Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?

Started May 11, 2012 | Discussions
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
What do they say
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Roger99 wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

If one lives in the free world, and one does not infringe on the rights of others, what difference does it make if one is gay or not, by choice or not?

I live in the south and I am an independent conservative (which I hope is an acceptable label). It is true that many religious conservatives feel that the concept of gays is offensive. It is true that many believe being gay is by choice. Why?

I think the reason is that God does not make mistakes, and in their mind being gay is a mistake. So if you rule out God making a mistake, the only alternative left is that people are gay by choice.

There are two other possibilities. God doesn't make mistakes, but he made gays so maybe they don't really know that much about god after all, or +cringe+ god doesn't exist. So it follows that gays have to get straight right now to re-stabilize the universe to the evangelist vision so it doesn't dissolve into a puddle of logic. The mountain just has to go to Mohammad after all.

However, it is my opinion that being gay is not a mistake and that there is another alternative or explanation for this event. It is one of the ways nature, or one of the ways God, has of limiting population. Just my opinion.

I still think it is an expanded child rearing strategy myself evolved and refined from primate tendencies for broader sexual activities. Evolution doesn't like to perpetuate limits in populations but it isn't un-heard of either. There is an interesting species of beetle for example but ....

When you ask them about "Hermaphrodites?"

God was on a four day bender and really blew the plans?

I personally knew a "true" hermaphrodite, and whatever sex he/she was having was by definition "Gay Sex."

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,240
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

Pay attention Small Cams - Pay attention! Once an issue is turned into a political issue, you can't turn it back.

Dave,

Sex has always been a political issue, or rather politics has always been entirely about sex, nothing else. The whole of politics is in the end all about who gets to pass on their genes and who doesn't, and as it gets more sophisticated, who gets to pass on their genes to who. In a totally rational world there would be no politics because everything would be totally rational. What makes us irrational are our animal instincts and most of those are to do with reproduction and passing on our genes. That is in the end why wars are fought, and why the first things that the victors do (at least before the Geneva convention) is go and pass on their genes to the female population of the vanquished. Then as societies get more advanced, the social structures get more complex, and you get things such as harems, where the strong preserve all of the breeding females to themselves. This happens amongst Chimps and Gorillas, and there the young males who don't get any nooky have it off amongst themselves, usually after a fight when the weaker one is the one that has the role of the 'woman'. Bonobos have a completely different social model, because they are liberals and swingers.

So, the social content of 'have sex with' was 'subjugate' or 'show power over', which leads to the misunderstanding that simplistic christians have over the story of the destruction of Sodom. The story, you will remember, is that Jehovah had agreed with Abraham that he wouldn't destroy Sodom it ten good men could be found. He sent in two angels to stay with Lot, and the men of the city tried to break down the door demanding to have sex with the (presumably male) angels. Lot offered them his two daughters instead, but they insisted on the strangers. Now, this could be interpreted as being because they were (to a man) homosexual, but more likely to show their power over them. Power and obedience was always the big issue for Jehovah, so obviously he went on to destroy the City (and also Lot's wife, for being disobedient). So, the interpretation is that Sodom was bad for being homosexual, but should be that it was destroyed for trying to subjugate the agents of Jehovah.

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

That is why promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for the working classes. In the UK we realise that these practices quite OK for the ruling classes (indeed, encouraged), but American society, with its bogus veneer of equality, gets these things confused, resulting in the inconsistent attitudes that you relate here.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,657
Like?
Re: Why is Obama being called evil for this?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

Roger99 wrote:

I do have to ask Chato. Why specifically the Corporate Liberal media? How is this different to the Corporate Conservative media? While corporate interests work most directly through the "Liberal" media in fairly obvious ways they do the same through "Conservative" media with the addition of the back room political manipulation of its target demographic in concert with the more superficial levels.

Not trying to start an argument here. Just trying to clear up or find a clarification to this catch cry of yours.

In my opinion all of the mainstream media IS the Corporate media. Liberal forms of media can be found on the net, or as weekly or monthly periodicals. None of the so called Liberal Media is "Liberal." Some of the Corporate media allow Liberals to have shows. That's nice.

I'm sure there is a think tank somewhere trying to get rid of all that pesky legitimate content. We have just got a new channel here in Aus. called TV4Me. It's a university channel and very socially beneficial. Only 22 hours of infomercials around a whole two hours of university related programming (at 4am the last time I looked but not every day oddly enough). Like they say, "so community minded". I've never heard of the university so haven't had the urge to wait up for it.

Another new channel is infomercials all day and a screen shot of an internet chat room all night. Bottomless budget on that channel no doubt. I feel so enriched.

Thank fate we still have one national non-commercial network. The right here absolutely hates it. It actually is fair and balanced so of course they see it as leftist. It does really irritating things like reporting the actual news and presenting credible documentaries and stuff. And they have these really old fashioned ideas like media standards, responsibility to the entire public and accountability of content. bunch of commies

They have just opened a 24 hour news channel so thin ice could be ahead. 24 hour cycles never seem to work out well.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
taintedcamera
Senior MemberPosts: 3,507
Like?
Regards...
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Roger99 wrote:

What mantra do you alway seem to conveniently follow?

I think for myself through experience. Not into mantras.

We then have something in common.

BTW, I wrote the above, now unquoted here, before our last dicussion.

Regards

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to bobn2, May 12, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

That is why promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for the working classes. In the UK we realise that these practices quite OK for the ruling classes (indeed, encouraged), but American society, with its bogus veneer of equality, gets these things confused, resulting in the inconsistent attitudes that you relate here.

While a long answer, it's too simplistic. Polygamy is a product of civilisation. The more primitive the culture, the less likely it is to use polygamy as a reproductive strategy. We are not Chimps - Chimps, gorrillas, etc, cannot have sex except for certain times of the year. We are the only primate that can have sex 24/7/365...

Polygamy was a product of power of the rulling elite - Our evolutionary history did not institutionalise polygamy (Or polyandry for that matter). Civilisation created a rulling elite AND polygamy.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,657
Like?
Re: What do they say
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

Roger99 wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

If one lives in the free world, and one does not infringe on the rights of others, what difference does it make if one is gay or not, by choice or not?

I live in the south and I am an independent conservative (which I hope is an acceptable label). It is true that many religious conservatives feel that the concept of gays is offensive. It is true that many believe being gay is by choice. Why?

I think the reason is that God does not make mistakes, and in their mind being gay is a mistake. So if you rule out God making a mistake, the only alternative left is that people are gay by choice.

There are two other possibilities. God doesn't make mistakes, but he made gays so maybe they don't really know that much about god after all, or +cringe+ god doesn't exist. So it follows that gays have to get straight right now to re-stabilize the universe to the evangelist vision so it doesn't dissolve into a puddle of logic. The mountain just has to go to Mohammad after all.

However, it is my opinion that being gay is not a mistake and that there is another alternative or explanation for this event. It is one of the ways nature, or one of the ways God, has of limiting population. Just my opinion.

I still think it is an expanded child rearing strategy myself evolved and refined from primate tendencies for broader sexual activities. Evolution doesn't like to perpetuate limits in populations but it isn't un-heard of either. There is an interesting species of beetle for example but ....

When you ask them about "Hermaphrodites?"

God was on a four day bender and really blew the plans?

I personally knew a "true" hermaphrodite, and whatever sex he/she was having was by definition "Gay Sex."

Dave

I'd like to see em' change that choice.

Hermaphrodites just made the mistake of leaving a hanging chad when they were filling out their life preference form in the waiting room in heaven.

Me, I don't see why any straight man would have any trouble with any gay man. One less bit of potential competition if you think about it. We need more gays I say. I'm not that bad but not so great as to refuse the improved odds. Now if we could just convince them to be a little less neat I wouldn't have to change my underwear every month to impress women.

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
He's never owned a dog... :( (NT)
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Roger99 wrote:

taintedcamera wrote:

Roger99 wrote:

Follow the natural law and learn flexibility and diversity. Follow the new gods law and learn tolerance. You are not showing an understanding of either.

I was neither intolerant or inflexible, you truly didn't bother to read with any understanding. You wrote only about what excites you. And you try to teach tolerance. :>

Actually I started out very open to your line of reasoning and gradually got more frustrated with your lagging point of view. I am not trying to teach tolerance at all. I just really hate this kind of argument being backed up by cliched faux rational. You are pretty wrong in all your assumptions and I have had these kinds of dead end discourses before. I mean where does one start? Do I give a crash course in Darwinian theory. Perhaps a few weeks of research on genetics for references for you? How about page after page on the etymology of the concept of natural law and an explanation of how out dated it is.

Will you also try to convince me that there are gay penguins, by shear enjoyment of being such, without any other genealogical or environmental factors being openly discussed and reveled?

Nope, not at all but man is the only species that is this inflexible and it is a relatively modern trend. Most species are not exclusively straight at all. Many will just go for whatever is nearby and of the same species. Some don't even care about that detail. Were I to follow that argument I would have to say that natural law stipulates that we straight humans should be a little more gay and gay humans should be a little more straight. We come pre-wired for our proclivities from birth however and designed to be socially influenced. The pre-wiring is not really a problem. Simply some are straight, some aren't. The problem comes from social influence and sadly that is the one that we actually have some control over but have managed so badly with things like organized religion.

I'll end this while you brought up the good points of flexibility, diversity and tolerance. Which for some reason you thought I lacked.

You may not but the source of your view certainly does.

My opinions were born out of unrequited religious concern.

Well that goes un-said. I have never seen your point of view come from anywhere else but that kind of background. Not you're fault I know (but you really do have a choice. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion in your case).

What mantra do you alway seem to conveniently follow?

I think for myself through experience. Not into mantras.
--

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,657
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

That is why promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for the working classes. In the UK we realise that these practices quite OK for the ruling classes (indeed, encouraged), but American society, with its bogus veneer of equality, gets these things confused, resulting in the inconsistent attitudes that you relate here.

While a long answer, it's too simplistic. Polygamy is a product of civilisation. The more primitive the culture, the less likely it is to use polygamy as a reproductive strategy. We are not Chimps - Chimps, gorrillas, etc, cannot have sex except for certain times of the year. We are the only primate that can have sex 24/7/365...

Well, gotta call you on that (while not contributing to any arguments around) there are species of primates closely related to chimps that are embarrassingly and famously active going once every 20 minutes or more and with any other nearby monkey male or female, 365 days a year (think of the chafing, ouch). It is understood to be a normal part of the social communication and bonding within the group and is done at every chance including three ways. Can't see it myself. Imagine trying to get into a really good book. Only heard about it myself recently and messed up a few of my old standard arguments but again, imagine. So glad to be evolved. No headaches in that group or if they have em, no-one cares.

Polygamy was a product of power of the rulling elite - Our evolutionary history did not institutionalise polygamy (Or polyandry for that matter). Civilisation created a rulling elite AND polygamy.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,563
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to bobn2, May 12, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

How come monogamy is practicised in a lot of species? Do they all have a society imposing rules on them?

Monogamy and polygamy are both present in the behaviour imposed on us by our genes, depending on the individual and the circumstances one or the other will be the natural behaviour. Denying that monogamy is part of our genes (but just imposed upon us by society) is ignoring all psychological behaviour associated with love. While love is influenced by society, its roots lie within us regardless of what society we are born into.

Monogamy is also a simple social contract much like creating a company with a partner (just a rather long-term one). And while society might see benefit in supporting this contract, it is also usually in the interest of the individuals regardless of which society they live in.

(Note than none of the above discriminates between hetero- and homosexual monogamy although it obvious that the phenomenon of love is heavily titled towards heterosexual love in our genes and that some aspects of the social contract called monogamy, ie, those regarding to reproduction, also apply differently to hetero- and homosexual monogamy.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Roger99 wrote:

Well, gotta call you on that (while not contributing to any arguments around) there are species of primates closely related to chimps that are embarrassingly and famously active going once every 20 minutes or more and with any other nearby monkey male or female, 365 days a year (think of the chafing, ouch). It is understood to be a normal part of the social communication and bonding within the group and is done at every chance including three ways. Can't see it myself. Imagine trying to get into a really good book. Only heard about it myself recently and messed up a few of my old standard arguments but again, imagine. So glad to be evolved. No headaches in that group or if they have em, no-one cares.

Well, you "can't call me on that." It's true that Bonobo's engage in touchy feely behavior, and Gay sex, females come into "Season," and unless they ARE in season cannot deal with vaginal penetration.

Dave

PS - Checking on this, I see I am WRONG...

While my knowledge of Chimps and Gorrillas is correct, Bonobo's, like us, can have sex just about any time...

My bad...

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,240
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

That is why promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for the working classes. In the UK we realise that these practices quite OK for the ruling classes (indeed, encouraged), but American society, with its bogus veneer of equality, gets these things confused, resulting in the inconsistent attitudes that you relate here.

While a long answer, it's too simplistic. Polygamy is a product of civilisation. The more primitive the culture, the less likely it is to use polygamy as a reproductive strategy. We are not Chimps - Chimps, gorrillas, etc, cannot have sex except for certain times of the year. We are the only primate that can have sex 24/7/365...

Well, some of us can Us and bonobos, they have sex all the time.

Anyway, let us see you evidence that 'polygamy is a product of civilisation'? Using the trusty Wikipedia, I find that:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide

So, I think my observation, would be that the monogamy rate per society on average is 15%. I would think that 'advanced societies' have a much higher monogamy rate than that.

I note from 'Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis' by Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen that:

'Polygamy, securing genetic variation, may have been the preferred mating pattern for early humans, just like the majority of primate species are polygamous'. She is an expert and says 'may' because she doesn't know, and nor do you.

Polygamy was a product of power of the rulling elite - Our evolutionary history did not institutionalise polygamy (Or polyandry for that matter). Civilisation created a rulling elite AND polygamy.

As I say, produce your evidence. Until then, I'm going with my version, that polygamy (or more accurately angamy) is the 'natural' state and that monogamy is an imposition of 'civilisation' for both the genetic societal reasons, and more importantly in both feudal and capitalist societies, for the property relationships involved.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rjx
rjx
Contributing MemberPosts: 744Gear list
Like?
It's a human rights issue. n/t
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012
-- hide signature --

You can spend your time splitting hairs debating which camera is marginally better. You can spend your time pretending the gear you currently own is preventing you from being a great photographer. Or you can spend that time reading books, watching tutorials, attending workshops and seminars, practicing what you learned, discovering classic and contemporary photographers, studying photographs, listening to interviews and podcasts, watching documentaries and photography related TV shows. Our time on this earth is limited and it’s up to you how you chose to spend it.

 rjx's gear list:rjx's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
Sorry Bob
In reply to bobn2, May 12, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

Chato wrote:

While a long answer, it's too simplistic. Polygamy is a product of civilisation. The more primitive the culture, the less likely it is to use polygamy as a reproductive strategy. We are not Chimps - Chimps, gorrillas, etc, cannot have sex except for certain times of the year. We are the only primate that can have sex 24/7/365...

Well, some of us can Us and bonobos, they have sex all the time.

Yes, I was mistaken - Nor do they practice Polygamy

Anyway, let us see you evidence that 'polygamy is a product of civilisation'? Using the trusty Wikipedia, I find that:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide

Sorry, no. I f you reread my post I was talking about Hunting and gathering people;i.e. our evolutionary past, and very few of their societies are polygamus

Just google: "Polygamy" +"Hunting and gathering"

I stand by my statement - Polygamy is a product of civilisation. We evolved as Hunters and Gatherers - Everything since, is a drop in the bucket of evolutionary time.

So, I think my observation, would be that the monogamy rate per society on average is 15%. I would think that 'advanced societies' have a much higher monogamy rate than that.

Monogomy has made a comeback for the very reasons it existed in the first place. It optimises survival.

I note from 'Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis' by Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen that:

'Polygamy, securing genetic variation, may have been the preferred mating pattern for early humans, just like the majority of primate species are polygamous'. She is an expert and says 'may' because she doesn't know, and nor do you.

There is Far more data on this subject then you arfe aware of.

Polygamy was a product of power of the rulling elite - Our evolutionary history did not institutionalise polygamy (Or polyandry for that matter). Civilisation created a rulling elite AND polygamy.

As I say, produce your evidence. Until then, I'm going with my version, that polygamy (or more accurately angamy) is the 'natural' state and that monogamy is an imposition of 'civilisation' for both the genetic societal reasons, and more importantly in both feudal and capitalist societies, for the property relationships involved.

Google it..

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,314Gear list
Like?
Religion? Is that natural?
In reply to Roger99, May 12, 2012

Any other creature on this planet that shows signs f religion. And how many people have been killed by religious people in the name of their god? I guess more than gay people slaughtering, warping or murdering heterosexuals. May be we should get rid of relgion. It is unnatural. Or at least we should not allow parents and schools to bring kids up with it.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,240
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to noirdesir, May 12, 2012

noirdesir wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Which comes to the question of marriage. The idea of monogamous marriage in Western societies is a very unusual and strange one. Historically, humans have acted as Chimpanzees and Gorillas do, with the males that are most powerful locking up all the opportunities to breed, and denying them to the lesser males. Look closely though, you'll see that is how the rich and powerful still behave (as a Brit, very obvious from the historical behaviour of our monarchs). However, the problem with that is that it doesn't leave you with a lot of people to actually do the work in society, so the obvious solution has been evolved - allow the lower classes to breed, but impose on them a pattern which limits so far as possible their ability to spread their genes (i.e. monogamy). As an artificial pattern, this requires some effort to maintain, it relies on almost every working person pairing off to maintain a good supply of workers. Now, it is easy to see why some sexual practices are frowned on. People (working class ones, anyway) who have sex outside marriage are spreading their genes more than they should be, and people in stable homosexual relationships are threatening the future supply of working people by upsetting the delicate balance of an artificial system.

How come monogamy is practicised in a lot of species? Do they all have a society imposing rules on them?

Not so many, really. Lobsters and some birds. And yes, it is usually to do with their social formations. Herd animals are much less likely to be monogamous, solitary ones much more likely. Humans tend to be herd (or pack) animals.

Monogamy and polygamy are both present in the behaviour imposed on us by our genes, depending on the individual and the circumstances one or the other will be the natural behaviour. Denying that monogamy is part of our genes (but just imposed upon us by society) is ignoring all psychological behaviour associated with love. While love is influenced by society, its roots lie within us regardless of what society we are born into.

Love is a chemical reaction caused by detection of apparent genetic compatibility. If humans were monogamous, it would only happen once in a lifetime. Circumstantial evidence shows that it happens on average more than once per lifetime, with the monogamous being a outlier. The average for photographers is fractional.

In any case, in most societies marriage has nothing at all to do with love. It has to do with wealth relationships.

Monogamy is also a simple social contract much like creating a company with a partner (just a rather long-term one). And while society might see benefit in supporting this contract, it is also usually in the interest of the individuals regardless of which society they live in.

That is a bold statement. I can't think of any evidence to back it up.

(Note than none of the above discriminates between hetero- and homosexual monogamy although it obvious that the phenomenon of love is heavily titled towards heterosexual love in our genes and that some aspects of the social contract called monogamy, ie, those regarding to reproduction, also apply differently to hetero- and homosexual monogamy.)

I really can't see any evidence at all to suggest that monogamy is the genetic norm. The evidence tends to point otherwise.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to bobn2, May 12, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

I really can't see any evidence at all to suggest that monogamy is the genetic norm. The evidence tends to point otherwise.

Clearly all species have different evolutionary histories, and therefore different optimal "marriage" arrangements.

You are a wee bit too arbitrary. Probably half of birds, including Social birds are monogamus. Quite a few mammals are monogamous. Most canids for example. Our long childhood, combined with a social "pack" of twenty or so people was ideally suited for monogamy.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,240
Like?
Re: Sorry Bob
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chato wrote:

While a long answer, it's too simplistic. Polygamy is a product of civilisation. The more primitive the culture, the less likely it is to use polygamy as a reproductive strategy. We are not Chimps - Chimps, gorrillas, etc, cannot have sex except for certain times of the year. We are the only primate that can have sex 24/7/365...

Well, some of us can Us and bonobos, they have sex all the time.

Yes, I was mistaken - Nor do they practice Polygamy

NO, they don't practice any sort of 'gamy', they all shag each other all of the time.

Anyway, let us see you evidence that 'polygamy is a product of civilisation'? Using the trusty Wikipedia, I find that:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide

Sorry, no. I f you reread my post I was talking about Hunting and gathering people;i.e. our evolutionary past, and very few of their societies are polygamus

You said nothing in your post about hunter gathering societies.

Just google: "Polygamy" +"Hunting and gathering"

I just did. That suggestion doesn't work for you at all , Dave. It just brings up a set of random comments, which actually take both lines in about even numbers. It's also not great in that many of them are religious links with an agenda to say (particularly) that monogamy is superior, and do so by arguing that it is the 'natural' or 'god given' state. But, it is going to be rarer in hunter gatherer societies, since they tend to be more solitary and a solitary habit tends to longer mating partnerships.

I stand by my statement - Polygamy is a product of civilisation. We evolved as Hunters and Gatherers - Everything since, is a drop in the bucket of evolutionary time.

You still have no evidence, no evidence really that the 'natural' state at all.

So, I think my observation, would be that the monogamy rate per society on average is 15%. I would think that 'advanced societies' have a much higher monogamy rate than that.

Monogomy has made a comeback for the very reasons it existed in the first place. It optimises survival.

In what way, in a modern society?

I note from 'Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis' by Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen that:

'Polygamy, securing genetic variation, may have been the preferred mating pattern for early humans, just like the majority of primate species are polygamous'. She is an expert and says 'may' because she doesn't know, and nor do you.

There is Far more data on this subject then you arfe aware of.

Yet you cannot present it, you just send me off googling, which kicks back in your face.

Polygamy was a product of power of the rulling elite - Our evolutionary history did not institutionalise polygamy (Or polyandry for that matter). Civilisation created a rulling elite AND polygamy.

As I say, produce your evidence. Until then, I'm going with my version, that polygamy (or more accurately angamy) is the 'natural' state and that monogamy is an imposition of 'civilisation' for both the genetic societal reasons, and more importantly in both feudal and capitalist societies, for the property relationships involved.

Google it..

As I said, I just did, and it doesn't work at all for you. I think you are carrying a lot of bourgeois religious notions wrapped up as 'evidence'.

Actually, I have no evidence for my post, I just made it up to be controversial, but I'm surprised how easy it is to defend, and how little evidence there is to present the other way.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,240
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

Chato wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

I really can't see any evidence at all to suggest that monogamy is the genetic norm. The evidence tends to point otherwise.

Clearly all species have different evolutionary histories, and therefore different optimal "marriage" arrangements.

You are a wee bit too arbitrary. Probably half of birds, including Social birds are monogamus. Quite a few mammals are monogamous. Most canids for example. Our long childhood, combined with a social "pack" of twenty or so people was ideally suited for monogamy.

Lets see the evidence, Dave. Factoids are fine, but in the end, a wee bit too arbitrary.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,563
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to bobn2, May 12, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Monogamy and polygamy are both present in the behaviour imposed on us by our genes, depending on the individual and the circumstances one or the other will be the natural behaviour. Denying that monogamy is part of our genes (but just imposed upon us by society) is ignoring all psychological behaviour associated with love. While love is influenced by society, its roots lie within us regardless of what society we are born into.

Love is a chemical reaction caused by detection of apparent genetic compatibility. If humans were monogamous, it would only happen once in a lifetime. Circumstantial evidence shows that it happens on average more than once per lifetime, with the monogamous being a outlier.

Of course love happens for a large majority of people multiple times. And it often not does last forever. But it leads to monogamous relationship for given amount of time (which usually is counted in years). That was my point that, that our genes lead at least to sequential monogamy. Often love is replaced companionship or just familiarity that can easily last a lifetime. How long the sequences are can be debated but my point was that there is a strong monogamous strong streak in our genes that is not imposed by society.

In any case, in most societies marriage has nothing at all to do with love. It has to do with wealth relationships.

Monogamy is also a simple social contract much like creating a company with a partner (just a rather long-term one). And while society might see benefit in supporting this contract, it is also usually in the interest of the individuals regardless of which society they live in.

That is a bold statement. I can't think of any evidence to back it up.

Just look at the definition of a social contract and look at the definition of marriage (formalised or not). If you cannot see that the term social contract applies to marriage, I cannot help you. And that going through life (particularly if it involves child-raising) is easier if you are not alone is also pretty self-evident.

I really can't see any evidence at all to suggest that monogamy is the genetic norm.

I did not say it is the genetic norm, I only said it is one genetic norm, and being not the only genetic norm means it is quite natural that it often enough does not last forever. Of course polygamy is also a genetic norm (and hiding it probably as well), that is why real life has both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,853Gear list
Like?
Re: Sorry Bob
In reply to bobn2, May 13, 2012

Hunting/gathering groups were small. Perhaps two or three families, connected by kinship ties to similar groups. They were organised in an egalitarian manner, for the simple reason that they had to be organised in an egalitarian manner. Within this society there was rarely a surplus of resources, and men and woman participated equally in the societies. And within these societies, formal monogomy was the norm and not the exception. This was so for the reasons cited above. Does not mean that there wasn't cheating. Does not mean that people sometimes changed partners. But formal monogomous relationships optimised survival of the offspring, for both partners

For the woman, because for a number of years after giving birth, she was handicapped in gaining food, and for the man, because having a woman care for his offspring optimised tthe survival rates of his genes - Not to mention being able to get some whenever he wanted it.

With the invention of agriculture, a surplus arose which allowed societies to develop "classes" and these classes, by their very nature started to eliminate the egalitarian society. For some individuals, this allowed the accumulation of wealth - And with the accumulationn of wealth, the accumulation of power. Polgamy became possible. I will note that in almost all polygamous societies, the majority of families remain monogomous.

Now my links for the above are in my bookcases...

Now let me iterate. Monogomy is a product of our evolutionary history. But that doesn't mean that sexual liasons with others, not a member of the pair bond, couldn't take place. Monogomy not sex, optimised survival.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads