Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[oxmixmudd]

A gay couple and a lesbian couple teaming up to have kids together is a reasonably common thing. So there's no inherent limit to the number of kids homosexual couples can have, just as with heterosexual couples. The number they choose to have is purely a function of culture, finances, and desire.

If the birth rate at the present time for same-sex couples on average happens to be lower than the birth rate for opposite-sex couples on average, so what? That might change, it might not, who knows?


The whole idea of accurately modelling population dynamics any significant distance into the future largely has to be treated as a joke. Cultural, technological, financial, political and medical changes have hugely shaped population growth rates in the past and present, and presumably they will continue to do so. Obviously medical advances may make it possible for same-sex couples to have children. Obviously if lack of population growth becomes a problem, governments will step in to incentivize having children with increasingly lucrative offers of financial support. If the coming wave of robots ever gets to the point where robots start replacing humans in jobs, our society will probably scale down the number of hours in a human work-week and people will have more time at home for leisure, relaxation, and raising children, and we could see the birth rates significantly increase. Any idea that our population would gradually die off if we have some same-sex families is such a huge joke it's just absurd.

If you are capable of reading, you would realize the overall point was simply that same-sex couples don't produce children, and 'too many' same-sex couples would result in a population implosion. Would you like to argue that a population with 90% same-sex couples that is persistent (always 90% same sex couple and with the current birthrate (~2.4 per hetero-sexual couple) would not implode? I'd like to see that.

That claim doesn't make any sense. If you're assuming that same-sex couples can't have children by scientific interventions, nor by partnering with other same-sex couples of the opposite sex to conceive shared children, and thus are assuming that same-sex couples have no children... Even then your point doesn't work, because if the heterosexual couples are extremely fertile they can still make up for the same-sex couples lack of reproduction. That's pretty easy in animals that have large litters like cats or dogs, though it's somewhat harder in humans who are probably biologically limited to about 15 children in the lifetime of any fertile female. So in humans you probably can't have more than about 6/7ths of the population being homosexual, given the improbable assumptions that homosexuals can't have children and that the heterosexual couple is catholic and hasn't heard of contraception.

If you can read, you would realize there was never any attempt to create any sort of realistic population model. The point was to answer the very simple question: what happens if the population suddenly becomes PERSISTENTLY 90% same-sex (this generation and all subsequent generations) and the only people making babies are the remaining (10%) heterosexual couples.

And if you could read, you would realize the only reason THAT point was made was that carpe was arguing against the idea that evolution will not select FOR same-sex attraction. To select FOR something is over time to make it the predominant genetic trait. But if evolution selects FOR same-sex, then the percentage same-sex increases and the percentage of available heterosexual couples goes down. In the end, the population implodes. It was supposed to be a point so obvious a third grader could figure it out.


Jim

[Roy]

I have about as much emotional investment here as I do solving a crossword puzzle.

Perhaps you're not doing hard enough puzzles?

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps you're not doing hard enough puzzles?

[Zymologist]

Perhaps you're not doing hard enough puzzles?

May I recommend hexadecimal sudoku?

[Roy]

May I recommend hexadecimal sudoku?

Nah - I'd just write software to solve them rather than doing it myself.

[Zymologist]

Nah - I'd just write software to solve them rather than doing it myself.

It is much more efficient....

[Sparko]

What I have said, several times, is that a moral statement (moral/immoral) cannot be based solely on genetic coding. So "genetic predisposition for addiction" cannot be the sole criteria for saying that a heroin addict is or is not acting morally. That judgment has to be made on a different basis. You're reversing the logic and applying it in a way I am not saying.

You want to claim that saying homosexuality is immoral bigotry because it is based on genetic coding.

Yet you also want to say heroin addiction is immoral even if it is based on genetic coding and that is not bigotry. Pick one.

At no point have I said otherwise. I have specifically said, "genetics cannot be the sole determining factor for morality." Put another way (which I have also said before), if Action A is moral for Person P in Context Y, then Action X cannot be immoral for Person Q in Context Y is the only distinction is a difference in genetic make-up. If you think otherwise, then all you need to do is cite a agreed upon example where the same act, in the same context, is moral for one person and immoral for another solely on the basis of their genetics.

And yet genetics could be the only determining factor in someone being addicted to some drug, like alcohol. Yet you have no problem saying that 'you ought not to be an alcoholic.'

You are picking out one part of my answer and ignoring the rest. Read it again.

Ad you are dodging again and not answering.

You do know that all caps is considered "shouting" in a written exchange, right? You're leaving the impression of losing it a tad.

Because you seem to be "deaf" and I have to keep repeating myself. I figure if I typed LOUDER you might hear me.

And I have answered your question. That you are being selective about what you read is not my concern. Read my response. The entire thing. The one you just copied. Your answer is there. You even bolded it. I think you can find it if you give it some thought.

Stop playing games and answer directly. It takes way more time and effort to NOT just answer me again and repeat your silly excuses and little games.

Let me SHOUT again:

WHY IS IT OK TO DISCRIMINATE ON AGE IN THAT CASE? Age is something you should not discriminate on someone with, correct? People can't help their age, so if you discriminate against someone based on a characteristic they can't control it is bigotry.

(hint: the parenthetical is important)

Hint. pretend I am as dumb as I seem and explain it in baby words.

And now I have a question for you. You pretty clearly find discussions with me frustrating and distasteful, and have said as much (so I'm not attempting to read minds). Why on earth do you keep engaging? If you find me to be so disingenuous, slippery, "playing dumb," and all of the other accusations you've levied over the months, why not just put me on ignore and go talk to someone you actually enjoy engaging with? I assure you, my feelings will not be hurt.

I keep hoping you will learn and stop doing it (dodging, being passive aggressive, unclear, refusing to be direct)

I think you are a good person. You are friendly, civil, and thoughtful. But you are indeed very frustrating and indirect. Like my question. Rather than just answer me (or re-answer me if you claim you have already) you will spend several posts NOT answering me, telling me you already did, and giving "hints"

Just give me a clear no-nonsense answer. You will save a lot of typing and make me much happier.

[carpedm9587]

You want to claim that saying homosexuality is immoral bigotry because it is based on genetic coding.

Yet you also want to say heroin addiction is immoral even if it is based on genetic coding and that is not bigotry. Pick one.

I've said the first. I never said the latter, or even thought it. YOU said that.

And yet genetics could be the only determining factor in someone being addicted to some drug, like alcohol. Yet you have no problem saying that 'you ought not to be an alcoholic.'

Ad you are dodging again and not answering.

Wow - color me surprised. Another claim that I'm dodging...

Because you seem to be "deaf" and I have to keep repeating myself. I figure if I typed LOUDER you might hear me.

Stop playing games and answer directly. It takes way more time and effort to NOT just answer me again and repeat your silly excuses and little games.

Let me SHOUT again:

WHY IS IT OK TO DISCRIMINATE ON AGE IN THAT CASE? Age is something you should not discriminate on someone with, correct? People can't help their age, so if you discriminate against someone based on a characteristic they can't control it is bigotry.

Hint. pretend I am as dumb as I seem and explain it in baby words.

No. You're not dumb. I've answered this. Anyone who can read the post - especially the bolded, parenthetical part, knows that. If you do not, then repeating it is not going to help.

I keep hoping you will learn and stop doing it (dodging, being passive aggressive, unclear, refusing to be direct)

I think you are a good person. You are friendly, civil, and thoughtful. But you are indeed very frustrating and indirect. Like my question. Rather than just answer me (or re-answer me if you claim you have already) you will spend several posts NOT answering me, telling me you already did, and giving "hints"

Just give me a clear no-nonsense answer. You will save a lot of typing and make me much happier.

I'm actually not out to make you happier - and I'm working on limiting my posts. I'm sorry, Sparko, but I'm just not going to play this game. if I repeat my answer, you'll tell me I haven't answered, I'm avoiding and/or I'm dodging. If I don't answer, you're going to tell me I haven't answered, I'm avoiding and/or I'm dodging. It's a pointless game. The answer is in front of you. If you don't understand it, given how briefly and clearly I wrote it, then perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

Michel

ETA: I will go this far, if someone else tells me my answer is not clear, I'll clarify.

[Starlight]

If you are capable of reading, you would realize the overall point was simply that same-sex couples don't produce children

Ok, since that is self-evidently false, where do you go from here?

It's really really common for lesbian couples to bear children through sperm donors. Gay couples obviously need to use a surrogate, but again can have a child this way. As I mentioned, it is quite common for a lesbian couple and a gay couple that are friends to decide to have joint children via sperm donation from one of the gay couple to one of the lesbian couple (or both to both, or whatever).

and 'too many' same-sex couples would result in a population implosion.

Only if children were not produced as a result. However, same sex couples produce children just fine, so a population with 100% same-sex couples would pose no problem in practice.

Would you like to argue that a population with 90% same-sex couples that is persistent (always 90% same sex couple and with the current birthrate (~2.4 per hetero-sexual couple) would not implode? I'd like to see that.

Since same-sex couples produce children just fine, the population would be fine at being self-sustaining.

If you can read, you would realize there was never any attempt to create any sort of realistic population model.

Well your lack of realism is exemplified by your absurd assumption that gay and lesbian people can't/don't reproduce.

The point was to answer the very simple question: what happens if the population suddenly becomes PERSISTENTLY 90% same-sex (this generation and all subsequent generations) and the only people making babies are the remaining (10%) heterosexual couples.

Why would only the heterosexual couples make babies? Would the homosexual couples not want children?

carpe was arguing against the idea that evolution will not select FOR same-sex attraction.

The evolutionary selection with regard to same-sex attraction is complex and not very well understood. But on the whole, evolution seems to generally favor pansexuality - the number of species that are fully monogamous can be counted on the fingers of one hand, the vast vast majority of species cheat on their partners and sow their wild oats, and sexual attraction between members of the same sex seems to serve as a useful social tool for peer bonding and to limit aggressive interactions within the species.

But if evolution selects FOR same-sex, then the percentage same-sex increases and the percentage of available heterosexual couples goes down. In the end, the population implodes.

But evolution has all sorts of tools at its disposal. There are species where the members have evolved to themselves change sex throughout their lives. There are species that have evolved to not need one of the sexes for reproduction so same-sex couples reproduce just fine. Evolution has a lot of flexibility in terms of reproductive methods.

It was supposed to be a point so obvious a third grader could figure it out.

Sorry that the complicated world isn't simple enough to be fitted into a third grader mindset.

For example in the bird species of black swans, about a quarter of the couples are male-male couples. They temporarily solicit a female to mate with and lay an egg for them, then they chase her away. The two males then raise the egg together, and the chick has a much higher survival rate than heterosexually-raised chicks because the two males are stronger and can defend and feed from more territory than competing heterosexual couples. So the same-sex couple has superior evolutionary value due to better parenting providing more-likely-to-survive offspring.

In this study analyzing and cross-comparing a large number of different bird species, they determined that same-sex mating seems to be related to how polygamous the species is. A highly polygamous species (where a common pattern is one male mating with a lot of females) tends to also have a lot of male-male couples (unsurprising really, because there are obviously going to be a lot of 'left-over' males that weren't the 'lucky' ones to get all the females for themselves, and obviously evolution is likely to do something useful with those spare males, so having them couple up to raise babies seems useful), and, perhaps surprisingly, almost no female-female couples. Whereas a highly monogamous species tends to have less male-male couples (though still some, it doesn't drop to near-zero like it does for female-female couples in highly polygamous species), and, perhaps surprisingly, quite a lot of female-female couples. And species falling between the extremes of super-monogamous and super-polygamous tend to have a balance of some male-male pairings and some female-female pairings.

Among mammals, giraffes seem to be the animal that favors same-sex mating the most. In a herd of giraffes, same-sex mountings seem to be more common than opposite-sex mountings, with one study observing males mounting other males at 16 times the frequency that they mounted females. That 16:1 ratio is higher than the 9:1 ratio you were suggesting was problematic. At the end of the day, baby giraffes will still be produced so long as at some point a male mounts a female. But from an evolutionary survival perspective, if males are mounting each other 16 times in the meantime for every one baby produced, it doesn't really affect species survival. Presumably it promotes peer-bonding within the herd and helps social behavior, and evolution's presumably selected for it. From an evolutionary point of view it's probably better to have the male giraffes humping each other all day than killing each other.

Honestly the more we learn about evolution and the multitude of factors that have influence in it, the more complicated it gets. Nothing about evolution is truly simple or third-grader stuff.

[Starlight]

Another claim that I'm dodging...

Have you considered a professional career in dodge-ball...?

Always used to love that game as a kid.

[carpedm9587]

Have you considered a professional career in dodge-ball...?

Always used to love that game as a kid.

I was always pretty bad at it...

[carpedm9587]

Please don't make stuff up.

I already explained the choice of 90%. I already explained I wrote my simulation for myself and have no intention of debating it in any form. It's would a ridiculous rabbit trail and of zero consequence relative to the point made.

Jim, you are free to keep your numerical models private. Just don't expect others to jump on top of your conclusions and embrace them if you won't show how you justified them. And I have outlined a lot of parameters you are making huge assumptions about. If my responding to your posts is dancing, then you should consider chatting with someone else. Perhaps Sparko will be more to your taste. You and he appear to be in agreement on my posting style.

Anyone anywhere with half a brain should be able to figure out a 90% reduction in human birthrate will lead to a population implosion. I just wanted to know if my time estimates for the implosion were in bounds with reality. There is no 'long list of numbers though I did share some of the insights my simulation gave into the dynamics of the process. But I'm not asking anyone anywhere to form any opinions based on its results. As I said, anyone anywhere with half a brain knows a permanent 90% reduction in human birthrate and the population implodes. To try to debate that is idiocy.

So read carefully: nobody argued that a 90% reduction in birth rate would not result in a population implosion. What is being argued is that a 90% homosexuality rate would result in a 90% reduction in birth date. THAT is what you cannot substantiate - for the reasons already cited.

And I also posted I'd missed the post where you 'allowed that homosexual couples cannot produce children' and told you I took that as a final acceptance of my point.

Jim

I posted that without thinking it through. Male gay couples cannot have children, by definition. Female gay couples can through various means, which is another thing your numbers ignore. You are making an enormous number of assumptions in your model, not sharing the mathematics, and expecting me to just "buy in." When I don't, and point to the flaws, I am "dancing."

I also have no idea what "point" you took my post as "final acceptance" of. Frankly, I've not had any idea what point you were trying to make except perhaps that at some point, too much homosexuality might threaten human species survivability. If that is the point you think you've made, you haven't. And even if it WERE true, how that applies to the morality of homosexuality, I have no clue.

Finally, as I said before - your discussion approach is...well...childish. I am an honest person interested in exploring concepts. Your constant shifts to slighting my intentions when I don't agree with something you have posted is tedious in the extreme. When you are ready to assume the person you are talking to is interested in working through the concepts honestly, and are ready to let go the childishness accusations, let me know. Whether or not I respond to your next post is up to you. I won't be responding to any more childishness. If you have an argument to make, and you keep it to the case at hand, I'll respond.

[carpedm9587]

You know, Sparko, I think I'm going to take the same position with you that I have just taken with Jim (Oxi). It's tiresome responding to the constant barrage of accusations about dodging, slippery, and all of the rest. Going forward, I'm simply going to respond to posts from you if they stick to the subject at hand and ditch the personal attacks. I am only really interested in the former, and find the latter tedious and mostly a waste of time. So, you can assume that as soon as your post shifts to the personal, I'll stop reading and move on without responding. That's probably a good rule in general.

[oxmixmudd]

Ok, since that is self-evidently false, where do you go from here?

It's really really common for lesbian couples to bear children through sperm donors. Gay couples obviously need to use a surrogate, but again can have a child this way. As I mentioned, it is quite common for a lesbian couple and a gay couple that are friends to decide to have joint children via sperm donation from one of the gay couple to one of the lesbian couple (or both to both, or whatever).

How about that. Ok - I wasn't aware of that.

So, that being the case, then I will have to admit 90% same-sex doesn't necessarily equate to a 90% reduction in birthrate.

Only if children were not produced as a result. However, same sex couples produce children just fine, so a population with 100% same-sex couples would pose no problem in practice.

I wouldn't go that far. It is still hetero-sexual reproduction, It's just done without the sexual act. But I do have egg on my face as I had no idea lesbian couples did that. But that would solve the problem.

But as I have said - I am interested in the truth, not being 'right' - so I concede the point.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

How about that. Ok - I wasn't aware of that.

So, that being the case, then I will have to admit 90% same-sex doesn't necessarily equate to a 90% reduction in birthrate.

I wouldn't go that far. It is still hetero-sexual reproduction, It's just done without the sexual act. But I do have egg on my face as I had no idea lesbian couples did that. But that would solve the problem.

But as I have said - I am interested in the truth, not being 'right' - so I concede the point.

Jim

If by "hetero-sexual" you mean, male/female - all human reproduction is done by uniting a sperm (provided by a male) and an egg (provided by a female), so that isn't really saying anything. It does not require those elements to come from heterosexual human beings. Last I checked, sperm and eggs from homosexuals was still capable of reproduction. I was never claiming your 90% homosexuality was not likely to depress birth rates. I was claiming you had not shown it would depress it to a 10% rate.

Not to mention we don't HAVE a 90% homosexuality rate; it's between 3 and 10%, depending on who's numbers you believe. AND you still have not made a link to morality. All of this is why I was saying you had not made a case. As far as I could tell, the only viable "point" from your argument was "an increase in homosexuality could depress the birth rate."