Yeah well I think gay couples and their supporters are guilty of gilding the lily on this issue.

My position is based on the evolutionary fact that same sex couples were not 'designed' to procreate and I don't believe it is in the wider interests of human kind to actively facilitate them to do so.

That is not to say that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.

On the contrary human sexuality is more like a spectrum from male to female than an absolute or series of absolutes. And this is not confined to homo sapiens.

But never the less homosexuality has no evolutionary merit. If humans were inherently homosexual then we would rapidly become extinct as a species.

All characteristics of all species do not automatically have evolutionary merit.

Our genes and characteristics are subject processes other than evolution e.g. genetic drift, linkage, epigenetics and many others.

It is likely that homosexuality is a result of one of these other processes and does not confer benefit to our species as a whole.

And many of the problems that western society is experiencing, and not just homosexuality related issues, is the result of this foolish notion that has developed in the last few decades of the interests of the individual always trunping the interests of our society and our species.

The issue of homosexual rights is beginning to cross tat line in my opinion.

While I do not believe that homosexuals should be punished or actively discriminated against, nor do I believe they should be subsidized or assisted to defy the fundamental restrictions of human biology!

And with this homosexual marriage issue, I believe there is a solution that will give neither side exactly what they want.

Abolish the marriage act and replace it with a civil union act for all legal purposes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Marriage would then be a specific religious 'adornment' that sits on top of the civil union if people wish to have it but that has no legal .ramifications.

@ Greg: "gild the lilly"? To "wastefully and unnecessarily adding to something that is already perfect."

Are you for or against marriage equality?

Frankly I am sick to death of the both of you (gays and bible thumpers) arguing about this boring and unimportant issue, considering our mounting environmental/food/energy problems.

If it was up to me I would give neither of you imbeciles what you want as previously outlined.

You mistake the matter, Greg. I am neither gay nor a bible thumper, quite the opposite on both fronts.

Because you do not agree with my arguments it doesn't make me an imbecile. I don't agree with you, does that make you an imbecile? If we both call each other imbeciles we have achieved nothing. If you have a case make it and let it stand on its merits instead of undermining others with mudslinging.

We don't have an either/or here. Marriage equality isn't going to contribute to environmental/food/energy problems. If those problems are so much more important, why are you here arguing for the status quo instead of doing something about them? If it's a boring, unimportant issue, why argue against it?

There is almost no effort required to achieve marriage equality. I think you overestimate how difficult it is for politicians to actually do this. I believe that the amendments for the federal bills have already been drafted. Howard found time to insert the marriage is between a man and a woman amendments despite his busy schedule.

Do you imagine that seeking marriage equality precludes concerns for all other issues? This is one issue I am concerned about. Human rights should not have to give way to the other issues you've mentioned.

When will be the right time for marriage equality? What percentage of renewable energy will trigger this debate again for you? Will the elimination of hunger have to be global or just national for you to talk about this? You present perennial problems as problems to deal with first as a means of putting this easily resolved issue forever.

If not now, when?

Some species have the ability to change sex when the ratio of males and females in the society is out of balance. Humans are obviously incapable of this but there is a theory that they may undergo neuro-physiological changes which affect their sexual orientation in response to an uneven ratio of males and females in their environment. In mammals this theory is also applied to servo-mechanistic control mechanisms in relation to polulation vs. resources which may help to avoid the crisis event which occurs when population outstrips resources. We're currently on track for that to happen in the year 2020. These are unproven theories as yet but still very interesting.

Hmm, that was supposed to be a reply to Greg Boyles post about the evolution of homosexuality. Another point that I would like to make independent of that is that is has been proven that children are better off growing up in a family with both biological parents than with one or neither biological parent. This is because behavioural genes direct an animal to invest in other animals that share close geneological relatedness with that animal. As the parent/offspring relationship is the closest relationship possible, behavioural genes direct an animal to show the greatest amount of altruism towards their offspring. This is an unconscious fixed action pattern which serves to maximise the survival chances of an animals offspring and the passing on of genes into the next generation. This study is explained and referenced in : Russel, P. J., 2007, Biology: The dynamic science, (1st edition), Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, Belmont CA. pp. 1281-1286

David, you are referencing a High school biological textbook, rather than the study itself - do you have the title or author of the study rather than a textbook otherwise it is impossible to know to which study you refer.

Grendels, that text is part of the course material for my undergraduate psychology Bsc. Don't be deliberately offensive just because you're overly emotional about this issue. I said that the study is explained and referenced in the text, find it yourself unless you're too lazy.

David, it was not an attempt to be offensive at all, when I went and looked up the reference I found it listed as a high school biol text on Amazon. As it is a text book it's contents cannot be accessed online, and what you have referenced is not the study but the entire book so I have no idea to what study you are referring. I'm not studying you course and thus don't have access to the text, or the six pages within it you listed.

Ok. The area of research that I was refering to is commonly called 'The Cinderella effect'. There is a huge body of research available about it online and the common but very simplified conclusions on the subject are what I stated earlier. The text that I mentioned refers specifically to Wilson and Daly's work but there is much more available than that. Try searching Daly and Wilson Cinderella Effect. The Wikipedia entry lists a lot of references as well, around 40 research papers.

David I am familiar with Wilson and Daly's work, but their research has been strongly focussed on whether there is an evolutionary trigger for propensity to care - their samples for this were natural families and step families and I am not sure that you can make a valid extrapolation to same-sex families given the interpersonal relationship dynamic shifts that occur with family amalgamation that results when step-parent relationships are formed that may or may not also be present in other family groups.

In short, sure comparing outcomes of children raised by both genetic parents as opposed to families with one step parents does show a somewhat greater level of negative outcomes - but Wilson and Daly did not study same sex families at all and I think I would be much more comfortable with the applicability of your assertion if you chose a source comparing outcomes of children's in stable same sex families with outcomes of children in stable heterosexual families to reduce confounding factors.

Grendles, the fact that children are better off growing up in a family with both biological parents than with one or no biological parents is clearly relevant when you're talking about same sex parenting, as that means by definition that only one of those parents can be the biological parent. And who said that it is my assertion? It's not my work. You can claim confounding factors all you want but the fact remains that those children can will only have one biological parent in their environment and that is what the Cinderella Effect is about. What could possibly change so much in a study that includes same sex relationships that could be a confounding factor? And how do you even know that no families that included step parents due to same sex reltionships were in the study? You're too quick to try to nullify the results of what is a huge body of work. It seems that you're being driven by a desire to disprove this study because you want science to be in line with your personal opinion.

"You're too quick to try to nullify the results of what is a huge body of work. It seems that you're being driven by a desire to disprove this study because you want science to be in line with your personal opinion." And you are too quick to settle on the one research finding that seems on the surface to support your position. You are applying the work of two researchers in evolutionary psychology to circumstances possibly beyond its application. That is bad science. And as for disproving the study - I have attempted to do nothing of the kind. It is an extensive and valuable body of work, what I was suggesting is that you have oversimplified the findings then applied them into other circumstances.

I don't even know where to begin with that statement. Firstly, I'd like to know why if you were already familiar with Wilson and Daly's work then why didn't you recognise it when I described it in my first post on this subject? I think that you need to read up on it a lot more because you don't seem to be grasping the subtleties involved with the behavioural differences between a biological parent and child vs. a non biological parent. Secondly, as I stated in my last post, how do you know that step-parents from same sex relationships weren't included in the studies? It's incredible that you're accusing me of bad science by trying to use the Cinderella Effect support my position. What is my position exactly? Have I stated one apart from giving the results of the study?. Can I ask what it is that you are studying?

I didn't recognise it because:

"behavioural genes direct an animal to invest in other animals that share close geneological relatedness with that animal. As the parent/offspring relationship is the closest relationship possible, behavioural genes direct an animal to show the greatest amount of altruism towards their offspring. This is an unconscious fixed action pattern which serves to maximise the survival chances of an animals offspring and the passing on of genes into the next generation"

is a rather generalised description of work that has for several decades focussed on human family relationships that analysed the different rates of intentional harm to children where in families that had either both genetic parents, one genetic parent or one genetic and one non-genetic parent.

I'm not saying that there are not some behavioural differences that come into play - just that that most of the work done by Wilson and Davy relied on small samples with a focus of three particular family structures - their methodology does not identify whether any of the families are same-sex parent families but given the sample sizes they would have been highly likely to mention that particular family form. Their work seeks an evolutionary explanation for an observed set of facts - that children in step-families are at slightly higher risk of harm and that the reason for this is possibly the lack of a biological imperative. However the

“Secondly, as I stated in my last post, how do you know that step-parents from same sex relationships weren't included in the studies?” I don’t – and neither do you know that they were included, the authors drew from data in existing government data sets and their methodology statement does not specifically include or exclude same sex couples. However, I think it reasonable to assume that given the small data sets they study (particularly for the fatality studies) and the proportions of the various family types the chances of inclusion of a same sex family are very small since they make up a tiny proportion of families overall. In addition the data in their work relies of statistics that count ‘registered marriages’ for the predominant portion of the sample, but the studies were generally conducted through the period when this would not have included same-sex relationships since they could not be registered marriages until quite recently. On that basis I think it highly unlikely that the paper has any direct relevance. Again, I’m not excluding the possibility just stating that I do not think the work infers what you think it does for same sex families. If attempting to seek an evolutionary basis for that argument you would also need to take into account potential differences that might change behaviours.

“It's incredible that you're accusing me of bad science by trying to use the Cinderella Effect support my position. What is my position exactly? Have I stated one apart from giving the results of the study?. Can I ask what it is that you are studying?”

what I said was "You are applying the work of two researchers in evolutionary psychology to circumstances possibly beyond its application" The studies are quite particular in the samples they used and I do not believe it is necessarily valid to apply the observations from one distinct family structure to one that is quite different and where other factors may override mild evolutionary triggers. Wilson and Davy studies the outcomes for only the negative cases - death or abuse and acknowledge that in the majority of cases step parents care for, and contribute to the wellbeing of their children thus acting against the theorised biological imperative. The proportion of step parents apparently unwilling or incapable to do so is very small.

By referring to the study (and then vehemently defending it when you perceived it was challenged) you tend to imply that your position is that the inclusion of a non-biological parent means that children in same-sex families are somehow at risk. Perhaps you could outline your position if you are concerned that I have misconstrued it.

As for what I am studying – postgrad in management at present. What is your field?

Grendels, this conversation is getting really old but I want to clarify that as I said, I do not have a position on same sex marriage apart from what I've learned about the effects of children in step parent relationships from the studies involving the Cinderalla Effect and I implied nothing further than that. To answer your question I studied evolutionary psychology hence my knowledge on the issue. I had a feeling that you might have been studying law by the way that you're trying to disprove the relevence of applying the Cinderella Effect to the general population without showing much sensitivity to the concepts involved. As it turns out it wasn't a bad guess.

As you said, this study was not aimed specifically at a certain population, as far as I knew the statistics came from a random sample of families recorded by police departments in Canada and I don't think that they are as small as you make out though I couldn't really be bothered going back and reading the numbers. But, it if really is a random sample of a larger number of statistics then it is more than relevent. To explain why that would take a really long time, but very basically when you take data from a huge pool like the ones collected by a census or government departments the sample sizes don't need to be that large as long as you take care to select them randomly with no bias.

To further expand on my personal opinion, seeing as you asked for it, I've copied and pasted my response to one of Gregs posts from a couple of days ago where he was becoming exasperated with people who were arguing with his medical knowledge even though they themselves had no real training:
'I could not agree more with that sentiment. As a scientist I don't mind sharing some of my knowledge with people that are interested in learning, but when you get people that want to argue the point because they are upset that natural selection doesn't take their emotions into account it drives me crazy. I see no difference between the religious right who have now resorted to calling science an 'alternative religion' seeing as it has been so succesful in disproving nearly everything they believe, and the ones on the far left who try to twist facts about human biology to suit their own ideology. In my opinion this discussion board discourages scientists from sharing their knowledge when doing so means attracting harrasment from people with radicalised opinions.'

I saw your response to Greg earlier - but I don't think that you could characterise what I have said as twisting facts about human biology. From that response I can only assume you don't support same-sex parenting on the grounds that evolution says no.

Your point about statistics would be entirely valid (I manage a department comprised entirely of psychologists, researchers and statisticians so it is not new ground for me) if I were making a criticism of the methods used by Wilson and Daly - but I am not, I merely question the applicability of their results - not to the general population as you state, but to a tangentally related cohort (part of the general population but with substantial behavioural differences).