Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Why? You may be a fine non-biological parent, I was to my step son. That does not mean statistically that is the case.

You are mixing step-parents and adoptive parents in your "non-biological" group. You might want to broaden your reading. I think you will be surprised when you compare adoptive parents with biological ones.

Really, I have no idea what your point is. So after the conflict, since more straight males were killed, we have more gays. But that would be short lived as the "normal" population reconstituted itself. And what makes you think that gay men would partner up more than the average straight guy?

As I said, the numbers are made up to show the dynamic. So long as their is a disproportionate number of males, rebellion/war has a greater impact on unattached males than attached ones. In my example, I gave both groups the same "partnering up" rate (100%), so your question makes no sense to me. If you reduce the "partnering up" rate proportionately for both groups, you get the same results. And the gain is indeed "short-lived," it will only persist so long as the significant imbalance of males persists.

You asked for how homosexuality could be selected for. I gave you one possible example, Seer. It's just an example and a possibility. As I said, we have little study on this, that I know of. We have evidence for other species, but not humans. We have models that could explain the selection, but no data to support them.

[oxmixmudd]

The bold part caught my eye. You do this a lot, Jim. If you don't want to have a discussion, then don't have it. It's not a big deal. But it seems quite disingenuous to keep telling everyone that you're not engaging in a discussion because the other people are not capable of it. Frankly, I cannot see how you can possibly make a moral argument in this direction. Perhaps the problem is not so much that we are not capable of the discussion as it is that the argument is very likely to fail. But you will never know if it is going to succeed or fail if you continually refuse to put forward the argument for examination. An argument that is never examined by anyone but the holder will never truly be tested; you will be much less likely to find your own errors. If you truly want to test an argument, put it forward to people most likely to disagree. You can be sure they (we) will look for every chink and weakness in the argument. If it survives that examination, then you know you have something to work with.

Frankly, if it survives that examination, an honest evaluator would be forced to change their initial position as a consequence. That will never happen if you keep ducking (dare I say dodging? ) the discussion.

I want to have a discussion on the topic. But each time I get close the hostility of the participants goes way up. So I'm both annoyed at that fact and have changing opinions about whether or not I'm going to pursue it. Comments like that are both status updates and complaints. To call that dodging and complain about it is sort of like complaining that the guy in one's RPG sights keeps changing direction as if his quest was survival was somehow not understandable.


Jim

[seer]

You are mixing step-parents and adoptive parents in your "non-biological" group. You might want to broaden your reading. I think you will be surprised when you compare adoptive parents with biological ones.

No, generally when we speak of adoptive parents we are speaking of two non-biological parents. I and the study are speaking of situations where one parent is biological and one isn't. You are suggesting that the trends would not apply if the non-biological parent adopted the step child. I don't know that is true nor do I have reason to think so. It may mitigate the harm, but there is zero reason to assume that non-biological parenting rises to the level of biological parenting - generally.

As I said, the numbers are made up to show the dynamic. So long as their is a disproportionate number of males, rebellion/war has a greater impact on unattached males than attached ones. In my example, I gave both groups the same "partnering up" rate (100%), so your question makes no sense to me. If you reduce the "partnering up" rate proportionately for both groups, you get the same results. And the gain is indeed "short-lived," it will only persist so long as the significant imbalance of males persists..

You asked for how homosexuality could be selected for. I gave you one possible example, Seer. It's just an example and a possibility. As I said, we have little study on this, that I know of. We have evidence for other species, but not humans. We have models that could explain the selection, but no data to support them.

OK, after the war you said there would 1425 straight guys left (from 1900), and 100 homosexuals left (from 100). Why didn't the homosexual number go down equally?

[carpedm9587]

No, generally when we speak of adoptive parents we are speaking of two non-biological parents. I and the study are speaking of situations where one parent is biological and one isn't. You are suggesting that the trends would not apply if the non-biological parent adopted the step child. I don't know that is true nor do I have reason to think so. It may mitigate the harm, but there is zero reason to assume that non-biological parenting rises to the level of biological parenting - generally.

The studies do not back you up. Many studies have found that adoptive parents tend to invest more time, more finances, and simply more effort in their children than biological parents. The reason is pretty evident - anyone can beget a child and no screening is required. To become an adoptive parent requires significant screening and testing. The reality of this more time is mitigated by the experience of being adopted, so adopted children will tend to face issues non-adopted children do not have to face. Most of those are not necessary - they are induced by our culture and comments/attitudes like yours.

And, as I noted, your article conflates all "step-parents" in one group. There are actually two groups: those who adopt their step-children and those who do not. Those who do face all of the same screening and testing the rest of adoptive parents do. Unless they are broken out and looked at separately, you are lumping "accidental" step parents (who married into the situation and may or may not be invested in the children) and "intentional" step parents (who married in and then were invested enough to go through the adoption hurdles) into one group, rendering the conclusions significantly less meaningful.

OK, after the war you said there would 1425 straight guys left (from 1900), and 100 homosexuals left (from 100). Why didn't the homosexual number go down equally?

It is possible. However, the premise was a population with significant male/female disproportion, where the excess males are the primary driving force for rebellion/war. If the assumption is that everyone who can be paired is paired, that leaves a huge number of unpaired heterosexual males, making them the most vulnerable population. If we assume some percentage of the gay couples are also warriors, we need to make the same assumption for hetero sexual couples, still producing a skewed output. And homosexuals have historically been strongly discriminated against in the military, further reducing the likelihood of their enlistment.

As I said (several times now), this is one possible way homosexuality could be "selected for." There is zero data backing any of this up because we don't have it, as far as I know. You asked for "how could it happen" and I gave you a possibility. I have not claimed it HAS happened or IS happening.

[carpedm9587]

I want to have a discussion on the topic. But each time I get close the hostility of the participants goes way up.

I do not know who you are referring to here, but I have not felt one iota of hostility from the outset of this discussion. I do find the personal attacks tedious and somewhat pointless, but that's about as much emotion as I have experienced in our exchanges.

So I'm both annoyed at that fact

...which is not, actually, a fact... at least in my case.

and have changing opinions about whether or not I'm going to pursue it. Comments like that are both status updates and complaints. To call that dodging and complain about it is sort of like complaining that the guy in one's RPG sights keeps changing direction as if his quest was survival was somehow not understandable.

Jim

Jim - you continually get started, go part way, and then remove yourself from the discussion "because of the other guy." If I did that, I'd never chat with anyone here. I am pretty regularly accused of being dishonest, a hypocrite, dancing, dodging, lying, spinning, and the list goes on and on. What someone else thinks of me doesn't change who I am, and what someone else thinks of you does not change who you are. Other than pointing out how tedious it is to have to read through yet another complaint about my "dodging" or "dancing," I am pretty sure I have not personally attacked you anywhere in this discussion.

You are an articulate person. You do a pretty good job of framing an argument. Indeed, the white supremacist/baker parallel was impressive and (as I have noted) almost convinced me with its logic (until I spotted that flaw). I am reasonably sure you would have a well-framed argument here as well. I have to be honest that I cannot imagine how it can possibly be successful, but I won't be able to assess that until you actually make the argument. I can assure you, I will look for and find any chink or error in it that I can. At the end of the day, however, if I cannot, I hope I have the intellectual honesty to admit it, and change my views accordingly. If not, then I am not the person I want to be.

Of course, you have the weight of all of the folks here to already believe I am intellectually dishonest. So...up to you...

Michel

[seer]

The studies do not back you up. Many studies have found that adoptive parents tend to invest more time, more finances, and simply more effort in their children than biological parents. The reason is pretty evident - anyone can beget a child and no screening is required. To become an adoptive parent requires significant screening and testing. The reality of this more time is mitigated by the experience of being adopted, so adopted children will tend to face issues non-adopted children do not have to face. Most of those are not necessary - they are induced by our culture and comments/attitudes like yours.

Which studies? And are they speaking of two non-biological parents or just one like in your case because there are different dynamics in play. In the case of two parents, they, together, choose the child they want. In the other case the non-biological parent may adopt for any number of reason - to make the spouse happy, the child just goes along with the package, etc... And what negative attitude did I express towards the children in this situation? That is pure slander on your part.

And, as I noted, your article conflates all "step-parents" in one group. There are actually two groups: those who adopt their step-children and those who do not. Those who do face all of the same screening and testing the rest of adoptive parents do. Unless they are broken out and looked at separately, you are lumping "accidental" step parents (who married into the situation and may or may not be invested in the children) and "intentional" step parents (who married in and then were invested enough to go through the adoption hurdles) into one group, rendering the conclusions significantly less meaningful.

First, I know parents where one adopted the biological child of the spouse - they did not have to jump through the hoops you are speaking of.

It is possible. However, the premise was a population with significant male/female disproportion, where the excess males are the primary driving force for rebellion/war. If the assumption is that everyone who can be paired is paired, that leaves a huge number of unpaired heterosexual males, making them the most vulnerable population. If we assume some percentage of the gay couples are also warriors, we need to make the same assumption for hetero sexual couples, still producing a skewed output. And homosexuals have historically been strongly discriminated against in the military, further reducing the likelihood of their enlistment.

As I said (several times now), this is one possible way homosexuality could be "selected for." There is zero data backing any of this up because we don't have it, as far as I know. You asked for "how could it happen" and I gave you a possibility. I have not claimed it HAS happened or IS happening.

So you basically make up numbers that probably has nothing to do with reality - OK...

[carpedm9587]

Which studies? And are they speaking of two non-biological parents or just one like in your case because there are different dynamics in play. In the case of two parents, they, together, choose the child they want. In the other case the non-biological parent may adopt for any number of reason - to make the spouse happy, the child just goes along with the package, etc...

And, as I pointed out, the study you linked to does not separate out the differences, rendering it less than useful.

And what negative attitude did I express towards the children in this situation? That is pure slander on your part.

First, we're in a written context, so the correct word would be "libel." Slander is spoken.
Second, your overarching statement about the difference between biological and non-biological parents, which you have actually repeated several times. That attitude is widely held and reflected in the ways people speak to us (as parents) and our children. Fostering such an attitude is harmful, so I stand by my statement.

First, I know parents where one adopted the biological child of the spouse - they did not have to jump through the hoops you are speaking of.

Then perhaps the rules in your state are different. Adoption rules are governed by the state in which the adoption is executed. Here, they are at par all types of adoption. To adopt requires a background check, a home study, and a probationary period. Some states may "grease the skids" because of the married relationship.

So you basically make up numbers that probably has nothing to do with reality - OK...

I am shaking my head in disbelief. I actually TOLD you I was making up numbers to show a dynamic, and I actually have said (multiple times) that this possibility is not something that has been shown to be happening. You asked how homosexuality could be selected for, and I gave you a possibility. If you had asked how homosexuality is being selected for, I would have said, "we don't have any data on that, at least not for humans (which I actually did say).

You do have a remarkable way of engaging, Seer.

[seer]

And, as I pointed out, the study you linked to does not separate out the differences, rendering it less than useful.

Nonsense, a non-biological step parent is a hundred times more likely to harm the child than a biological parent - do you really believe that adopting the child mitigates that significantly. How much? 100%? 50%? 25%. It certainly would not go down to zero.

First, we're in a written context, so the correct word would be "libel." Slander is spoken.

Oh please, do you really want me to AGAIN start pointing out your errors?

Second, your overarching statement about the difference between biological and non-biological parents, which you have actually repeated several times. That attitude is widely held and reflected in the ways people speak to us (as parents) and our children. Fostering such an attitude is harmful, so I stand by my statement.

Then you are an idiot. The study I posted has to do with parenting, not the children involved.

Then perhaps the rules in your state are different. Adoption rules are governed by the state in which the adoption is executed. Here, they are at par all types of adoption. To adopt requires a background check, a home study, and a probationary period. Some states may "grease the skids" because of the married relationship.

Exactly, that is why your argument does not hold water. The parents I know just had to go to court for the legal requirements. BTW Carp, I was eventually adopted by my step father. He was a great Dad... And I raise both my natural son and step son.

I am shaking my head in disbelief. I actually TOLD you I was making up numbers to show a dynamic, and I actually have said (multiple times) that this possibility is not something that has been shown to be happening. You asked how homosexuality could be selected for, and I gave you a possibility. If you had asked how homosexuality is being selected for, I would have said, "we don't have any data on that, at least not for humans (which I actually did say).

Making up stuff does not tell us anything, try something more realistic...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, a non-biological step parent is a hundred times more likely to harm the child than a biological parent - do you really believe that adopting the child mitigates that significantly. How much? 100%? 50%? 25%. It certainly would not go down to zero.

I think you're making statistical claims on the basis of poor data. I have already pointed out a few flaws. I'll leave the rest to you.

Oh please, do you really want me to AGAIN start pointing out your errors?

You are certainly welcome to point out any error I make, Seer. You haven't been shy in the past.

Then you are an idiot. The study I posted has to do with parenting, not the children involved.

Do you folks have any other conversational mode besides "insulting?"

Again, I stand by my statement that perpetuating the "biological parents are better than nonbiological ones" is harmful, both to parents AND to their children. It carries into schools; it carries into social settings, and a wide variety of contexts.

Exactly, that is why your argument does not hold water. The parents I know just had to go to court for the legal requirements. BTW Carp, I was eventually adopted by my step father. He was a great Dad... And I raise both my natural son and step son.

Your comment about the argument not holding water does not appear to apply, nor does the final part of your comment.

Making up stuff does not tell us anything, try something more realistic...

When you ask "could" I will respond with possibilities. When you ask "does" I'll respond with whatever data I can, if I can. Ask a better question, you'll get a better answer...

[seer]

Do you folks have any other conversational mode besides "insulting?"

Right, but it is OK for you to accuse me of disparaging adopted or step children, which I was not doing.

Again, I stand by my statement that perpetuating the "biological parents are better than nonbiological ones" is harmful, both to parents AND to their children. It carries into schools; it carries into social settings, and a wide variety of contexts.

Your logic is flawed. If as the studies suggest that step parents are a hundred more likely to harm a step child than a biological child is my relating that fact disparaging step children or step parents?

Your comment about the argument not holding water does not appear to apply, nor does the final part of your comment.

Of course it is, you made a blanket claim about what it takes to adopt your spouse's child. That as far as you know that only applies in your state.

When you ask "could" I will respond with possibilities. When you ask "does" I'll respond with whatever data I can, if I can. Ask a better question, you'll get a better answer...

OK, consider it asked...

[carpedm9587]

Right, but it is OK for you to accuse me of disparaging adopted or step children, which I was not doing.

When someone says something harmful, I'll call them on it. I don't call people "idiots" or "morons" or any of the rest so many of you folks seem to resort to on a regular basis. I consider that type of discussion somewhat childish, frankly.

Your logic is flawed. If as the studies suggest that step parents are a hundred more likely to harm a step child than a biological child is my relating that fact disparaging step children or step parents?

As I noted, your study does not break out those who adopt their children from those who don't, which is what weakens it, IMO.

Of course it is, you made a blanket claim about what it takes to adopt your spouse's child. That as far as you know that only applies in your state.

Not only, but it does apply to my state. So the effect is more limited than "all states." That doesn't make the effect non-existent. In states where adoption is "mere paperwork," the effect will be less (perhaps significantly less) pronounced because there is little/effort or cost involved, so it doesn't take much commitment and might easily be done by someone just attempting to please their spouse. In states where the effort is at par with standard adoptions, the effect is likely to be significantly more pronounced, because it entails a great deal of commitment and effort to do it (not to mention cost).

The data you offer still does not make this distinction, which was the heart of my objection. The "average" you cited is losing site of these two pools, and painting all in the group with the same brush without an adequate basis.

OK, consider it asked...

Then my answer is what I answered to begin with - we don't have data on that for the human population, so I would not have a basis for an answer. We have data for other species, and we have evolutionary possibilities, but I do not know of a definitive study in which evolutionary forces for homosexuality have been identified, measured, and documented. I would be guessing with any response. Likewise, any claim that such forces do not exist would be guessing.

[seer]

When someone says something harmful, I'll call them on it. I don't call people "idiots" or "morons" or any of the rest so many of you folks seem to resort to on a regular basis. I consider that type of discussion somewhat childish, frankly.

As I noted, your study does not break out those who adopt their children from those who don't, which is what weakens it, IMO.

This was not what I was asking Carp, again: if step parents are much more likely to harm a step child than a biological child is my relating that fact disparaging step children or step parents?

Not only, but it does apply to my state. So the effect is more limited than "all states." That doesn't make the effect non-existent. In states where adoption is "mere paperwork," the effect will be less (perhaps significantly less) pronounced because there is little/effort or cost involved, so it doesn't take much commitment and might easily be done by someone just attempting to please their spouse. In states where the effort is at par with standard adoptions, the effect is likely to be significantly more pronounced, because it entails a great deal of commitment and effort to do it (not to mention cost).

But you made no such distinction when you first made the claim, which significantly weakens said claim.

The data you offer still does not make this distinction, which was the heart of my objection. The "average" you cited is losing site of these two pools, and painting all in the group with the same brush without an adequate basis.

But why wouldn't it follow the pattern for step parents? At least to a large degree? We are speaking of non-biological children in both cases.

Then my answer is what I answered to begin with - we don't have data on that for the human population, so I would not have a basis for an answer. We have data for other species, and we have evolutionary possibilities, but I do not know of a definitive study in which evolutionary forces for homosexuality have been identified, measured, and documented. I would be guessing with any response. Likewise, any claim that such forces do not exist would be guessing.

I know we see what some would call same sex pairing in the animal kingdom, but is that exclusive? That those who engage in this behavior never mate with the opposite sex?

[carpedm9587]

This was not what I was asking Carp, again: if step parents are much more likely to harm a step child than a biological child is my relating that fact disparaging step children or step parents?

I didn't say it was. My objection was to a particular statement you made:

the difference is clear between biological and non-biological parenting

As I noted then, and continue to note, this wide, sweeping statement perpetuates a stereotype and myth, and is harmful. This statement says nothing about step/not step. It is about biological and non-biological, so you swept up all adoptive parents in your sweeping generalization.

But you made no such distinction when you first made the claim, which significantly weakens said claim.

I did not, you are correct. I did not because I incorrectly assumed (and should have known better) that adoption by step-parents had similar norms in all states. General adoption does (e.g., they all require background checks, home studies, etc.). That doesn't weaken the argument. You simply showed that there are three groups instead of two: step-parents that do not adopt, step-parents that adopt with little effort, and step parents that adopt with great effort. If that means "weakened" to you, so be it. Then the argument is weakened.

But why wouldn't it follow the pattern for step parents? At least to a large degree? We are speaking of non-biological children in both cases.

Because the issue is not the children - that is equivalent in both (all three?) groups. The issue is the commitment of the step-parents. If no adoption occurs, the commitment level is unknown. If adoption occurs, and the requirements for that adoption are minor, again, the commitment level is unknown. If adoption occurs and the step parent has to jump through significant hoops at significant cost to make it happen, that signals a strong potential for a different level of commitment. The data does not break out these groups - so you are painting all of them with one number.

It is roughly the equivalent of saying, "on average, Republicans think poor people are poor because they refuse to work hard." But there are many groups within the Republican tent, including many with strong social-justice commitments, moderates, etc. The broad sweeping statement can be accurate (as an average) and misrepresent a lot of people.

I know we see what some would call same sex pairing in the animal kingdom, but is that exclusive? That those who engage in this behavior never mate with the opposite sex?

There are examples across the board. But note that permanent pairings in nature are the exception, not the rule. Some species do (e.g., wolves, some lizards), but there is a strong evidence that such pairings are far more likely to fail than succeed, and that it may not be a good idea to begin with. I found it interesting when I discovered that no mating species has yet been found that completely lacks homosexual behavior. Obviously species that never have sex at all or are hermaphroditic do not exhibit this behavior.

[seer]

I didn't say it was. My objection was to a particular statement you made:

the difference is clear between biological and non-biological parenting

As I noted then, and continue to note, this wide, sweeping statement perpetuates a stereotype and myth, and is harmful. This statement says nothing about step/not step. It is about biological and non-biological, so you swept up all adoptive parents in your sweeping generalization.

What myth? You do not know that the adoptive parenting that we are speaking of does not generally follow the step parent model. We do know that adoptive children generally do worse over all:

The Paradox of Adoptionhttps://ifstudies.org/blog/the-paradox-of-adoption/

And I did not make a sweeping generalization, I said that you probably were a good step parent, I know I was.

Because the issue is not the children - that is equivalent in both (all three?) groups. The issue is the commitment of the step-parents. If no adoption occurs, the commitment level is unknown. If adoption occurs, and the requirements for that adoption are minor, again, the commitment level is unknown. If adoption occurs and the step parent has to jump through significant hoops at significant cost to make it happen, that signals a strong potential for a different level of commitment. The data does not break out these groups - so you are painting all of them with one number.

Right, so there we may be able add those adoptions with low requirements to the step parenting model.

There are examples across the board. But note that permanent pairings in nature are the exception, not the rule. Some species do (e.g., wolves, some lizards), but there is a strong evidence that such pairings are far more likely to fail than succeed, and that it may not be a good idea to begin with. I found it interesting when I discovered that no mating species has yet been found that completely lacks homosexual behavior. Obviously species that never have sex at all or are hermaphroditic do not exhibit this behavior.

Again, but is that exclusive? That those who engage in this behavior never mate with the opposite sex?

[Sparko]

Fascinating.