Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Gay marriage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Just a couple of years ago there were a bunch of posters her that would have praised this woman https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PLUwNUg4rTA
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No. He's wrong and probably inconsistent, but lots of people are wrong about all sorts of things without being hypocritical about it.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
It is certainly a fool's errand for me to try to argue with Maurile on the topic of biology, especially evolution where he demonstrated over the years in this forum he is magnitudes of order better versed than myself, but just maybe I'll learn something in this otherwise sill endeavor. I also realize that I'd seem to be arguing against the consensus. So I expect if there is a reply to be absolutely "schooled" for my foolishness. Call me crazy but that would be a good thing here, So here we go-
I'm not convinced!
If there was the hypothesis that "Humans have evolved to predominantly prefer
One possibility would be that those in non
Another possibility would be that while our society has pushed us into one relationship at a time that we fantasize about or given a chance our rebellious side (i.e. young single males) seek multiple partner relationships. Not exactly!
How about if we consider American society the exception rather than the rule? While I'm not sure of the definition of "monogamous pairings" used here for sake of argument let it be the same. If so only 20% of sampled societies are monogamous. Uh oh! Hold that thought for a second.
The same article states "Looking again to our closest animal relatives, amongst primates in general, roughly 80% have been documented as predominantly polygamous". The last two seem pretty damning. But do they rise to the level of falsifying the actual premise? I think it depends on this-
Is monogamy natural? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, and any related discussion requires an understanding of what it means for something to be natural. I'm not sure how possible a consensus on this definition really is. One of the largest barriers to an agreement on how we define natural is an agreement on whether or not humans should be considered natural. Yes, we are biologically natural. We are made of the stuff of stars. We evolved the same way every other extant or extinct species that ever existed evolved--up to a point. Somewhere along the line, we developed cognitive capabilities that have been unsurpassed by any other documented creature. We use significantly more complex tools than any other ape in the wild. We wear clothing and build extravagant shelters to protect ourselves from extreme weather. We have language and art and culture and religion and tradition and ceremony. Are these practices natural? Are we subject to Darwinian natural selection? Or have we decommissioned evolution to some extent, subjecting ourselves to the artificial pressures of choosing mates based upon intellectual factors?
I think Mauriles' reply is that American society is "subjecting ourselves to the artificial pressures of choosing mates based upon intellectual factors" (though he may argue with the "intellectual" part
)But is that correct question? I would think that at some point in time that human evolution would stopped being about who was best able to outrun the lion or reach the fruit in the trees or whatever and more about who can best navigate societal norms. Evolving societal norms. While "in nature" it might be best to spread our genes early and often and hope a child or two of many more actually survives to reproduce themselves might push humans (and other animals) towards polygamous relationship that they wouldn't otherwise not prefer? How about in societal structures. As societies evolved and continue to evolve would children born to monogamous parents have a better chance to survive and reproduce? And would those with a natural genetic (assuming such a thing exists) tendency towards monogamy have an evolutionary advantage in such a societal setting? Since women are just about twice as more likely to do things that support monogamy than men would this especially make sense here? (Which might explains the gay male multiple concurrent partners.)
Maybe in the absence of aids the "free love" sexual revolution would have freed up the majority of Americans and western societies to remove the shackles of one relationship at time. I think society is clearly removing the shackles of one relationship for life as evident by those Scandinavian nations the anti gay marriage crowd liked to point to where the US is just a step or two behind. But I'm not so sure that external societal pressures are trumping a natural desire for many concurrent partners. I'm not convinced that when other factors are controlled (societal, need to continue the species, etc.) that humans at this point time, at least those with mainly western heritage don't naturally prefer one partner at a time.
Sure I may be romanticizing my statement, but how is it falsified?
Oh, and who cares if this is a hijack. We can stick a fork in the original subject of this thread. It is done! We won! It was never a fair fight!
Off to work....
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
ISLAMIC EXTREMELESS, PRESIDENT OBAMA!!! ISLAMIC!!!Officer Pete Malloy said:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Are we designed for monogamy? It's a difficult question because humans are complicated and we're designed for all kinds of mutually contradictory things.
How do we know what any organ is designed for? I think we look at (a) what it actually does, and (b) how what it does provides an evolutionary advantage (i.e., helps propagate the genes responsible for its design). A heart is for pumping blood, we know, because it actually pumps blood and pumping blood does all kinds of useful things like supplying our brains with oxygen.
What are our brains designed for? Lots and lots and lots of things. Different parts of our brains may be designed for certain specific tasks, and then we have something like a general-purpose processor that does all kinds of things that aren't specifically pre-programmed. Sometimes different parts of our brains do contradictory things -- like one part makes us want to eat a lot of chocolate cake, and another part wants us to be disciplined about eating healthy.
Sex is arguably even more complicated than food.
It seems to me, based on experience and observation, that in general:
1. When we bond with someone romantically, we want that person to remain faithful to us. We get jealous if we suspect the potential for infidelity.
2. We also understand that our partner will want us to remain faithful to them.
3. Perhaps in part because we want to please our partner and perhaps in part independent of that (maybe in the hope of mutual cooperation), we may be driven to sincerely promise our fidelity to our partner, swearing not to emotionally bond with or have sex with others.
4. Despite number three, we are still attracted to other hotties, and may be strongly tempted to cheat if the opportunity arises -- even more than we're tempted by chocolate cake.
5. How happy or guilty we are about cheating depends in large part on whether we get caught. People feel way more guilty if they're caught.
6. Despite number three, we often change our minds in a way that's a complete shock to us. While we're promising our undying love, we can't imagine becoming bored a few months later and wanting to move on; but to our utter amazement, it happens.
So in looking for what various parts of our brain may be designed for, it seems that parts are designed for monogamy and parts aren't. People really do promise their undying love, and sometimes even follow through, and there is an apparent evolutionary advantage to doing so when it causes us to be good parents. (Good parenting is a useful evolutionary strategy that increases one's number of great grandchildren, on average.)
At the same time, people really do cheat via random hookups or prolonged affairs, and really do fall out of love. And there is an apparent evolutionary advantage to doing this as well. For men, if you don't get caught and if the person you cheat with doesn't become psycho, cheating is basically all upside from an evolutionary standpoint. Sperm are cheap. The chance for additional offspring is dear. From a woman's perspective, cheating with a genetic upgrade over her current partner is also mainly upside as long as she doesn't get caught. Her partner will still lend parental support, but her offspring will have better genes.
If we were mad scientists in charge of programming someone's mating behavior, and we wanted to maximize the proliferation of the genetic code we were programming, we'd probably program in, among other things, (1) a sincere desire to be a good spouse and parent [pro-monagamy]; and (2) general horniness and temptation to cheat if we don't think we'll get caught (and we should make women more selective than men about whom they're willing to cheat with) [anti-monogamy].
I love me some good ev-psych speculation, but that's pretty much what this is.
If we want physiological evidence concerning whether humans are designed for monogamy, we can look at gonad size. In primates, gonad size is inversely proportional to the tendency toward monogamy (specifically to faithfulness by females). In free-swinging, slutty species, gonads are large because they need to produce a lot of sperm to battle with competing sperm from others inside our partner's private parts. In monogamous species, gonads are smaller because a smaller amount of sperm is sufficient when such battles are less frequent. Chimpanzees sleep around a lot and have large balls in proportion to their bodies. Female gorillas do not sleep around very much, and male gorillas have puny balls. Humans are in between. Based on gonad size, we can rule out anything approaching total monogamy; but we also know that at least we're not as slutty as chimps.
How do we know what any organ is designed for? I think we look at (a) what it actually does, and (b) how what it does provides an evolutionary advantage (i.e., helps propagate the genes responsible for its design). A heart is for pumping blood, we know, because it actually pumps blood and pumping blood does all kinds of useful things like supplying our brains with oxygen.
What are our brains designed for? Lots and lots and lots of things. Different parts of our brains may be designed for certain specific tasks, and then we have something like a general-purpose processor that does all kinds of things that aren't specifically pre-programmed. Sometimes different parts of our brains do contradictory things -- like one part makes us want to eat a lot of chocolate cake, and another part wants us to be disciplined about eating healthy.
Sex is arguably even more complicated than food.
It seems to me, based on experience and observation, that in general:
1. When we bond with someone romantically, we want that person to remain faithful to us. We get jealous if we suspect the potential for infidelity.
2. We also understand that our partner will want us to remain faithful to them.
3. Perhaps in part because we want to please our partner and perhaps in part independent of that (maybe in the hope of mutual cooperation), we may be driven to sincerely promise our fidelity to our partner, swearing not to emotionally bond with or have sex with others.
4. Despite number three, we are still attracted to other hotties, and may be strongly tempted to cheat if the opportunity arises -- even more than we're tempted by chocolate cake.
5. How happy or guilty we are about cheating depends in large part on whether we get caught. People feel way more guilty if they're caught.
6. Despite number three, we often change our minds in a way that's a complete shock to us. While we're promising our undying love, we can't imagine becoming bored a few months later and wanting to move on; but to our utter amazement, it happens.
So in looking for what various parts of our brain may be designed for, it seems that parts are designed for monogamy and parts aren't. People really do promise their undying love, and sometimes even follow through, and there is an apparent evolutionary advantage to doing so when it causes us to be good parents. (Good parenting is a useful evolutionary strategy that increases one's number of great grandchildren, on average.)
At the same time, people really do cheat via random hookups or prolonged affairs, and really do fall out of love. And there is an apparent evolutionary advantage to doing this as well. For men, if you don't get caught and if the person you cheat with doesn't become psycho, cheating is basically all upside from an evolutionary standpoint. Sperm are cheap. The chance for additional offspring is dear. From a woman's perspective, cheating with a genetic upgrade over her current partner is also mainly upside as long as she doesn't get caught. Her partner will still lend parental support, but her offspring will have better genes.
If we were mad scientists in charge of programming someone's mating behavior, and we wanted to maximize the proliferation of the genetic code we were programming, we'd probably program in, among other things, (1) a sincere desire to be a good spouse and parent [pro-monagamy]; and (2) general horniness and temptation to cheat if we don't think we'll get caught (and we should make women more selective than men about whom they're willing to cheat with) [anti-monogamy].
I love me some good ev-psych speculation, but that's pretty much what this is.
If we want physiological evidence concerning whether humans are designed for monogamy, we can look at gonad size. In primates, gonad size is inversely proportional to the tendency toward monogamy (specifically to faithfulness by females). In free-swinging, slutty species, gonads are large because they need to produce a lot of sperm to battle with competing sperm from others inside our partner's private parts. In monogamous species, gonads are smaller because a smaller amount of sperm is sufficient when such battles are less frequent. Chimpanzees sleep around a lot and have large balls in proportion to their bodies. Female gorillas do not sleep around very much, and male gorillas have puny balls. Humans are in between. Based on gonad size, we can rule out anything approaching total monogamy; but we also know that at least we're not as slutty as chimps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Bobby Jindal said this morning he now won't allow issuing licenses until the Eastern District of Louisiana issues its opinion reversing Martin Feldman's previous ruling upholding the Constitutionality of the ban.
Feldman immediately issued his ruling:
http://media.nola.com/politics/other/SAME-SEX-DISTRICT-JUDGMENT.pdf
Feldman immediately issued his ruling:
http://media.nola.com/politics/other/SAME-SEX-DISTRICT-JUDGMENT.pdf
Doug B
Footballguy
Dude is embarrassing himself so badly these days pandering to uber-conservatives to bolster his Presidential bid. Jindal was a god in Louisiana in the few years immediately after Katrina, but he's flushed all that goodwill down the toilet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
njherdfan
Footballguy
Is this for real? He's pretending that the district court's opinion can somehow supersede the Supreme Court's?
Koya
Footballguy
Time, and progress will move forward. Social norms will get past this initial last gasp tumult and, over time, those who hold those views will be seen even more clearly for the selfish, anachronistic bigots they are.
Of course, many won't admit to what they do and say today... But those videos and countless others are here for the long haul.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I'm not sure what you're asking. Is what real?
Doug B
Footballguy
He's not unpopular in 2015 merely because he is the governor. He was poplar as a U.S> Representative immediately after Katrina, moonwalked into the Governor's mansion in 2007, and remained a popular governor for the first few years of his term.
But then, he started thinking "Presidency". He cynically dropped any positions not embraced by the Tea Party or Grover Nordquist. Common Core educational standards? Jindal stumped for them for years ... then pulled a 180 when someone filled him in that conservatives don't like Common Core. State budget? Jindal could've backed any number of legislative proposals which, yes, raised taxes some but also preserved much-needed healthcare and higher education funding. But nope -- Grover Nordquist said those budgets weren't "tax neutral", so Jindal couldn't consider those proposals.
Really, this is off topic. But this heel-digging about homosexual marriage is more of Jindal being cynical and pandering. I think he's being false, and is actually personally non-committal about homosexual marriage. No way do I take him at his word.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Here's hoping technology advances quickly enough that looking up our generation's idiotic youtube comments seems as archaic to our grandchildren as finding the previous generation's angry letters to the editor on microfilm does to ours.
Doug B
Footballguy
To get it kind of back on topic, though -- what sucks is that for one Louisiana parish only, Jindal indirectly DOES control the marriage licensing and such. That would be Orleans Parish (contiguous with the city of New Orleans) which inexplicably outsourced several traditional local clerk-of-court functions to the state some time ago.
Without data: I'd guess at least 2/3 of Louisiana's homosexual population lives in (or near) Orleans Parish. Fortunately, there are several other parish seats in the metro area, so any homosexual couples in News Orleans ready to get a marriage license now need only take a 20-30 minute drive to do so. Jindal's stance is nevertheless ridiculous.
Without data: I'd guess at least 2/3 of Louisiana's homosexual population lives in (or near) Orleans Parish. Fortunately, there are several other parish seats in the metro area, so any homosexual couples in News Orleans ready to get a marriage license now need only take a 20-30 minute drive to do so. Jindal's stance is nevertheless ridiculous.
njherdfan
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Cruz said roughly the same thing. Legally, they're correct, but still a dumb argument.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No, it's because he's a terrible governor. I live in Louisiana, too. And he was elected in 2007 with a $1 billion surplus that became a deficit of about $200 million by the end of 2009 because of terrible policies, and was already a national (and local) laughingstock by early 2009 during his brilliant "volcano monitoring" speech.
Read his long-ago article on participating in an exorcism. I don't think he's being false about evangelicalism. Maybe insane, but not false.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Oh, sorry, probably didn't make national news.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/same-sex_marriage_louisiana.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
I was making a joke but I'll defer to your state which is apparently an even funnier joke.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
As an aside, the AG who told the state not to abide by the ruling for 25 days is Buddy Caldwell. I'm currently adverse to his office on a number of things. His legal analysis sometimes confuses me.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
trogg78
Footballguy
So that's what happened to Arizona Ron.
The Commish
Footballguy
Could a state decide not to issue marriage licenses period?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
If by "we" you mean the citizens of this country, it doesn't appear that we have. That's why I asked the question. We continue to do the same things (see our habits in electing officials to our federal government as a perfect example) over and over expecting a different result and it will NOT surprise me at all if some states try to go this route. It wouldn't surprise me at all
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I think the rhetoric against gay marriage will continue for a time, but I do not envision any substantial legislative resistance.If by "we" you mean the citizens of this country, it doesn't appear that we have. That's why I asked the question. We continue to do the same things (see our habits in electing officials to our federal government as a perfect example) over and over expecting a different result and it will NOT surprise me at all if some states try to go this route. It wouldn't surprise me at all
Yeah, this is going to keep moving fast. My parents' church in Oklahoma is discussing whether to start performing gay marriages. Not Southern Baptist, but still pretty amazing.I think the rhetoric against gay marriage will continue for a time, but I do not envision any substantial legislative resistance.If by "we" you mean the citizens of this country, it doesn't appear that we have. That's why I asked the question. We continue to do the same things (see our habits in electing officials to our federal government as a perfect example) over and over expecting a different result and it will NOT surprise me at all if some states try to go this route. It wouldn't surprise me at all
Last edited by a moderator:
mquinnjr
Footballguy
Happened at a private Catholic school right down the street from me: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20150708_Firing_of_teacher_in_same-sex_marriage_roils_Catholic_school.html
SCOTUS ruling or not, she collects big time on the presumed wrongful termination based on orientation lawsuit coming against the school/Archdiocese of Philadelphia, right?
Reading the below, school needs to be prepared to grab its ankles on this one:
SCOTUS ruling or not, she collects big time on the presumed wrongful termination based on orientation lawsuit coming against the school/Archdiocese of Philadelphia, right?
Reading the below, school needs to be prepared to grab its ankles on this one:
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Not sure if that counts as public appropriations. It shouldn't IMO, but I'm sure there's case law on this.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
It will be interesting to see where we go from here. I could see the first impact at colleges where same sex housing not provided being ineligible for federal funding. So any private university that does not comply with equal housing opportunity would face economic sanctions. From a religious perspective, I could see the federal government not forcing churches to perform same sex marriage ceremonies, but if they do not then they lose their tax exempt status. They could probably grandfather in the old timers to not make them adhere to avoid immediate backlash - but for anyone new entering the clergy it would be a known factor so that they would know that one of their duties could included officiating at a same sex marriage. There will be incremental changes as the whole issue of same sex marriage is normalized.
Are there colleges that will only allow you to room with someone of the opposite sex?
beavers
Footballguy
After having some time to reflect, I am still very excited about legalizing gay marriage.
For one, I really didn't know how I was going to feel -- A long story shortened, I was married to my ex during the summer of love in CA in 2008. We seperated about 3 months after my daughter was born and was legally divorced about a year after (had to wait for CA to grant out of state divorces). Nevertheless, marriage wasn't on my priorities so I took a long break from hoping for equality.
Fast forward to today ... I'm happily with a new partner, who will be my partner forever. We will marry at some point, and when this was announced, I realized just how excited this made me! We talked about small things such as how our nieces/nephews will see me us an aunt etc. We have true equality and will no longer feel less than. Sure, you'll have the bigots ... but those people aren't in my circle so carry on, I guess. I just don't care about them.
Most importantly, I realized when marriage was legalized, that my daughter (who is 4.5) won't have to grow up in a less than society. That my marriage, my relationship, our family will be just as equal as others. I never could've imagined so much progress in such a short amount of time. 'Merica rules.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
Well some of the religious colleges around here provide housing units for married couples (which by their religious standard would be opposite sex) - so unless they broadened their scope....
Without looking anything up or knowing anything about the ordinance in question, I suspect that "schools are not religious institutions" is a better argument for the teacher than "tax credits are public expenditures."
When religious institutions are exempt from anti-discrimination laws, it usually means religious institutions only when they are doing religious stuff, not when they are doing secular stuff. The Catholic Church can discriminate against women all it wants when it comes to hiring priests, but it generally cannot open a hardware store down the street and discriminate against women when hiring cashiers ... because in the latter case the church is engaged in a secular activity rather than a religious activity. I'm not sure about the specific ordinance in question here, but in general, I believe that running a school is considered to be more like running a hardware store than providing church services. Even if there is some religious instruction involved, education is mainly a secular endeavor.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, you're not taking into account all the hetero marriages you've invalidated.
I kid, of course. Congrats, it's been a long time for our families and friends who haven't been able to previously receive the full benefits of living here.
Are you talking about where only one of the couple is a student? Otherwise, a housing unit for a married couple would be an exception from the single-sex dorms the rest of the students live in, yes? Which would mean that 2 men or 2 women who were married to each other could just live in the normal dorms.
Now, if you're talking about providing housing for a married couple where only one of the couple is a student and then restricting that to only heterosexual couples, I can see that.
