The Two Parent Paradigm of Child Rearing

[Serilliant]

I have been passively reading the rants and raves of my good friends over at Opine Editorials (http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/), and their strategies intrigue me.

They are self-described "marriage defenders" in that they oppose same-sex marriage. As a side note, I have always loved the rebranding of fringe stances in vain attempt to disguise discriminating agenda behind pretty names. But I digress...

The 'traditional marriage' crowd wields the interesting tactic of jumping to new arguments when they perceive their former to flounder. The argument du jour this time is the proclamation that the only 'proper' way to raise children is with one man and one woman forming a married couple. Any other setting, they say, is suboptimal; a single woman, a single man, two men, two women, and even two men and two women (http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-two-mothers-isnt-enough.html) all fall short of the supposed ideal.

Now, as someone raised by a single mother, I resent the notion that I somehow have turned into a flawed adult for having lacked a male parent. I also resent the notion that 68.7% of our youth (http://www.rainbows.org/statistics.html) are flawed for their non-traditional families.

The way I see it, "protect the children!" is just another smoke-and-mirrors tactic from the anti-same-sex marriage crowd lacking any basis in science or realism. But what are your thoughts? Are children raised non-traditionally disadvantaged as compared to their traditional peers? Is marriage solely for the purpose of generating well-adjusted offspring (and is marriage the only way to get there)? Your thoughts, please.

arguments and not to someone's character. Althanas does not and will never censor, but we reserve the right to remove content which violates our Terms of Service.]

[Seth_Rahl]

To put it simply, as the fiance' to someone who is openly bisexual, I have no antagonistic feelings towards both same-sex mairrage and single parents. I have known lots of people who have gone through having to be raised by one parent, and they are not "flawed" in any way shape or form.

When it comes down to it, we are all just human, one and the same.

[Kially Gaith]

Haha, I was raised by a mother and a father, I turned out TBDL, which in the eyes of the social community, would make me flawed. Hell, I had a good upbringing, everything a boy could need.

I chose my own path based on my thoughts and dreams. Parents only partially influence your life, but in the long run, it doesn't really matter who or what parents you, it's your choices in life that decide what you do and become.

I do advocate that a same sex marriage with an adopted child or child from previous family has a more of chance of becoming homosexual, I don't believe it's a big difference, only a small difference, hell, down to a point of a percentage... But that doesn't mean I disagree with homosexual relationships, If someone is gay, good on 'em, I hope they live a happy life and find an awesome partner.
I believe anyone who is against gays really needs to rethink who they are, I will listen to their reasons, I will hear them out, I will fight for their right to believe such, but I stand by the homosexual community and hug them with open arms, because every person has free choice, I support being who you want to be, no matter who that person is.

[Caden Law]

I'm more in favor of civil unions. For everyone. Abolish the State institution of marriage as a whole, replacing it with civil unions for everyone regardless of their sexual leanings. Then have marriage be the purely religious thing that it's supposed to be. There'll be overlap here and there (mostly in the traditions of changing family names, and the fact that a marriage would invariably need to happen around the same time as a civil union in order for the couple to get any partnership rights). Voila; suddenly everyone's on the same playing field, all equal rights matters have been Permanently Settled as best the State can achieve, and there's really nothing to fight about anymore. At least not legally.

Marriage is, ultimately, a religious institution. I'm borderline-militant on the seperation of Church and State. >_>;

[Karuka]

If this is an argument about marriage, my opinion is that a couple is married if they have promised with serious intent on both parts that one is monogamously committed to the other "till death do you part." Public marriage is a way of saying in front of everyone that a promise has been made, and a way to be held accountable if the pair separates, particularly should there be children. Its primary function is to bind a man and a woman together so that they can make babies, religion brings it in because no man really wants to be rearing children that aren't his, and no woman really wants to bring up her offspring without any help.

If this is an argument about child-rearing, then I'm in favor of what's best for the child. I'd sooner put a child with a gay couple that was committed to providing the child with the proper care and love than in the custody of an abustive/negilgent traditional couple. I believe that children do need the care of both mother and father in an optimal world, since gender roles tell each parent what they're supposed to teach their child. But this isn't an optimal world, and I'd rather have emotionally and psychologically sound children running around with two fathers or two mothers than a bunch of damaged children with a mother and father.

[Elijah_Morendale]

I'm the last person you want to ask about child rearing (if you want, I'm pretty sure Christoph could second that), and by divulging my "tactics", I would incur the wrath and hatred of those of you on here who are parents (or who like kids in general), but I'm going to have to agree with Karuka here. It depends mostly on the quality of the person raising the kid in the first place. Raising a child requires a lot of love and caring, which can be provided by anyone, homo or heterosexuality be damned. Yes, gender roles do play a part as well, you can't deny that.

[The Valkyrie]

I guess I'm gonna screw up my kid permanently since I just became a single mother - again. But letsee... heterosexual couples who fight all the time, are abusive, or neglectful can't be any better (and are almost definitely worse) than a homosexual couple. And single mom's rock! Besides, it isn't too hard to find good mentors for your child if you fear gender roles aren't being adequately provided for. Every young man needs a male role model (and a female role model).

[Skie and Avery]

I was raised by my adopted father and stepmother, then went to live with my biological mother until she had to go and die, and then finished up the teen years with a single aunt. I think I turned out pretty normal. I don't think there's any problems with gay marriage. I know a gay woman who adopted a child that she and her partner are raising. The kid's in my day care class and he isn't any different than any of the other boys. If I hadn't caught his moms kissing in the parking lot, I'd never have known his family situation was any different than anyone elses. Thinking back, I've known quite a few people raised by gay parents, either single or in couples, and none of them have come out the worse for it.

And I guess my kids are going to be a little strange because I myself am bisexual and fully intend on never stopping the sexing up of hot women everywhere, married or not. And Serilliant...if I can ever manage to get him drunk enough. Rawr, baby! *pelvic thrust!*

[Breaker]

IMHO, it's how good a job the parents do. How they treat their kids matters, not what their gender or sexual alignment is. I'm taking a first year psychology course right now, and I've seen statistics saying children raised by only one parent are more likely to have "problems". But you know what? Statistics mean shit all if you love your kid and bring them up well. As for homosexual couples, I'm sure there are (or will be) statistics around this, but the same rule applies. To me, being straight or not is equal parts nature, nurture, and choice. Just because not everyone in our world is ready to deal with that, doesn't mean it's innapropriate.

To play devil's advocate a little, I will say this. Any kid with same-sex parents is going to get made fun of a lot on the playground. Now, some kids can deal with this, others can't. Is it awful? Yes. But when I was in elementary school kids called each other "gay" as a petty insult every day. You can imagine what the child of gay parents might face.

[Zook Murnig]

Being personally involved in a situation regarding a child (my little girl Kaleigh) whose parents are not together, I have to say that I seriously doubt if that would cause her any great distress or disability in her growth and development. Elizabeth does an amazing job taking care of her, and I come over and play with her whenever I am able. She's a happy little girl. If Elizabeth started dating girls, I doubt anything would drastically change about how she raised Kaleigh. Sexuality and single-parenthood have very little to do with the rearing process, except in extreme cases where the child is being neglected or abused (by the parents or by peers) because of their home life.

I cannot deny that any child raised by same-sex parents would be made fun of to no end in the elementary school playground. However, the resulting adult would likely be a more open-minded one, which our society desperately needs. If it weren't for the same-sex parents, bullies would simply find something else to tease the child about.

I do not personally know any children of same-sex parents, but I know several people who have been raised in single-parent households. Elizabeth, for one. She's a very well adjusted young woman, despite the circumstances of her childhood and, more recently, the abrupt ending of said childhood.

In the case of same-sex parents, often the argument against it is that such unions confuse the child about gender roles and lead to another generation of the "abomination" of homosexuality. Proponents of this theory manage to conveniently ignore the fact that many homosexuals come from very strict heterosexual families, often living in fear of their parents discovering their taboo interest in their own sex.

If you don't like homosexuals, you can pretend they don't exist and focus on other aspects of the ones that you do encounter. Don't call them an abomination and try to force them to the fringe of society just because they are different from you in one way. The same could be done to you by so many for just as many different reasons.

I'm gonna shut up now, before I rant too long.

[Xos]

I was raised by my Biological Mother, and her brother, my uncle. After he left the Military, he chose of his own free will to stay and help raise me. He was more of a man than my real father will ever be. I'm sorry to say I even met the bastered that is my father.

To say that I am somehow wrong for not being raised by a normal married couple, I find that insulting to my dear departed Uncle's memory.

I defy those who put up this nonesense propaganda in the hopes of somehow defeating homosexual unions to point out a perfect union with a perfect family among all those unions they say is right. As it was written, let he who is without fault cast the first stone.

[Max Dirks]

I've always considered children raised by gay couples to be a simple nature versus nuture issue. Some believe that people are born gay, while others believe that being gay is a choice. If we are born gay, then the influence of our gay parents is irrelevant because wouldn't we end up gay anyway (assuming societal pressures don't 'convince' us to be straight). If we choose to be gay, then having gay parents could be seen as a relevant endogenious factor related to the choice we make (unfortunately I don't have a website offering statistics that show that parents have the largest influence on the development of the morals of their children, but they are out there).

Being of the latter camp, I am against same sex marriages. Of course, forty years ago being conceived and raised by an interracial couple was viewed in the same light. There is a strong chance that over time, like with interracial marriages, a good majority of the people may become desensitized to gay marriage as well. Then perhaps less people (maybe even a majority) won't mind children being raised by gay couples.

[Serilliant]

Even if we assume that gayness is chosen, Max, and even if we assume that children of gay couples are more likely to choose gayness themselves -- two shaky premises, I'll note -- so what? Are you saying that it's a bad thing if kids are gay?


I cannot deny that any child raised by same-sex parents would be made fun of to no end in the elementary school playground. H

But would they? How cognizant are children really about their playmate's parents? I can't recall a single playground slur involving, "haha, your mom was wearing white shoes after labor day!" or anything. And even if the kids did take note of a peer's same-sex parents, children are incredibly accepting of non-norms simply because they don't know norms yet. The only reason a kid would start making fun of another's gay parents is if their own parents specifically made a comment about "little Simon's homo dads". The people who decry, "but what of the poor made fun of children!" tend to be the same ones that teach their own kids to make fun of these children. Not teaching their children to discriminate seems a much better solution than preventing couples from adopting, no?

I'm not saying, of course, that you would raise your children to be hateful, Zook. I just wanted to address the notion that we should accept as truth that the children of gays would be picked on for being children of gays.

[Bleater]

I've always considered children raised by gay couples to be a simple nature versus nuture issue. Some believe that people are born gay, while others believe that being gay is a choice. If we are born gay, then the influence of our gay parents is irrelevant because wouldn't we end up gay anyway (assuming societal pressures don't 'convince' us to be straight). If we choose to be gay, then having gay parents could be seen as a relevant endogenious factor related to the choice we make (unfortunately I don't have a website offering statistics that show that parents have the largest influence on the development of the morals of their children, but they are out there).

Being of the latter camp, I am against same sex marriages.

Merely antagonising here, not for you in particular, but because I have heard this stance from many people, in which I must ask: What is the opposition towards? Supposing that you are correct on the nature vs. nurture camp (in fact, it's really a little bit of both for human behavior; a nice little finding I've come across in my study of Criminology), then that means the entire opus on is the child can be "turned gay" or not. But assuming they can be... so? A lot of that arguement seems to stem from the idea that it would somehow be wrong for someone to grow up to be gay- something that not ironically occurs more often from heterosexual parents' offspring.

Now, my devil's advocating out of the way, I personally find a lot of the strong religious lot rubbing me the wrong way on this joint issue (child rearing and marriage). On the first, I take it personally as a father of a child who I'm not married to the mother of, nor ever will be. If anything, this has made me shower more love, care, and attention on her because I know she's going to have obstacles to overcome with having "two families", and it makes me try that much harder. And I know a lot of other "single parents" (I put air quotes because I loathe that term, as it is generally applied to persons acting as the sole parent to their child, instead of those of us who are merely seperately parenting) go to those extraordinary lengths for their children, moreso than "normal" parents. It seems crass to try to slight them because they don't fit an "ideal" or norm.

The second being that I generally dislike the "gay marriage" debate. Mostly because I find it a mask for prejudice. If people opposed to it are so strictly for religious reasons: fine. But it is a bit shady that I've met some very outspoken people on the matter than say they'd be opposed to a same sex marriage, and yet have had them say they would have no problem with me and my girlfriend marrying (both of us being agnostic). If it's a religious thing, then you should be willing to exclude everyone who doesn't fit the religious ideal for the ceremony, not just the easy target.

[The Valkyrie]

That last point about agnostics being able to marry is a point I've been trying to figure out for quite some time. Pagans and buddhists and atheists can marry (even in a Christian church!) and yet gay people can't? Strange.

[Max Dirks]

Bleater, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I suspect the answer is people's morality. People can feel that being gay is wrong just like they can feel that murder is wrong. Whether you agree with any person's morals is your own thing, but if the majority of the people have similar morals, those morals are the most likely to be embedded into the law.

Serilliant, I just wonder why males and females have different reproductive organs (so one cannot work without the other, modern science aside). I wonder why males and females release different types of hormones to intentionally attract the opposite sex. I don't want to get into any more psychology or philosophy than I already have (as to justify why being gay is wrong, a decisively human concept), but being gay just seems to be against the very fabric of nature.

[Melancor]

Well by no means I belive that A children raised by a "non-traditional" family is destined to become a less-productive member of society.
I do belive that is obious that a children will grow up much diferently to that one raised by a traditional family. These differences are what may be considered an abnormality in adult behavior. It's a matter of seing the glass half empty or half full. I think that different types of raising a children can result in an explosion of original traits; As this one theory of how homosexuality is 'created' in a person (one i dont necesarely support) is that ider; male lacks a parent male figure, and has an overprotective mother. Female lacks a parent female figure. We are an ever changing society; We might aswell just adapt to having tolerant straight figures towards homosexuality.

Like someone says already if being gay is already inveded at birth then the precense of homosexual parents is irrelevant to how a child may react.
None of the gay people I know say that it was a choice for them to be gay. who would want to be gay anyways? When you are constantly hit in the head by society's prejudistic comments and agressive harassment.

I am just saying that we should see the positive in any... "abnormality" in what we consider as the standards of raising a kid.

[Ashiakin]

I feel that marriage is traditionally (in most instances) a mechanism for the economic and sexual exploitation of women by men. Thus I am very, very leery about the whole concept, but not prepared to say that a male and a female who are both concerned about women's status in society and economic oppression couldn't have such a partnership without major detrimental effects.

Anyway, more practically, I feel like aware heterosexual couples and aware homosexual couples marrying might help to reform an archaic and oppressive institution into something based more on real love (though I am leery of this being entirely possible under current economic conditions). I would say that the point of marriage in Western societies is to make individuals happy, regardless of how sexist or exploitative our society is in general. So even though I think that marriage is an institution that needs a revolutionary overhaul, I support gay marriage because I believe that it fits into what marriage is supposed to do for most people--make them content in their lives. I think that gay marriage might even be able to serve as a model for straight couples under the right conditions, letting them see a relationship without male exploitation of females.

As far as raising children goes, I think the notion that gay couples will raise children "worse" than straight couples is misguided. If anything, I think the child would benefit by growing up in a household where there is less possibility for exploitation.

Max: I don't really get this "against the fabric of nature" argument. Biologically, humans are designed to be hunter-gatherers. So there is nothing "natural" about people living in high rise apartment buildings in dense cities and driving to the store in their cars to pick up food at the grocery store. Biologically, we are designed to be egalitarian nomads that hunt and gather food from the wild without the aid of agriculture, cities, or our modern way of life. Do you argue against civilization as an affront to nature, too, or is it just gay people that are messing things up?

[Chiroptera]

Biologically, humans are designed to be hunter-gatherers. So there is nothing "natural" about people living in high rise apartment buildings in dense cities and driving to the store in their cars to pick up food at the grocery store. Biologically, we are designed to be egalitarian nomads that hunt and gather food from the wild without the aid of agriculture, cities, or our modern way of life. Do you argue against civilization as an affront to nature, too, or is it just gay people that are messing things up?

Hunter-gatherers? Is that why we have no claws or sharp teeth for killing and no mention-worthy sense of smell or sight for foraging? We hunt with sticks and stones. We forage with pet dogs and logic. Humans are not biologically predestined to just 'go with the flow' of the environment, it is and always has been our nature to make weapons out of branches, slaves out of animals, paper out of trees; to take what we're given and make something that is -- from our view -- better so that we can improve the quality of our lives. That's what separates us from most animals. We don't adapt to our surroundings, we force our surroundings to adapt to us.

This applies to the issue of homosexuality. I don't think there's anyone who would deny that heterosexuality is at least more common in nature and therefore could be considered the biological norm, but humans are infamous for going against the norm. We seek our own pleasure and self-fulfillment at the expense of accepted standards, we break the rules of the world around is and do what we please because we know that we are the supreme beings of the world and can do with it what we please, totally sovereign in our ultimate dominance.

Forgive the sarcasm. It is not homosexuality or civilization in themselves that are unnatural, it is humanity that inherently chooses to be an 'affront to nature' and that does so for its own benefit.

This doesn't exactly address the issue raised primarily by this thread, but it's a framework for approaching the topic of homosexuals as parents. It isn't 'natural' for non-biological parents to raise the offspring of other people, but adoption is still a great institution. It isn't 'natural' for two members of the same gender to be in love, but it happens, and just because something isn't normal, that doesn't mean that the people involved can't play the roles of parents just as deftly -- perhaps even more so, considering their increased sensitivity to societal hardships -- as parents that do adhere to natural standards of co-ed existence.

[Nirov]

Gay Penguins (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL) disagree with arguments of unnatural. I make the argument that if it occurs in nature (lets assume humans are outside of nature for a second, k?) therefore it is natural.

There are many instances of homosexuality and indeed, same-sex parenting in nature. Just ask my friends the bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) or all the crap in this. (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/a_gay_old_time_in_the_animal_kingdom/)

I'll go on a sarcastic tirade in a bit.

[Ashiakin]

Hunter-gatherers? Is that why we have no claws or sharp teeth for killing and no mention-worthy sense of smell or sight for foraging? We hunt with sticks and stones. We forage with pet dogs and logic. Humans are not biologically predestined to just 'go with the flow' of the environment, it is and always has been our nature to make weapons out of branches, slaves out of animals, paper out of trees; to take what we're given and make something that is -- from our view -- better so that we can improve the quality of our lives. That's what separates us from most animals. We don't adapt to our surroundings, we force our surroundings to adapt to us.

I believe you may have misinterpreted what I said or I phrased it improperly. Anyhow, you are not correct. It is true that humans are invasive primates. However, it's certainly not true to say that the people in early agricultural civilizations led "better" lives that hunter-gatherers. They were less healthy, had a poorer diet, lived shorter lives, and were subjugated to previously non-existing class hierarchies. Things like domestication and agriculture were not adopted because humans were just so great and thought them up to make their lives better, but because human hunter-gatherers had been so reproductively successful that they were forced to lead settled lives--i.e., there was not enough space left for most of them to practice their ideal form of life.

I don't really think this view of human progression and conquest being glorious has any basis in anthropology or science. Humans and plants and animals have always been co-evolving. Yes, you can say that we in the United States could not maintain our current numbers without having grown vast crops of mutant corn in the Midwest. But without that mutant corn, we would also die. It's co-evolution, not human triumph over nature. The fact is that we're dependent on the things we domesticate and cultivate as they are on us.

More on the topic at hand, however--homosexuality was commonly accepted amongst hunter-gatherers (possibly as a method of birth control, but possibly for its own sake). It was only with the rise of class systems and agriculture that such practices became to be maligned. I think that the oppression of gays is really a part of this whole system of oppression in general that we humans have been living under from Sumer to 2007.


This doesn't exactly address the issue raised primarily by this thread, but it's a framework for approaching the topic of homosexuals as parents. It isn't 'natural' for non-biological parents to raise the offspring of other people, but adoption is still a great institution. It isn't 'natural' for two members of the same gender to be in love, but it happens, and just because something isn't normal, that doesn't mean that the people involved can't play the roles of parents just as deftly -- perhaps even more so, considering their increased sensitivity to societal hardships -- as parents that do adhere to natural standards of co-ed existence.

I don't really appreciate your reasoning, but I'm glad you don't hate gay people.

[Max Dirks]

Nirov, these lines confirms my theory
When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either. At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. If all penguins became gay, they would go extinct. They, unlike humans, have no wonders of science to help.

[Nirov]

Unlike penguins, the human race could stand to lose a few hundred thousand would-be babies.

I find it hard to believe that every child raised by a gay couple would go gay. You also completely disregard sexual experimentation, which can lead to pregnancies. And, as you said, we have science to continue our race on. Sex isn't really needed at this point in our history. Except for the obviously pleasurable attributes.

Not all penguins are gay, and I don't think gay penguin parents would raise gay penguin adopted babies. Although that'd be pretty cute.

[Chiroptera]

Things like domestication and agriculture were not adopted because humans were just so great and thought them up to make their lives better, but because human hunter-gatherers had been so reproductively successful that they were forced to lead settled lives--i.e., there was not enough space left for most of them to practice their ideal form of life.

You're telling me that people only started farming and domesticating livestock because we ran out of land to chase rabbits over?


I don't really think this view of human progression and conquest being glorious has any basis in anthropology or science. Humans and plants and animals have always been co-evolving. Yes, you can say that we in the United States could not maintain our current numbers without having grown vast crops of mutant corn in the Midwest. But without that mutant corn, we would also die. It's co-evolution, not human triumph over nature. The fact is that we're dependent on the things we domesticate and cultivate as they are on us.

The glorification of human conquest was certainly not my goal, so I apologize if my sarcasm didn't quite carry across. I would say, however, that you are mistaken if you honestly think that humanity has genetically-mutated corn to thank for our continued existence. Evolution is the changing of a species over time, typically assumed to be caused by the changing environment and conditions. What we do to corn is intentional mutation, and there is nothing natural or mutually beneficial about it. We don't help the environment by creating a monocultural agriculture, we assert our needs over the resources of the earth and change it to be what we want it to be; fatter, more filling, better for us. We are anything but depended on by nature. I highly doubt that the world would fall to pieces if humans all spontaneously expirated.


More on the topic at hand, however--homosexuality was commonly accepted amongst hunter-gatherers (possibly as a method of birth control, but possibly for its own sake). It was only with the rise of class systems and agriculture that such practices became to be maligned.

And you know this about the homosexual behavior of hunter-gatherers from which we have descended from . . . cave art? Is there homosexual porn painted on the walls of Neanderthal domestic caves that led people to this assumption? I know that homosexuality doesn't have the same stigma in other countries that it does here, but let's assume for your argument's sake that our ancestral hunter-gatherers were gay, or at least bisexual. If it was so common, why would it have been eliminated from the list of accepted behavior? If everybody did it, why would it have been allowed to become something that was taboo?



And about the penguins and the bonobos. Yes, you are going to find organisms that exhibit unusual behavior, but how many species of organisms are there on the planet? For that matter, how many penguins are there on the planet? And how many of them do you think are gay? The fact that there are baby penguins should answer that sufficiently. Once we get away from the dramatic exceptions, we come unsurprisingly back to the fact that homosexuality is not normal. You say "many" examples of homosexuality can be found in nature, but if you compare those numbers to the number of animals that don't exhibit homosexual tendencies, it makes me wonder a little if maybe we can go back to blaming our good friend the Media for our slightly skewed perceptions. I've never read an article about a straight antelope . . .

[Moonlit Raven]

I have often failed to see any reason for alarm in a same sex couples raising a child. Actually, I think the whole issue of a same sex couple being unfit to raise a child just another cover for the newest forms of racism. The zeal with which I see most people dogging homosexuals and homosexual couples trying to raise a child often reminds me of a witch hunt.

I wonder when humanity will out grow its need to see someone, something, anything as lesser than itself and simply except things as they are. After all, does it really matter who a child is raised by as long as their needs are met and they are happy? Children are smarter than we often give them credit for. They show us if something is wrong, if they are unhappy.

For instance, my little cousin went from a happy child, very much willing to go to the day care he had been attending for over a year. To a child that cried and clung when I tried to drop him off. It turned out one of the 'teachers' there had struck him as well as several other children.

Has anyone gone into a home of a same sex couple and simply watched the child? If so, what did they see?

[Ashiakin]

You're telling me that people only started farming and domesticating livestock because we ran out of land to chase rabbits over?

That's a rather base way of putting it, but essentially, yes I am. And the majority of the scientific community who have studied the issue would tell you the same. These things are a product of culture-based reproductive success and co-evolution with our environment. They're not some grand human invention or discovery that was spread across the globe by some superior group that happened upon it. I recommend the works of David Rindos and Mark Cohen if you want to read more.


The glorification of human conquest was certainly not my goal, so I apologize if my sarcasm didn't quite carry across. I would say, however, that you are mistaken if you honestly think that humanity has genetically-mutated corn to thank for our continued existence. Evolution is the changing of a species over time, typically assumed to be caused by the changing environment and conditions. What we do to corn is intentional mutation, and there is nothing natural or mutually beneficial about it. We don't help the environment by creating a monocultural agriculture, we assert our needs over the resources of the earth and change it to be what we want it to be; fatter, more filling, better for us. We are anything but depended on by nature. I highly doubt that the world would fall to pieces if humans all spontaneously expirated.

I think you're ignoring the fact that we're still dependent on mutant corn. You're treating as like say, nutritious rocks, rather than a plant that we are also dependent on because we would not be able to sustain our current numbers without it. Were there, say, some awful blight or skyrocketing oil prices that led to exponentially high prices of industrial fertilizers, we may just just realize that we aren't quite the demi-gods of earth that we try to be.

You're right about us all dying and the world going on, of course. It's not something that I argue for personally. In a way, I agree with you that people should, as much as they can, try to shape the world so that it benefits them. But I think that we have done so and are doing so currently in a naive and wrong-headed fashion. Our civilization is based on practices that are not sustainable and are short-sighted and greedy. Additionally, people are not able to really shape the environment to their suiting because they are controlled by class systems and mechanisms of oppression that put those decisions out of their hands. We're not the masters of the environment because we're not the masters of our own selves.

... Yeah, I've kind of gotten off the subject of the thread, haha.


And you know this about the homosexual behavior of hunter-gatherers from which we have descended from . . . cave art? Is there homosexual porn painted on the walls of Neanderthal domestic caves that led people to this assumption? I know that homosexuality doesn't have the same stigma in other countries that it does here, but let's assume for your argument's sake that our ancestral hunter-gatherers were gay, or at least bisexual. If it was so common, why would it have been eliminated from the list of accepted behavior? If everybody did it, why would it have been allowed to become something that was taboo?

Most knowledge of past hunter-gatherers is gleaned from studying present-day hunter-gatherers, which I will admit is not a perfect way of doing it, but it's all we have and there has been considerable effort put into this since the 70's. I did not say that there were tribes of hunter-gatherers that practiced homosexuality exclusively and entirely, but that it was a commonly accepted practice. Your question is a a hard one that I can't answer directly, but I will point to the fact that we were more egalitarian and accepting before our reproductive success caused us to lead settled lives centered around agriculture, and less accepting after the rise of agriculture and hierarchical class systems. Something happened in there when that elite group gained control over those resources--we received sexism, poverty, and homophobia. I'd say that homophobia is an aberration of the last ten thousand years, certainly not the norm for our species.

[Serilliant]

@Chiroptera

Your premise and conclusions are troubling. If you're trying to assert that the rareness of homosexuality points to it being unnatural, not only does the desirability of intraspecies diversity disagree with you, but so too does the naturalness of thousands of other 'rare' behaviors. Allow me to take your final paragraph and change one key fact and make the same exact argument:

"And about the humans and their playing of football. Yes, you are going to find organisms that exhibit unusual behavior, but how many species of organisms are there on the planet? For that matter, how many humans are there on the planet? And how many of them do you think are football players? The fact that there are frail humans should answer that sufficiently. Once we get away from the dramatic exceptions, we come unsurprisingly back to the fact that playing football is not normal. You say "many" examples of play activity can be found in nature, but if you compare those numbers to the number of animals that don't exhibit sporty tendencies, it makes me wonder a little if maybe we can go back to blaming our good friend the Media for our slightly skewed perceptions. I've never read an article about a lazy antelope . . ."

Wow. That argument sounds almost as baseless as... well... your original one.


I wonder when humanity will out grow its need to see someone, something, anything as lesser than itself and simply except things as they are. After all, does it really matter who a child is raised by as long as their needs are met and they are happy?
Very good point. Many people seem to have some unreasonable expectation that they should be able to dictate others' practices as they see fit. How many parents have you heard complaining that some random stranger in the supermarket started rambling with, "you know, you should do this with your child", or, "you know, you shouldn't do that"? People in general tend to think that they are the paragon of X skill, and that anyone deviating from their own personal style of X is doing something wrong. Whatever happened to live and let live?

[Chiroptera]

Let me clarify.

By "unnatural," I am not asserting that homosexuality is some kind of conscious decision like becoming Gothic or deciding to be a professional unicyclist. I understand that studies have shown that homosexuals often actually have different brain anatomy than heterosexuals.

What I am saying by "natural" -- I looked the word up and got so many different definitions that it's exact meaning is pretty much a moot point -- is that homosexual is counter-intuitive as a means of survival for a species. Members of the same gender cannot reproduce, and arguing from a Darwinian perspective, the purpose of every action of an organism is the preservation of its species. Homosexuality does not seem to be intrinsically condusive to a species' survival, which is what normally defines a species' natural behavior. Therefore, homosexuality is not natural.

And football, Serilliant? Come on. You could at least have used something that wasn't illogical and completely ridiculous. :D Sorry, I'm not a big fan.

But seriously. You're actually proving my point, because humans are the only species that plays football, and even then it is an extremely small percentage of humans alone that can and do play football, so the unnaturalness of it is even more reinforced. And football is completely inapplicable anyway because you have to learn how to play it. Do homosexual men have to be taught how to fall in love with another man?

But maybe it's evolutionary theory that's not clear. The theory states that species will change over time in ways that promote their survival. This means that something that is good for a species will occur more often among populations of the species. If homosexuality was more prevalent among humans, I would have an easier time accepting it as natural. Then again, it's not exactly a trait - if it's genetic - that can be easily passed on, so . . .

[Max Dirks]

I disagree with only one part, Chiroptera. I believe that becoming gay is very much a choice.

[Serilliant]

Actually, the notion of Darwinian species survival that you bring up, Chiroptera, is interesting. I've actually wrestled with the "why does homosexuality exist if it's contrary to reproductive survival?" question. I think I may have come up with an answer.

I alluded in my previous post to the benefit of intraspecies diversity. The reason it's so grand is this: let's suppose there's some sudden drop in temperature that ravages the ecosystem. A small number of organisms in a given species will manage to survive supposing that they happened to have genes that were abnormally adept to survival in the cold. Now, if this species normally lives in a very warm environment, genes used to survive in the cold are relatively useless, but can exist nonetheless. Thus, their apparent uselessness does, in fact, have a use: to protect against the threat of species destruction.

Let's expand this a bit and say that these cold-surviving genes also inhibited an organism's ability to survive in the heat. If this species, again, were to live in a warmer climate, the cold-gened individuals would be maladapted for the environment. It makes no sense from a Darwinian perspective that these genes get passed on given that they are 'bad' to inherit, but as it contributes to intraspecies diversity, something we desire, it continues to get persist. Short-term increase in reproductive exuberance pales in comparison to species adaptability, after all.

Metaphor aside, let's return to gayness. As I'm sure you know, genes don't exist in a bubble. There isn't a gene for, say, your sense of humor, and then a gene for your athletic ability, and then a gene for your intelligence; all of your genes interact in complex ways to create a broader phenotype. It could very well be that the series of genes that causes or at least contributes to homosexuality also contributes to some other yet unrecognized function -- survival in cold, for example. Darwinian theory rewards the survival of strong genes to be passed on to a new generation, but it also rewards diversity to protect the species against annihilation. It may very well be that the Darwinian spirit keeps the gay genes alive for some potential future global purpose.

[The Valkyrie]

Pardon my lack of eloquence compared to the rest of you, but I just wanted to point this out: reproduction isn't the only necessity of a species survival. Social and emotional needs are also VERY important. In some cultures, even now, a woman is for making babies and not pleasure and therefore homosexuality is what is actually indulged in for pleasure. Regardless of what is natural (the majority of humanity does unnatural things, sorry to say), the main thing to remember is that marriage is supposed to be the union of two people who love each other enough that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. If two men or two women marry with that intention, wouldn't they be an excellent example to their children, adopted or otherwise, of how two people should treat each other and how love and other positive emotions can and should be exhibited?

[Ashiakin]

I'm not prepared to make the claim that homosexuality is genetic, but I think that Serilliant touches on some important ideas. The point of natural selection is not that nature is creating one superior type of creature and that different subspecific variations of it are somehow "unnatural" because they deviate, but that nature is hedging its bets by creating the widest variety of variations possible in order to ensure its preservation in a constantly changing environment. There can be no one superior variety because there is no such thing as the environment in which a creature lives being constant. Homosexuality could simply be one of the many ways that nature is hedging its bets.

So even if someone does disapprove of homosexuality for whatever reasons, it would still be beneficial for them to change their position because variation within a species is important to the survival of that species. Keeping this in mind, I don't think the claim that gays may someday be the only reason that the human race continues is that outlandish. Nature wants a highly varied population. It wants diversity in order to ensure survival.

[Lighthawk76]

Well, since this argument has taken a turn from child-rearing to homosexuality (with a little discussion on what the purpose of man's reason is, which I think is the question Chiroptera and Ashiakin are unknowingly dancing around) I'm going to try to respond/answer what I can/want, and most likely add in something else.

First, that extra something else.

Please do not call those that are against gay marriage "racists" or this new push against gay marriage "racism." Firstly, its just not racism. This isn't a race we are putting down. In truth, we are not denying them anything, we are just not granting them anything.

Also, most of my own religious community (Roman Catholic) who have at least tried to understand the statements that come down from Rome understand that we don't hate homosexuals. We abhor the act, not the actor. We do not condemn people, we condemn their choices (there is a difference). And don't tell me "it's impossible to not be who you are." You are not homosexual, who you are is (insert name), who happens to be homosexual (the argument of decision or choice aside).

We abhor the act, because it goes against nature. I'll let others decide if they want me to go into what "nature" is, but I'll start with the physical nature. Two male organs don't work together, and two female organs don't work together.

If someone wants to bring up the argument "well what about the non-religious," I'm prepared to discuss Natural Law.

Now as for parenting, two parents are the ideal. And if the above is true, then they must be straight parents. Now can single parents work, yes. The fact than a man or woman can die, leaving their spouse alone with their children, proves that it can work. However, it is not the ideal. Does this mean you must remarry? No. Does it mean you should? No. Are you raising children outside of an ideal setting? Yes. Every child wants to have two parents, on some level. Every person called to the married life wants another to complete them. Sometimes, though, we are called to live lives outside the ideal.

Wow, I got really religious at the end. Sorry.

Hmmm, I've tried to make the above sound more politically correct, but I can't. Whoever responds trying to tear what I've said above apart, know that I'm ready.

And yes, I know this has been dead for a while, but I'm interested in it, so sue me.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Natural Law. There's a reason the court system consistently refuses to hear arguments based on it -- thank God for the Peace of Westphalia.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I like St. Thomas's prayers. And that's about it. The idea of the "ideal" has brought humanity nothing but tears. The whole "what is the purpose of man" game in the catechism exists as a tautological pursuit of rabbits. There may be things knowable and perceptible by reason, but the Mind of God proves much hairier than that.

[Serilliant]

Two male organs don't work together, and two female organs don't work together.
You probably just weren't trying hard enough.

The points you make are interesting, but it seems that the premise of your argument is to assume that which you intend to prove. You claim that parenting by two straight parents is the ideal, but on what fact pattern is this based? Statistics are shaky in this area and seem to, not surprisingly, support whatever agenda the reporter of the statistics chooses to advance.

I can understand arguments akin to "well, it seems logical that two parents are better than one" and "both a masculine and feminine influence is better than just one or the other", but why must the solution still be two parents? What makes two opposite-sexed parents better than, say, four multi-sexed parents? Or six? Or eight? Or a whole lot more? 'It takes a village to raise a child', after all, so why do you advocate specifically that two is the ideal?

[Lighthawk76]

(to Serilliant)

Well, my primary reply would be, look at it from the process. It takes one man and one woman to create a child. So therefore, why wouldn't it be best for one man and woman to rear such a child.

The thing you keep asking for (I believe, one only gets something like 20% of what a person means through the written word, so forgive me if I'm wrong) is someone to say that it is okay for the non-ideal to work, which I believe I said is very true.

The matter still stands, what is the ideal?

There are a hundred different arguments for it, all I believe are probably shaky in one way or another. It's the fact that one must really look at what seems to be best. Look first at history, hasn't it been one woman and man rearing a child for the longest of times? As you might point out though, history has been wrong before in cases like slavery and racism.

Another thing to wonder: Is what you're asking how many people rear the child, or how many have custody of said child? For here again is a great difference.

Few people would say that only your mother and/or father reared you. Many of us had grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers, family friends, and even older siblings who in one way or another helped rear them. The parents though are the ones who have custody of the child. If you're arguing for custody, why would you want a oligarchy to be making the decisions for a child. If anyone is in any form of relationship, they might know the troubles of trying to make decisions with just two people. What happens when there are now four, six, or eight? Does one have veto power over the others? Do they make decisions equally?

Maybe there isn't a definitive reason why two are the ideal, but one must decide upon a limit at some point. So why not two when it was two that brought this beautiful, rational creature into life?

And trying hard enough has little to do with it friend. Stick may pleasure stick, and hole may pleasure hole, but neither fit. And trying to do it, or do it any other way, makes the act into a pleasure act. Yes, it may bring the couple closer, but much in the same way that dancing does, or playing a video game. It is shared pleasure.

The coupling of man and woman is an act which mimics the image of God Himself. And yes, this is a belief. It is rational, but not built on reason.

(to Sighter)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying? I understand you're not trying to be rude, so don't worry about that. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions though.


Sorry if I sound rude, but I like St. Thomas's prayers. And that's about it. The idea of the "ideal" has brought humanity nothing but tears. The whole "what is the purpose of man" game in the catechism exists as a tautological pursuit of rabbits. There may be things knowable and perceptible by reason, but the Mind of God proves much hairier than that.

The natural law is self-evident I believe, even if no one wants to admit it. If reason can prove it, disprove it, uphold it, condemn it, than that is the law of nature. Now is there more beyond it, yes. My own faith believes in Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason. Faith is not built upon reason, but is reasonable. Reason is not built upon faith, but doesn't contradict faith. Much of faith needs revelation. The bible is still the great manual of our faith.

Now, the ideal bringing tears? Well, I might agree with that. I don't believe the Truth will always bring a smile, sometimes it will bring pain. The Allies in WWII had to uphold a truth by killing and sacrificing many (the A-bombs are a different matter). Many were ruined or even killed trying to peacefully gain rights for minorities. In my own faith, a man, my God, went through some of the worst torture imaginable for teaching the Truth. The Truth is the ideal, tears may need to be spent, but it must be upheld. Truth is truth.

As far as your claim about the catechism being tautological (I'm guessing you mean that the catechism repeats itself without making any headway? The word is new to me) I would need you to clarify more. Perhaps I am biased, but I find it to be very straight forward to someone of Faith and Reason.

And as for saying the Mind of God proves much hairier than what can be found by reason, this is very true. Revelation exists for a reason. God is absolutely transcendent, and our reason cannot fathom him, therefore he must reveal himself. Proofs of God really only prove the need for something more than material reality or a prime mover, they do not explain God. I'm not sure of your exact faith or denomination, so I'm not sure if you know of the Catholic belief in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons of one divine reality/substance (one God). We know of it, and see it because of revelation, not because of reason. We find it to be reasonable, in that it does not go against reason and reason can be applied to it. It is a matter of faith, though, because you cannot come to the conclusion of it with reason.

We may be getting off topic here, but if you would like to respond on these points, basically me asking for clarification, and the mod of this thread would allow it, I would very much enjoy discussing it.