If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

[Michael-5]

Mnementh said:

Michael-5 said:

Bold1: explain to me how that works. From what I learned in bio, fitness is the driving force behind evolution.

Yes. But you only seem to know the individual fitness. A population has also a fitness. Both are important for evolution. So even if an individual dies for a group, this is a positive evolutionary effect if it helps that the others of the group live and it is likely the others share most of the genes the dying individual had. That is the fitness of a population, and it is of importance to evolution.

You should read 'The selfish gene' from Dawkins, he is pretty good in explaining the evolutionary forces.

 

Michael-5 said:

Bold2: 100% False, most random mutations are detremental, and usually get phased out with evolution (individuals with a lower fitness die off before they can reproduce). Very few are advantages. Mutations, are far more common then you realise.

I'm not a native english speaker and you only took out part of the sentence. You understand me completely wrong. I'm aware most mutation are a disadvantage. I'm aware, that these disadvantuous mutations will be removed fast from the gene-pool through selection. That's what I mean. The conclusion of it is, because we can discover homosexuality in many species it is either an evolutionary advantage or something that is not inheritable but instead produced by environment.

Michael-5 said:

Bold3: Exactly, the mutation is not inheritable.

You are not up to date. Twin-studies show a strong indication, that homosexuality has at least a genetic component.

This is in german, sorry: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/DEUTSCH/DIAMOND.HTM#12

 

Michael-5 said:

Bold3: Exactly, the mutation is not inheritable. Do you need a reason for why it happens so regularly in humans? Here's one, it doesn't. Homosexuality rates are no higher then the non inheritable biological disorder of schizophrenea, which is about 1% the World Population, and significantly loweer then the non inheritable biological disorder of Depression, which is about 2.8%.

I don't know much about the frequency of homosexuality in humans. But neither do you. Or anyone. The data from surveys shows big variability, depending on the way the questions in the survey are asked, the cultural backgraund, laws against homosexuality and so on. We pretty much don't know how common homosexuality is under humans.

But I was talking mainly about the fact, that homosexuality occurs in many species. We discovered homosexual behaviour in over 1500 species. If it is really a disorder and has some disadvante in evolutionary terms, the evolution would have redued the chance, even if homosexuality itself wouldn't be inheritable. We don't have genes for illnesses that are infectious. But evolution gave us an immune system to defend us against such illnesses. Same would have happened for homosexuality, if it is really a disadvantage.

But as written above, there is some inheritable aspect. That pretty much guarantees, that homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage for a population.

Michael-5 said: 

Are you against curing Disorders?

Wait what? No, I don't want to cure brown eyes, red hair, black skin or homosexuality. Again, Homosexuality is of evolutionary advantage for a population (or saying it different: it increases the fitness of a population), so why should it be a disorder?

Bold1: I didn't think of it that way. Also someone else has informed me that blood relatives to the mother of homosexuals (the Mother and her Sisters) are more fertile then most. So having a few homosexuals in the population does control population a bit.

Bold2: Ah I see, but the occurances of homosexuality are not that different from other anaomlies. Like I said above, because family members of homosexuals are more fertile, this correlating affect could be why homosexuals actively remain in our population.

Bold3: Actually I was talking to someone here call Tom3K, and he had a good explanation for homosexuality, one that's reflective of my opinion. While there is no actual gene resposnible for homosexuality, the interaction of two or more genes at locations called epi-marks, could be a cause for homosexuality. Thus it's not inheritable unless you mate with someone who also carried the genes required for homosexuality and produce a zygote with all the needed genes and epi-marks.

Bold3-2: I agree with you. A question such as "have you had a homosexual experience" will give a different result from "are you a homosexual." A single homosexual experience doesn't make you a homosexual, but such serveys would be inclided to make the homosexual population higher.

Disorder is a strong word, I've learned, but I don't think the cause of homosexuality is a gene like red hair or blue eyes are. My eyes actually change color, and are often symetrically multicolored (Half Blue, Half Green, with a straigh boudry down the middle of my eye is what they most commonly look like), but this isn't a disorder, it's a rare gene. I think Homosexuality works more like Freckles. From what I read, there is no gene that causes Freckles. It's a relationship between the skins poor ability to tan (create melatope? forget), and something with the hair type.

Should we cure freckles? Yea, but only if people want to.