California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But, since humans do crazy things like fall in love, the basic biological urge to mate with the best fit goes out of the window.

Aha!!!

So gay marriage is okay in the Book of Biology, afterall.

And we know that homosexuals have used sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption and other methods of "having" children for years, when laws and policies have permitted.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Aha!!!

So gay marriage is okay in the Book of Biology, afterall.

And we know that homosexuals have used sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption and other methods of "having" children for years, when laws and policies have permitted.

No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.

What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.

With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.

The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.

What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.

With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.

The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.

The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.

If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals). In fact, sexual frequency goes down after marriage, which also tends to negate this argument:

In general, surveys reveal that cohabitation is a "sexier" living arrangement than is marriage. That is, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual male couples tend to have sexual intercourse (defined as genital contact) more frequently than married couples (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983; Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz 1995; Rao and DeMaris 1995). http://family.jrank.org/pages/1102/M...Frequency.html

Personally, I think anybody who wants to get married at all is nuts because, in my experience, it's a total nightmare, but if people (whether hetero or homosexual) want to do it, that's up to them.

I don't see the point of doing away with the term "marriage" and replacing it with civil union. It seems like an unnecessary, impractical, and expensive proposition to me.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.

If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals).

AGDee I feel that you are missing my point. There is no problem with my argument because I stated that biology exists outside the concept of marriage. You need not have one to have the other. You asked for a reason other than religion and the reason I give is a biological one.

Now, we as humans have connected the biological aspect of procreation to marriage, but for animals, they still procreate without getting married - horses, pigs, dogs, lions. All of these animals produce offspring without the benefit of marriage.

My point from a biological perspective is that gays can not fully contribute to perpetuation of the species in a biological sense since two of the same gender can not produce offspring. Therefore, gays can not fully contribute their genetic material to the gene pool.

[JonoBN41]

As AGdee noted, reproduction and marriage occur independently of one another. Gays don't have children whether married or not, so it's not a reason to exclude them from marriage.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

As AGdee noted, reproduction and marriage occur independently of one another.

I've said this too, several times.

Gays don't have children whether married or not,

As is true for many heterosexual relationships.

so it's not a reason to exclude them from marriage.

But, yes it is. If you strip away the religious connection and just look at marriage in terms of a legally recognized life long committed monogomous relationship, then there is no way for that homosexual couple to contribute each of their genes together in the gene pool by way of producing offspring.

For the man or woman who may be married to the opposite sex but may be sterile, there is the understood notion that given the theoretical chance, that couple could conceive together. With a homosexual couple that theoretical chance could never even happen.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

couple could conceive together. With a homosexual couple that theoretical chance could never even happen.

sorry, couldn't resist