so.

There are NO good emotional arguments for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Marriage isn't for procreating you don't have to be married for that. It is to form a stable household for children. Sometimes gay people do have children.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Marriage isn't for procreating you don't have to be married for that. It is to form a stable household for children. Sometimes gay people do have children.
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. Clax actually made a rational argument.
 
it's just me said:
How about a biological argument? The main reasons for marriage is to propagate the race (which, interestingly, is what the Bible says). You might say that people mainly marry for love but that's only been for for the past 100 years or so.
Click to expand...
Biology is irrelevant. Procreation is not required or necessary for marriage. Marriage is a legal function, not a biological one. Neither is anyone required to be married before procreating.
it's just me said:
There are NO good emotional arguments for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
What are the "good" emotional arguments for hetero marriage? An argument based on emotion is generally a poor argument. How about a rational, legal one instead? Especially one against SSM? I have yet to hear one.
 
it's just me said:
How about a biological argument? The main reasons for marriage is to propagate the race (which, interestingly, is what the Bible says). You might say that people mainly marry for love but that's only been for for the past 100 years or so.

There are NO good emotional arguments for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
I think the world has been sufficiently propagated, time to slow it down.

World faces food insecurity crisis as global population reaches 8 billion​

“We are on the way to a raging food catastrophe,” the UN Secretary-General said.
abcnews.go.com

World faces food insecurity crisis as global population reaches 8 billion

The U.N. declared that the global population had reached 8 billion, highlighting growth in the last few decades, but also raising concerns about global food scarcity.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
HumblePi said:
I think the world has been sufficiently propagated, time to slow it down.

World faces food insecurity crisis as global population reaches 8 billion​

“We are on the way to a raging food catastrophe,” the UN Secretary-General said.
abcnews.go.com

World faces food insecurity crisis as global population reaches 8 billion

The U.N. declared that the global population had reached 8 billion, highlighting growth in the last few decades, but also raising concerns about global food scarcity.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Somebody a book about that 20+ years ago. I don't believe anything the UN says
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom