There is a million years of evolution behind the visceral repulsion to deviant sexual activities.
Legalizing gay marriage is counter productive, just eliminate state involvement. Why should the government be involved in religious or matters of personal belief like the idea of marriage?
Time to grow up then.
Marriage is not a personal belief.
So you have some good causal evidence showing this?
Venereal disease, E. coli, and AIDS come to mind.
And the fact that homosexuals are unable to transmit their genetic line. Thus, it will always remain an outlier phenomenon.
Polygamous/polyandrous societies are dysfunctional. What you end up with is a few alpha males and a lot of angry, unwed beta males who either take their productivity elsewhere, or they stay and fight blood feuds.
Tough shi’ite. You know what backs up all those Victorian sensibilities? Biological reality. The gods of evolution don’t care about hip, young attitudes, and dysfunctional people who can’t reproduce themselves will be replaced.
So heterosexuals don’t get those STDs?
Really? Homosexuals are unable to reproduce? I guess all those stories I have seen about them reproducing with the opposite sex must be false, right?
What is “dysfunctional”?
Or you just end up with a lot of infidelity. What is your point?
It is always funny when people take their own perceptions and preferences and assume THEY are the result of evolution. Really, it is the sound of one hand clapping.
Evolution is not a linear process.
Do tell, how do heterosexual couples produce homosexual children? Have you resolved this question? Or are you regurgitating conservative dogma? Oh and what is the incidence of venereal diseases, AIDs &c. amongst heterosexual couples who practise unprotected sex? But it’s meaningless in the end. Evolution indeed will leave the dinosaurs in the dust, and that includes all its forms… including technological. But go on trying to rationalise your very subjective, touchy-feely revulsion to what people do in their own time.
Did I say that? The point is they do, particularly when they have promiscuous sex.
Time will tell which is the more successful model. Now, for all I know, polygamous/polyandrous societies are fantastic, though I doubt any poster at mises.org is a product of such a background. I don’t see migration flows moving to countries or to areas of this country where Big Man social organizations predominate.
Come to think of it, there are a couple of demographics in the US where out-of-wedlock births are quite high. I imagine they could be analyzed for rates of social pathology.
The point is not that they don’t produce them. The point is that they will never produce them in numbers even approaching a significant amount. And in the event a society ever does, then within a couple of generations it will be replaced. And you can rage against biological reality all you want, but that’s what’s going to happen.
For those couples who don’t observe traditional constraints on sexual activity, quite high. Again, there’s a reason for those social mores.
It’s a pretty simple analysis: which practices enhance the likelihood of you having grandchildren?
Basically your saying homosexuality conflicts with the sort of “Selfish Gene” theory of evolution. Not being able to have kids certainly confirms this but why is this relevant to the topic at hand? We, and you, also do not know nearly enough about ourselves to really make any meaningful argument against homosexuality as a model of copulation.
You offered it as evidence that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality. I concluded you were claiming heterosexuals do not get the diseases.
And yes, both heterosexuals and homosexuals get the diseases when having unsafe sex.
I don’t see people moving much, period.
It’s not. The discussion went OT about the middle of pg. 2.
My point was that marriage is not so simple as just agreeing, as somebody said, to share a fireside and a bed. Marriage implicates descent and distribution, property transfers, support of spouses, children, etc. So at some point, somebody is going to be forced to recognize a union as a ‘marriage.’ The issue is which unions we are going to force people to recognize as valid. Because of biological and social reasons, monogamous heterosexual unions carry the day. There are societies that recognize polygamous heterosexual unions but I don’t know too many people who want to live in them.
I am pretty sure I don’t want another man’s **** anywhere near my *******, so speak for yourself. But again, if you need guidance in such matters, it’s real simple: which is most likely to get you grandchildren?
Ah yes…the stupidity demonstrated by the “deviant” claim.
I’m guessing you have the same repulsion to left-handed people, of which I am one? Oh, you don’t? Aha. So what you’re saying is that you’re trying to justify your hatred by being inconsistent. Gotcha. Your objection is clearly based on nothing logical.
They all happen in heterosexuals.
So are sterile people. Got a problem with them, too?
Protip: attempting to justify your irrational hatred of those who make you feel like less of a man is no different from how the KKK feels about blacks. Grow up.
Stop being so obtuse; the likelihood of venereal diseases, AIDS, etc is much greater with homosexual men than heterosexual men. Last time when it came down to this, statistics won the day over your appeals to emotion.
I’m not. Last time when it came down to this, reality won out over your appeals to emotion.