Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Shallow, self-assured snark

An article entitled "10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong" captures the supercilious self-righteousness of 21st century America quite well. It is fueled by the same sardonic snark that powers outfits like Colbert and The Daily Show. A typical social media response:
It's sad that all it takes is a single sentence to refute each argument, yet the 'debate' rages on.
Browbeating and triumphalism are the objectives, not serious consideration of the subject at hand. The straw man arguments are there to be cut to shreds, not to offer real resistance. The ease with which a moribund West rejects not just all of its own history up through about a decade ago but also rejects the histories of all other major civilizations is a feature rather than a bug. If 21st century America, with its unsustainable fertility patterns, resource usage, trade imbalances, and perpetual military intervention doesn't know what's right, who does?

Never one to pass up the opportunity to be a gloriously massacred member of a hopelessly outnumbered and outmaneuvered rearguard, let's see if we can't pick off these ten orcs as they advance up the hill towards our position.

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

It's unlikely that homosexuality is genetically heritable because of the obvious evolutionary disadvantage homosexuals suffer. Ironically, that disadvantage is becoming more pronounced as homosexuality moves from enjoying tenuous social acceptance to being revered in a single generation. Long removed are we from the time of Oscar Wilde.

Unlike eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, there is a reason people find (male) homosexuality repulsive--it's unhealthy, really unhealthy. Anal tissue is not designed to be penetrated by an erect penis, and taking anal material into the bloodstream isn't salubrious. AIDS, for example, stole countless hours of my high school health classes.

If, as seems most likely, homosexuality is caused by a pathogen, well, it's about as natural as smallpox or the plague. That doesn't mean admonitions regarding the appeal to nature don't apply.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

There probably is a non-negligible cultural component to female homosexuality. Male homosexuality is not contagious, nor does anyone seriously argue that it is. One wishes blank slaters would admit the same about intelligence (Head Start to turn low-IQ kids into Einsteins!), affordable housing (bring the underclass into suburbia to turn transform them into middle class burghers!), desegregation (expose people to Diversity to exorcise the stereotypical caricatures that exist in their secluded minds!), big is beautiful (to convince men that the way their minds and bodies react in a split second to this is merely a social construct!), etc, but here we are.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Pets don't have said rights or capabilities but siblings, 12-year-old girls, and members of a harem all do.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all. Women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

All is Hegelian progress!

Miscegenation and chattel slavery are separate issues. Conflating them is logically fallacious. In reverse, "Same-sex marriage is a novel experiment that will work, just like communism, eugenics, and affirmative action have all worked."

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour and Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage would be destroyed.

Infidelity is far more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. The divorce rate in the US peaked in late seventies and has been gently but steadily declining since then. It's too early to gauge how same-sex divorce rates will compare to conventional divorce rates but the smart money is on the former being higher than the latter. Cherry-picking high profile anecdotes doesn't change that.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

The fear is that if the institution loses its focus on children, the nuclear family correspondingly loses its status as the societal norm and conventional ideal of household formation.

Even in the Occident marriage hasn't always been monogamous, quite the contrary in fact. Marriage is going full circle on the way back to what it was 2,000 years ago, when the arrangement agreed more with Heartiste's palate. Sex outside of marriage was socially acceptable for men in antiquity because there was no expectation that it signified romantic love between the two marrieds. Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar's great rival, was regularly ribbed for his apparently genuine, doting affection for his wife.

Philandering was less acceptable for married women, but that was because of the obvious issues it raised with regard to paternal uncertainty. Unmarried women having sex with married men was fine, even expected. The Catholic Church is probably the single biggest reason, historically, that the contemporary European understanding of marriage is what it is.

I'm of the opinion that the institution of marriage that emerged out of the forge of Christendom is a spectacular achievement that has played no small part in the building modern society. Historically, a higher percentage of women than of men have successfully reproduced (estimates as disparate as 80% of women but only 40% of men though I doubt the gap is that large on average--it's hard to tell precisely and there are ebbs and flows like genetic bottlenecks) because high-status men had wives and (exclusive) mistresses while low-status men often had little to no sexual access at all. That's still more-or-less how things go in lots of tribalistic societies, like say in the cases of our 'allies' in Afghanistan and Iraq. Middling men who millenia ago wouldn't have had much stake in society now have some stake in it, and they have reasons (their wives and children) to help maintain a large, high-trust super community.

It's not trolling too hard to say that we know the outcome when open relationships are ubiquitous--just take a look at inner city America.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Stepparents are more likely to abuse their stepchildren than parents are to abuse their biological children. The evolutionary explanation for why this is so is obvious. In the case of same-sex couples with children, at minimum one is a stepparent, and in many cases both are.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Aside from the fact that if we replace "Gay marriage" with "Opposition to gay marriage" and "religion" with "Diversity", the above works as a serious assessment of what just took place in Indiana, the US is (in theory) a representative republic and same-sex marriage was foisted upon a population that didn't initially support it, while those doing the foisting did so self-assured of their moral righteousness. Counterfactuals are inherently speculative, but I suspect without legal fiat same-sex marriage would have still come to be legalized, though it would've taken longer.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 

Single motherhood has virtually become sanctioned in America, both socio-culturally with the removal of stigmatization turning what used to be a mark of shame into something bordering on a badge of honor, and also financially with mandatory child support, no-fault divorce, TANF, WIC, etc. The consequences have been disastrous.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. 
Accede, then, to the assertion that we could adapt to state-mandated sterilization or the reintroduction of slavery!

This assumes the sale without any attempt to show the benefits derived from making the purchase. There are lots of other potential organizing principles that haven't been adopted and adapted but have instead been thrown out, like communism and fascism.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is heritable, but not in the way most people think. I believe that lesbians are more likely to have super alpha fathers who passed on their masculine traits to their sons (fortunately) and daughters (unfortunately). I also believe that gays are more likely to have super alpha mothers who passed on their feminine traits to their sons (unfortunately) and daughters (fortunately). I think that homosexuality, like autism, and schizophrenia are unavoidable facts of life. Sometimes people individually benefit from having mental traits that predispose their children to homosexuality/autism/schizophrenia.

If you take your AIDS stats line of thinking to its conclusion, would you also say that heteros are more disgusting than lesbians because lesbians have lower rates of AIDS than heteros? Would you say that White Americans are more disgusting than Asian Americans because Asian Americans have lower rates of AIDS than White Americans?

If you take your infidelity stats line of thinking to its conclusion, would you ban Black men from marrying Black women just because Blacks have higher infidelity rates than other races? Would you ban White men from marrying White women just because Whites have higher infidelity rates than Asians?

If you take your divorce stats line of thinking to its conclusion, society should also ban high school dropouts, people under 25, poor people, and people who have divorced parents from marrying each other too.

All this being said, I don't care about homosexuals. I care about myself. I am pro-gay marriage for the sole reason that I don't want to end up like my classmate's mother.

sykes.1 said...

Once you add the West's rampant foreign terrorism to its domestic debauchery and depravity, its becomes obvious that the destruction of the West is a necessity.

Toddy Cat said...

"I am pro-gay marriage for the sole reason that I don't want to end up like my classmate's mother."

Were you pro-gay marriage ten years ago? Be honest with yourself. If you have changed your mind, do you ever wonder why?

As for your alleged "points" above, they hardly need be dignified with an answer, being the sort of special pleading that one expects from people who have already made up their mind, but look around, and compare the promiscuity stats, the VD stats, and mental illness stats of homosexuals with any of the above groups you named. I think that you'll be surprised.

JayMan said...

Interesting commentary. However, I must point out a few things:

"1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

...

If, as seems most likely, homosexuality is caused by a pathogen, well, it's about as natural as smallpox or the plague. That doesn't mean admonitions regarding the appeal to nature don't apply."

Correct. Influenza, tuberculosis, snake venom, and arsenic are all perfectly natural.

"2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

There probably is a non-negligible cultural component to female homosexuality."

Yes. My current suspicion is that female same-sex attraction is a side effect of other otherwise beneficial genes, one that's not so deleterious that it outweighed advantages these alleles brought, whatever those are. That said, girls seem more likely to get it on with girls in a society that is (thankfully) conducive to it.

"Male homosexuality is not contagious, nor does anyone seriously argue that it is."

Indeed, it's probably not.

"6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

The fear is that if the institution loses its focus on children, the nuclear family correspondingly loses its status as the societal norm and conventional ideal of household formation."

Well, as I've mentioned, this is a rather unfounded fear, because, as high-IQ countries go, fertility rates are highest in permissive, liberal NW European countries (and offshoots). The more "traditional," and indeed, homophobic countries have much lower fertility rates (though Russia has been catching up as of late – excess space may do that).

"It's not trolling too hard to say that we know the outcome when open relationships are ubiquitous--just take a look at inner city America."

That requires evolutionary change, not a short-term secular change in mores. Permissive Sweden is still nonetheless not Detroit. Even looking at genetic factors (contra genetic illiterates like Heartiste), evolutionary trends are not even headed in that direction (family-centric people have the most children).

"Stepparents are more likely to abuse their stepchildren than parents are to abuse their biological children. The evolutionary explanation for why this is so is obvious. In the case of same-sex couples with children, at minimum one is a stepparent, and in many cases both are."

This is technically true, but ultimately it's a canard as an argument. Stepparent abuse is still very much the exception. There's a higher risk, but we're talking about going from one small number to another small number.

"Single motherhood has virtually become sanctioned in America ... The consequences have been disastrous."

Have they? Somehow I doubt there is any causal connection between single motherhood and any adverse outcome.

JayMan said...

@Anonymous:

"I also believe that gays are more likely to have super alpha mothers who passed on their feminine traits to their sons (unfortunately) and daughters (fortunately). I think that homosexuality, like autism, and schizophrenia are unavoidable facts of life."

No. Can people (to quote one Mr. Wonderful) "stop the madness" already? Low heritability of male homosexuality (<22% in twin registry studies) rules out genetic explanations.

See:

Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs | JayMan's Blog

Anonymous said...

The snark is so stupid as to annoy all those who would refute it.

Like the natural claim. Yes, lots of nasty things are natural.

Duh,

But they aren't healthy.

Being gay isn't healthy no matter how you define it.

So, it is just a power play. The insane religious like zeal of punishing those who point out the obvious.

Dan said...

In my view, gay 'marriage' is connected to silly moderns arrogantly acting as though objective reality can be overcome with enough hope, argument and/or changes to the law.

The following things are all examples of this:

- Believing/acting as though gender/sex is a changeable social construct (Those who would argue that sex is biological while gender is the construct should note that when someone gets a 'sex' change they actually change their 'sex' on their birth certificate. Their birth certificate is now incorrect.)
- Believing/acting as though ethnic differences are a social construct
- Believing/acting as though differences between men and women are not real
- Thinking the same government can be applied to any people and that people are fungible
- Thinking Crimea is Ukrainian because we say it is
- Imagining the arrow of time points in the same direction as the arrow of progress at all times

All of these are examples of childish thinking. In every case, there is an objective reality that is perhaps different what people would like it to be. But to pretend that objective reality is not so is to be childlike. To enforce and require childish thinking is lunacy. In every case, reality stands unmoved.

I cannot be forced to believe these childish things and I don't expect I ever will.

We should all determine to live not by lies, living as we do in a Communist country.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolhenitsynLies.php

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
― Theodore Dalrymple

Dan said...

Our government's idiocy with Israel is part of this same phenomenon.

People think Obama is antisemitic. That is not correct. He and other committed leftists in his administrate just simply cannot accept the reality on the ground.

If they were antisemitic, they would say, F-Israel, their problem not ours. Instead they work really hard chasing rainbows and unicorns.

They were mad at Egypt's military for taking back civilization from barbarians after their election. Same thing: total inability to put observable reality above hopes and ideals.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Those rhetorical questions all risk making the perfect the enemy of the good. Defining marriage needn't (and shouldn't) be reduced to an all-or-nothing proposition.

Not sure what you're referring to re: your classmate's mother.

Sykes,

Gibbon on five primary reasons the Roman Empire fell:

-Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;
-Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;
-Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;
-Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;
-Increased demand to live off the state.

Toddy Cat,

It's remarkable how quickly Western society has collectively jettisoned the cumulative morality of not only its own ancestry but also the cumulative morality of virtually all other civilizations and societies. The comments like anon's are thoughtful, but that is more the exception that the rule when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Jayman,

You're essentially an authority on this now and your commentary is always appreciated, thank.

I haven't looked into the change in fertility rates over the last few generations by a similar measure. It's my impression that cratering marriage rates and cratering fertility go hand-and-hand, even with out-of-wedlock birth rates increasing across the Western world. Eyeballing the data doesn't immediately disprove this.

Re: Sweden, yes, but culture, beyond its role in a feedback cycle with genes, matters at some point (ie North Korea v South Korea), if in no other way than that cities like Malmo are rapidly coming to resemble Detroit more than anywhere in the Sweden of a few decades ago.

Re: the causal connection between single motherhood and adverse outcomes, the point is well taken but there are broader social consequences that have to be taken into account as well, like the steadily declining percentage of adult males employed in the US and the increasing percentage of Americans receiving government transfer payments. Putting a bullet through the head of every single pregnant single mother would have a positive causal outcomes on a whole host of social indicators, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Conversely, the lack of causal connections in the outcomes of children who a couple generations ago would've been born to modest married couples and are now born to single mothers does not necessarily make that change morally acceptable, either.

Dan,

As is so often the case, you elucidate my thoughts better than I'm able to. That's why I huddle so closely under the umbrella of empiricism.

There is a reason the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used as a less innocuous synonym of "political correctness".

Anonymous said...

@jaymans

For NW europeans you missed the fact that a big portion of the fertility may be from muslim immigrants rather than white europeans.

Anonymous said...

@Audacious and @Toddy Cat

Ten years ago was when I first met the classmate I was describing. She eventually revealed to me that the reason her parents divorced when she was 2 was because her father was pretending to be a straight, conservative Christian. Both of the parents grew up as conservative Christians, so even though the dad knew he was gay, he pretended to be straight, got married, and had a child so he wouldn't get ostracized by his family of origin and his religious community. He was only able to keep up the charade for a few years.

I want there to be a grand bargain between straight people and LGBT people. LGBT people should be honest about who they are and not fool straight people into marrying them for the sake of keeping up appearances. In return, straight people should let LGBT people have civil rights, including the right to a same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

@Audacious

Why do you draw the line at gays marrying each other? Why not gays and Blacks? Or gays and Blacks and Whites?

JayMan said...


@Anonymous:

"For NW europeans you missed the fact that a big portion of the fertility may be from muslim immigrants rather than white europeans."

No, I didn't (also here).

JayMan said...

@Audacious:

"Sweden, yes, but culture, beyond its role in a feedback cycle with genes, matters at some point (ie North Korea v South Korea)"

Well....

"I haven't looked into the change in fertility rates over the last few generations by a similar measure. It's my impression that cratering marriage rates and cratering fertility go hand-and-hand, even with out-of-wedlock birth rates increasing across the Western world."

In a modern society, you don't want your fertility rates to get too high. Something around replacement level would be ideal for most Western nations (and indeed, below replacement for East Asian countries, since they're all woefully overcrowded). Low fertility is primarily a problem because of the presence of fast-breeding immigrant populations in these countries.

Dan said...

@Anonymous --

Your classmate should feel damn grateful that her dad "faked it." Otherwise she would not be here.

In any case, her dad is self-evidently bisexual, not homosexual. When he was called upon by forces divine or earthly to create your friend with her mom, he performed quite well. Was he miserable in that moment? Obviously not, he was cumming! Sorry to be crude; it would be easier if the obvious did not have to be pointed out!

Your classmate's bisexual dad could have made the moral choice and stuck by your classmate and her mom. Countless men no doubt do that, thanklessly and to the great benefit of wives and children. I have a friend whose father chose to stick with his family, to the tremendous benefit of everyone involved including the dad.

But to hell with reality! There is a narrative to put forth! One must pretend her dad is strictly homosexual against living proof to the contrary, in order to disparage conservative Christians and undermine families.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

It's about honesty, first and foremost. I don't lie about being straight. I am straight and I will continue to be openly straight for the rest of my life. I expect other people to be as honest to me as I am to them. My classmate's dad should have been honest about his gayness, even at the risk of never being able to have kids. It would have been better for society if he had always been openly gay. A divorce and a kid from a broken home could have been prevented. I don't care what's good for my classmate; I care about what is good for overall society. Audacious Epigone doesn't see this because he is already married, but for young single people who are looking to get married, it's hazardous to know that there are closeted gays, lesbians, and bisexuals lurking out there. I want them to all come out and be honest with the rest of society and I am willing to reach a compromise with them in order to prevent me from being lied to.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jayman,

I'd guess that the degree of genetic relatedness and quality of life measures like GDP, height, etc correlations between North and South Koreans is weaker than is the case for just about any other two populations on the planet.

Anonymous said...

@Audacious

I agree with your comment about the Koreans. The fact that North Koreans and South Koreans exist proves my theory that genetics isn't everything, and so called "HDBers" "WNs" "MRAs" "PUAs" and "red pillers" are just as wrong as the liberals/socialists/feminists.

Nurture matters. Nature matters. If nature was the only thing that mattered, we would all be okay with being raised by Black ghetto single mothers. I'm not okay with that idea. I am who I am and it's only partially because of my genes. For all the non-genetic stuff, I want to thank my neighbors for being good neighbors, my classmates for being good kids and not tempting me to do bad stuff, and my prep-school teachers for being way better than the average public school teacher. If I had grown up in a ghetto I would have gotten beaten up several times by now, and probably had my possessions stolen a few times. I would have turned into someone who doesn't trust others. I would have had to endure Black guys catcalling me.

Dan said...

@Anonymous --

"It's about honesty"

Lol. Let's try that.

The honest reality (as evidence shows) that classmate's dad (CD) is bisexual, not gay. He certainly could have honored his vows and done right by his family. His rotten behavior in leaving is precisely what Social Justice Warriors lift up as being 'true to himself.'

It is often joked that homosexuality is like Hotel California -- you can check in but you can never leave. This didn't use to be the case. Rockers David Bowie and Mick Jagger were both flaming gays in the 1970s who have been with women ever since. Bowie has two kids, Jagger has seven.

By your lights, both of them should not have been allowed to be 'deceive' women or have children. Yay, tolerance!

JayMan said...

@Anonymous:

"Nurture matters. Nature matters. If nature was the only thing that mattered, we would all be okay with being raised by Black ghetto single mothers. I'm not okay with that idea. I am who I am and it's only partially because of my genes. For all the non-genetic stuff, I want to thank my neighbors for being good neighbors, my classmates for being good kids and not tempting me to do bad stuff, and my prep-school teachers for being way better than the average public school teacher. If I had grown up in a ghetto I would have gotten beaten up several times by now, and probably had my possessions stolen a few times. I would have turned into someone who doesn't trust others. I would have had to endure Black guys catcalling me."

Your life may have been less pleasant, sure. You still would be pretty much the same person you are now.

(The trust matter possibly notwithstanding.)

Audacious, you have the best anonymous commenters!

Anonymous said...

@Dan

The honest reality is that he lied to his wife about being straight. If he were honest with her and his own parents from the get-go, she would have never married him. His parents would have also disowned him, which is what they did anyway after they eventually found out about his homosexual activities. He should have taken the moral high ground and told everybody about his true identity from the get go. I can respect an openly LGBT person but I can't respect a lurker who pretends to be straight out of fear of rejection. As a straight person I can help make it easier for them to be honest to me by offering to them tolerance and civil rights.

As for the celebs you mentioned, it's one thing to marry someone knowing that they are gay or bi, and another thing to be duped into it. I don't have any sympathy for a woman who marries a man whom she knows to be gay or bi. I have a ton of sympathy for the women and men who are duped into marrying people who are pretending to be straight. You seem to have missed my point entirely. My point is that all of this can be prevented by demanding that LGBT people let everybody in their social circle know that they are LGBT.

Anonymous said...

for young single people who are looking to get married, it's hazardous to know that there are closeted gays, lesbians, and bisexuals lurking out there. I want them to all come out and be honest with the rest of society and I am willing to reach a compromise with them in order to prevent me from being lied to.


it's all about me

has to be a chick writing this

Anonymous said...


"As for the celebs you mentioned, it's one thing to marry someone knowing that they are gay or bi, and another thing to be duped into it. I don't have any sympathy for a woman who marries a man whom she knows to be gay or bi."

it has to be a chick writing this stuff

Some women do marry men who for some reason want to marry even though the man tells her he is gay. Many want to live normal lives despite the gay affliction. No sympathy for that girl, huh? Well, why the heck not? Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

"Male homosexuality is not contagious, nor does anyone seriously argue that it is."

I will. I believe that homosexuality (male and female) are partially societally created. I also believe that virtually all sexual preferences are partially societally created.

There is a reason we don't want children or young adolescents to view pornography. They aren't fully formed, and will be shaped by their environment, for better or for worse.

And sexual practices are part of that environment. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would claim that exposure to a certain sexual practice (any practice-from relatively benign vanilla sex or oral sex, to harsh bondage or violent sex) at age 14 won't impact the sexual preferences of that person growing up. To put in in the harshest terms possible: if someone is sexually abused at age 14, that person will grow up sexually different than someone who isn't. If one is taught at age 14 that oral sex is acceptable and normal, it is entirely reasonable to assume that that individual will grow up believing so.

We all kind of instinctively know this is true. Assuming the story about the ancient Greeks is true (homosexuality was common and accepted), well, unless they were genetically different from us, homosexuality can be and is societally shaped (i.e. in a society of Ancient Greeks, you are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than in 1950's America).

In simple terms, society creates homosexual behavior.

I'm not arguing that all homosexual behavior is societally created. Rather, it is somewhat akin to casual violence. In a society where fighting between boys is accepted as normal (say, American society up until 1960 or so), there were more fights between boys than in a society where fighting between boys is frowned upon (say, America today). This isn't to say that society creates all violence: the hyperviolent will fight in both societies (and similarly, the hyper-homosexual will be homosexual in both). Similarly, hyperpacific boys wouldn't fight in either society (and extremely heterosexual males won't engage in homosexual behavior in 1945 or 2015). But boys that today wouldn't fight would have in 1945: fighting was accepted status-establishment for 10 year olds.

I'd guess that there are boys today that, given homosexuality is normalized, will engage in homosexual behavior, that wouldn't have in 1945. (again, this is entirely consistent with one argument amongst homosexual activists-that we are all on a spectrum of homosexual/heterosexual. In my view, the people at both ends won't be affected by society, but the people in the middle will be).

To sum up: I believe society does create sexual preference to some degree in some people. by choosing a society that is accepting of homosexuals, we are creating more homosexuals, and increasing the odds that a given child will grow up homosexual.

joeyjoejoe

Dan said...

"The honest reality is that he lied to his wife about being straight. .... He should have taken the moral high ground and told everybody about his true identity from the get go."

You must be in your 20s or younger. The concept of 'true identity' is a recent invention. The concept that morality = identifying yourself as gay is an even more recent phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

You completely misunderstood my intent. My concept of morality is that everybody be honest with the world about their orientation.

For most people, morality would be being honest about being straight, since most people are straight. Only for the minority of people who are actually LGBT it is moral for them to be honest to the world about being LGBT. It actually goes both ways. Plenty of straight women pretend to be bisexual in order to get attention from men. Plenty of bisexual women pretend to be lesbian in order to have a relationship with a truly lesbian woman. Those women are just as morally corrupt as the men and women who are homosexual and pretend to be straight.

BehindTheLines said...

OT: I thought this was interesting:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/

In the 90s, well educated women were far more likely to be childless than less educated women. Today, they are only somewhat more likely. A hopeful trend.

Dan said...

Anonymous --

You bandy about the world 'moral', but where on Earth does your conception of 'morality' even come from? When morality doesn't come from religion, it is likely that two people will have moralities that are totally mismatching.

Moral = honest? A thief can be steal in the open or in secret. If he steals in the open, is that the moral path?

Interestly, the Social Justice side is fundamentally dishonest about a multitude of things. Comparatively, the far right is most honest of all. Arrogant, contemptuous, hating, self-righteous, possibly. But reasonably honest.

Audacious Epigone said...

Re: Greek homosexuality, or the ancients' views towards homosexuality in general, it's difficult to really get an "on the ground" feel. A few points worth noting:

- Being on the receiving end was humiliating for a man who'd reached manhood. In Greece there were sometimes intimate relationships between older men and teens. They could be sexual, but needn't necessarily be so, and the giver and receiver roles were fixed.

- Mockery of homosexuality was not uncommon. Cicero is a great example of this.

- The Roman emperor Hadrian's (who was a Hellenophile) reputation was severely blemished by his homosexual relationship with a young man named Antinous, who may have killed himself as a reaction to the embarrassment he felt at being Hadrian's male lover as he approached his twenties.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

The far right is just as dishonest as the far left. Far leftists like to deny the existence of racial differences. Far rightists only accept racial differences if they favor White people. Far rightists love to talk on and on about how Black people have higher crime rates, lower SAT scores, etc. When I bring up the fact that Asians and Jews have the lowest crime rates, they make up all these conspiracy theories about how Asians/Jews go around killing people and never get caught.

Far leftists like to deny the existence of gender differences. Far rightists like to think that there is no overlap between the traits of men and the traits of women. For example, most right wingers love to point out the fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. They hate it when I also point out the fact that the Williams sisters are both taller than Danny Devito.

So in a nutshell, I do believe that honesty and telling the whole truth is the most moral way to live. Both extreme leftists and extreme rightists prefer to either deny reality or only accept certain truths that make them feel good about themselves.

Dan said...

"When I bring up the fact that Asians and Jews have the lowest crime rates, they make up all these conspiracy theories about how Asians/Jews go around killing people and never get caught."

It seems like you are storytelling. Nobody pretends those things.

Moreover, most HBDers I have encountered readily admit Asians and/or Jews do better on various metrics. And nobody on the right gets upset that Danny Devito is shorter than the Williams sisters.

Meanwhile the left denies the existence of almost every biological and natural reality, denies all group differences, and makes up a hundred fictitious explanations for those differences, blaming all manner of bystanders in all manner of ways.

Why should is the 'dark enlightment' so dominated by rightists (Jayman excepted)? Because most on the left are not interested in objective truth.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

Are you serious? If you go to any extreme right wing site, be it stormfront or amren, you see loads of those idiots who will make up any excuse for why Jews/Asians have higher levels of academic achievement and lower rates of violence. They will say crap like "Jews and Asians are actually dumber than Whites; they all cheat on their tests in order to graduate college" or "Jews/Asians have higher rates of crime than Whites; it's just that they don't get caught".

MRA's/PUA's/red pillers will say similar things about men and women. They'll say that women are reptiles/chimps/turds...just like how feminists say that men are pigs.

I used to hate only the leftists; now I hate the rightists just as ferociously.

Anonymous said...


"MRA's/PUA's/red pillers will say similar things about men and women. They'll say that women are reptiles/chimps/turds...just like how feminists say that men are pigs."

Those people are total fringe. The are nowhere near the far right. The far right are like the five or ten percent of folks who are on the far right. The folks you cite may not even be right at all. They are way less than 1% of folks. Way less. They are negligible, which is why most folks don't bother to discuss them. They are a non issues.

Dan said...

"They'll say that women are reptiles/chimps/turds"

You'll have to try harder than that.

The two biggest PUA sites might be Heartiste and Return of Kings. They will say women are irrational all day long, but I've not once seen the words reptile or chimp or turd. These are guys who are obsessed with wanting to be with women. They may dislike individual women, but that is not the same thing.

In any case, most on the right dislike the PUA community for being destructive for civilization. The goal of the right is generally to uphold civilization.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

A commenter who goes by Brohamski says just that: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-day-to-day-feminist/#comments

chris said...

I might hear people ask,

"How could homosexual marriage change the norms of heterosexual marriage?"

Well, (to borrow a comment made by Map on another HalfSigma's old blog) did you forget how the law actually works?

Equality implies an equivalence. Not only must homosexuals be treated the same as heterosexuals, but heterosexuals must be treated the same as homosexuals. Once gays have the legal standing to marry, they will then have the legal standing to alter the laws as they see fit, especially through the courts. Any such legal changes must directly map to the marriage laws that underpin heterosexual marriages.

In other words, heterosexuals will be treated like homosexuals under the law. What would that entail?

Well, what is a feature of gaydom? Gays are very promiscuous and their relationships are essentially open. Gays will import their "open" relationships into their legal marriages. After all, why not? If openness was not a problem before they were married, then why would it be a problem after they were married? And if cheating is not an issue in the marriage because the gay couple did that before they were married, then why would it be an issue in, say, a divorce? What prevents a gay partner from arguing that his cheating on his spouse is inconsequential and should have no bearing on a divorce proceeding?

Poof...gay marriage has now introduced de facto polygamy into straight marriages by reducing the consequences of cheating. Remember, divorce is only no-fault when a party is initiating a separation. It is not no-fault when it comes to money. Fault matters when discussing child custody, alimony, child support, and assets. Cheating still determines whether a woman gets anything out of a divorce, especially if a man initiates divorce first. With gay marriage, women can cheat to their hearts content and never have to worry about getting called on it.

Anonymous said...

@chris

Women can already cheat to their hearts content and still get money from their ex-husbands. You seem to have a poor understanding of how the law works, or you might live in a totally different jurisdiction than me. In the jurisdiction that I live in, fault does not matter when discussing how the financial assets are divided. Gay marriage has been legal for just over 10 years in my jurisdiction and straight marriage has not changed one bit: Blacks, Hispanics, and prole Whites still have the same high rates of divorce and adultery while Asians and elite Whites still have lower rates of divorce and adultery.


Also, equality does not imply equivalence. In my jurisdiction, the vast majority of people still marry within their race. Blacks marry Blacks, Whites marry Whites, etc. Blacks have higher adultery and divorce rates than Whites, who have higher adultery and divorce rates than Asians. If equality did imply equivalence, Whites and Asians would suddenly be cheating on their spouses as often as Blacks cheat on theirs.

chris said...

Here is a hypothetical for you dealing with the penumbra.
Let’s say we live in a legal system that protects the long-term mating interests of both a man and woman in a long-term mating relationship. Let’s say this society calls this long-term mating relationship, marriage. Let’s say that the underlying justification for this ‘marriage law’ is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating.

Let’s than also say that a group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply, suddenly want to be included within the same legal construct.

A married couple in this society want to get divorced. The woman has been adulterous, so the man wants to retract his physical investment in her, which means no providing resources or protection to her. Given that this legal system protects his long-term mating interests, and given that the underlying justification for this protection is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, the judge allows him to retract his physical investment to the woman.

Now let’s say that the group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply is Gay Men. And let’s say that Gay marriage is passed and they are suddenly allowed to marry. And let’s say that the justification for this allowance into the institution is ‘equality’.

Now let’s also say that because these are gay men we are dealing with, that they do not have the same mating psychologies as heterosexual men and so are perfectly okay with sexual non-monogamy. There is no rule proscribing sex with others outside the marriage within gay long-term relationships.

Now here is an instance in the penumbra. A gay couple has married, but they want to get divorced. One of them has been adulterous. However, it is argued in court that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships do not proscribe adultery. Should this adultery factor into the division of assets, the supply of alimony? The exchange of physical investment from one of the men to the other? Is there even an exchange of physical investment? If the underlying basis of ‘marriage law’ are the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, how do you integrate a group of people whose mating behaviours violate those very principles into a system that has been designed to protect the interests conceived of via those principles? It doesn’t make sense to say that in a gay couple one partner can cuckold the other partner. So how can you apply a rule that retracts the physical investment from one party to another, when the basis for the existence of that rule, cuckoldry, doesn’t occur?

chris said...

FFS

It did not post in the correct order

chris said...

I’m going to quote from H. L. A. Hart’s ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Feb., 1958), pp. 593-629.
Which can be accessed here;

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~horty/courses/readings/hart-1958-positivism-separation.pdf

How do judges decide (reason out) cases?
“A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called "vehicles" for the purpose of the rule or not? If we are to communicate with each other at all, and if, as in the most elementary form of law, we are to express our intentions that a certain type of behavior be regulated by rules, then the general words we use - like "vehicle" in the case I consider - must have some standard instance in which no doubts are felt about its application. There must be a core of settled meaning, but there will be, as well, a penumbra of debatable cases in which words are neither obviously applicable nor obviously ruled out. These cases will each have some features in common with the standard case; they will lack others or be accompanied by features not present in the standard case. Human invention and natural processes continually throw up such variants on the familiar, and if we are to say that these ranges of facts do or do not fall under existing rules, then the classifier must make a decision which is not dictated to him, for the facts and phenomena to which we fit our words and apply our rules are as it were dumb. The toy automobile cannot speak up and say, "I am a vehicle for the purpose of this legal rule," nor can the roller skates chorus, "We are not a vehicle." Fact situations do not await us neatly labeled, creased, and folded, nor is their legal classification written on them to be simply read off by the judge. Instead, in applying legal rules, someone must take the responsibility of deciding that words do or do not cover some case in hand with all the practical consequences involved in this decision.

We may call the problems which arise outside the hard core of standard instances or settled meaning "problems of the penumbra"; they are always with us whether in relation to such trivial things as the regulation of the use of the public park or in relation to the multidimensional generalities of a constitution.”

I’m going to propose several assumptions that will be used in a hypothetical. We need not debate these assumptions as I am just using them to illuminate a particular form of logic that would occur when deciding a legal case. These assumptions and the hypothetical will also be used to illuminate the existence of a moral system behind laws which the law attempts to divine (or which Judges atleast attempt to) but which doesn’t always map directly onto that moral system.

Assumption 1) Marriage exists as the social codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans.

Assumption 2) The long-term mating strategy in humans consists of men exchanging their own exclusive physical investment for a woman’s exclusive sexual investment. If the man diverts his physical investment to another woman, this is at a cost to the original woman he promised it too. Likewise if a woman directs her sexual investment to another man this is at a cost to the original man that she promised it to.

Assumption 3) Cuckoldry, that is the diversion of a woman’s sexual investment to one man while she is in a long-term relationship with another man is the worst thing that can possibly happen to that man who is in a long-term relationship with her. In a system where cuckoldry is rampant, male monogamy is not expected to evolve or exist, ergo the male long-term mating strategy is not expected to evolve or exist.

chris said...

Here is a hypothetical for you dealing with the penumbra.
Let’s say we live in a legal system that protects the long-term mating interests of both a man and woman in a long-term mating relationship. Let’s say this society calls this long-term mating relationship, marriage. Let’s say that the underlying justification for this ‘marriage law’ is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating.

Let’s than also say that a group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply, suddenly want to be included within the same legal construct.

A married couple in this society want to get divorced. The woman has been adulterous, so the man wants to retract his physical investment in her, which means no providing resources or protection to her. Given that this legal system protects his long-term mating interests, and given that the underlying justification for this protection is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, the judge allows him to retract his physical investment to the woman.

Now let’s say that the group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply is Gay Men. And let’s say that Gay marriage is passed and they are suddenly allowed to marry. And let’s say that the justification for this allowance into the institution is ‘equality’.

Now let’s also say that because these are gay men we are dealing with, that they do not have the same mating psychologies as heterosexual men and so are perfectly okay with sexual non-monogamy. There is no rule proscribing sex with others outside the marriage within gay long-term relationships.

Now here is an instance in the penumbra. A gay couple has married, but they want to get divorced. One of them has been adulterous. However, it is argued in court that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships do not proscribe adultery. Should this adultery factor into the division of assets, the supply of alimony? The exchange of physical investment from one of the men to the other? Is there even an exchange of physical investment? If the underlying basis of ‘marriage law’ are the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, how do you integrate a group of people whose mating behaviours violate those very principles into a system that has been designed to protect the interests conceived of via those principles? It doesn’t make sense to say that in a gay couple one partner can cuckold the other partner. So how can you apply a rule that retracts the physical investment from one party to another, when the basis for the existence of that rule, cuckoldry, doesn’t occur?

chris said...

It’s plausible that an exception could be made. Kind of like the whole, we have freedom of speech except you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre type kind of exception. The law does this all the time, For instance a statue against cruelty to animals might exclude mice, rats, and pigeons, from the definition of animal for the purposes of the statute even though we all know that they are still animals in real life.

But it’s also plausible that because the basis for the anti-cuckoldry rule does not occur in gay couples, that the rule won’t be applied, and it will be left at that.

What then happens if another married couple come along, a heterosexual couple, and they want to divorce? The woman has been adulterous and so the man argues that he should be allowed retract his physical investment to the woman, i.e. no giving her assets he paid for, no giving her alimony due to there being anti-cuckoldry laws. But the woman is clever. She knows that gay married couples don’t have the anti-cuckoldry law applied to them, and she knows that gay marriage is to be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage, and so she argues that since anti-cuckoldry laws aren’t applied in gay marriage, then they shouldn’t be applied in heterosexual marriage as the two forms of marriage are equal. They are the same. Indeed, it is a conceptual error to even consider them two separate forms of marriage. There is only one form of marriage and thus by establishing that a gay couple divorcing don’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in their divorce, a heterosexual couple divorcing shouldn’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in a divorce either.

Now all of a sudden, this institution, which has protected the long-term mating interests of men and women for centuries, has suddenly undermined a vital protection to the long-term mating interests of one of the parties by treating two separate categories, which have separate moral rules surrounding them, as if they were the same category. If you equalise the categories, then you need to equalise the rules surrounding the categories to make them equal.

Now it is possible that the categories could be equalised, and they decide to just throw an exception in in those instances where it would be unjust to allow equal treatment, as a way to resolve the issue and allow gays and heterosexuals to marry while retaining the different moral rules for each category.

But it’s also possible they won’t. And heterosexual men’s mating interests will be crushed within the crucible of rigorous logic.

chris said...


Now you will probably say, “this is a superfluous example, our marriage laws don’t recognise an anti-cuckoldry law, they don’t exist to protect the long-term mating interests of each party, adultery doesn’t affect the division of property or the award of alimony.” And you’d be right. In your jurisdiction they don’t, and in my jurisdiction they don’t. But I would contend that they should. I would contend that for the greater part of both our jurisdiction’s legal history, indeed of Western legal history, that marriage laws did protect such interests and that the underlying justification for that protection was evolutionary principles. (It might not have been divined or realised by those legislating at the time, but that is indeed the ultimate reasoning behind it.) I would contend that morality is based upon evolutionary principles and that the legal system should attempt to map as directly as possible to that underlying moral schema as much as possible. I would contend that our current marriage laws are an aberration in their rejection of evolutionary principles as their justification and are responsible for disincentivising marriage amongst heterosexuals rendering the institution redundant with each and every day and that this thus constitutes a moral deficit. I would contend that this disincentivisation and such disregard of the mating interests of men is an unjust and immoral act. And finally, I would contend that the legalisation of gay marriage is a step in a direction away from rectifying that act. It is a nail in the coffin of a marriage system being justified by an evolutionary schema.

If you do away with anti-cuckoldry laws, you end the long-term mating strategy for men. You end monogamy. You end the nuclear family as a form of social organisation. You end Patriarchy.

Now ask yourself, the people on the left pushing gay marriage. Do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle the nuclear family, of trying erode and dismantle anti-cuckoldry laws and norms, of trying to erode and dismantle Patriarchy? To answer the question is to illuminate their agenda with respect to gay marriage and the plausible direction that such equality will take. (Or atleast the plausible direction they will attempt to take.)

Audacious Epigone said...

Chris,

Good stuff. It's plausible, and we'll see how it plays out in the future. Of course now that the marriage ratchet has been turned, it's not going to be turned back irrespective of any potential 'unforeseen' consequences.

Anonymous said...

@chris

I still don't agree with you because first of all, your assumptions don't hold up in reality. Your line of logic rests almost entirely on those assumptions. We don't live in a conceptual world where your assumptions hold true. We live in the real world.

Second, what if you replaced the word "gay" for the word "black" and the word "straight" for the word "white"? Would you be now against Black men marrying Black women just because they have higher adultery rates? Do you really think that White people would use the excuse of Black adultery as a reason for their own adultery?

chris said...

Assumption 1) Marriage exists as the social codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans.

Assumption 2) The long-term mating strategy in humans consists of men exchanging their own exclusive physical investment for a woman’s exclusive sexual investment. If the man diverts his physical investment to another woman, this is at a cost to the original woman he promised it too. Likewise if a woman directs her sexual investment to another man this is at a cost to the original man that she promised it to.

Assumption 3) Cuckoldry, that is the diversion of a woman’s sexual investment to one man while she is in a long-term relationship with another man is the worst thing that can possibly happen to that man who is in a long-term relationship with her. In a system where cuckoldry is rampant, male monogamy is not expected to evolve or exist, ergo the male long-term mating strategy is not expected to evolve or exist.

“I still don't agree with you because first of all, your assumptions don't hold up in reality. Your line of logic rests almost entirely on those assumptions. We don't live in a conceptual world where your assumptions hold true. We live in the real world.”

Assumptions 2 and 3 directly follow from principles enunciated in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice#Direct_and_indirect_benefits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies#Short-term_vs._long-term_mating

chris said...



Direct and indirect benefits
Being choosy (having a bias in the context of mating) must incur a fitness advantage in order for this behavior to evolve. Two types of fitness benefits (direct and indirect) are thought to drive the evolutionary mechanisms of mate choice.

Direct benefits increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits[7] and it is the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.[8]
Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring, and thereby increase the parents' inclusive fitness. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. These indirect benefits may include high quality genes for their offspring (known as adaptive indirect benefits) or genes that make their offspring more attractive (known as arbitrary indirect benefits).[9]

Short-term vs. long-term mating[edit]
Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that individuals may adopt conditional mating strategies in which they adjust their mating tactics to relevant environmental or internal conditions.[23] To the extent that ancestral men were capable of pursuing short-term mating strategies with multiple women, the evolutionary benefits are relatively straightforward. Less clear, however, are the evolutionary benefits that women might have received from pursuing short-term mating strategies. One prominent hypothesis is that ancestral women selectively engaged in short-term mating with men capable of transmitting genetic benefits to their offspring such as health, disease resistance, or attractiveness (seegood genes theory and sexy son hypothesis). Since women cannot inspect men's genes directly, they may have evolved to infer genetic quality from certain observable characteristics (see indicator traits). One prominent candidate for a "good genes" indicator includes fluctuating asymmetry, or the degree to which men deviate from perfect bodily symmetry. Other candidates include masculine facial features,[24] behavioral dominance,[25] and low vocal pitch.[26] Evolutionary psychologists have therefore predicted that women pursuing a short-term mating strategy will have higher preferences for these good genes indicators, and men who possess good genes indicators will be more successful in pursuing short-term mating strategies than men who do not. Indeed, research indicates that self-perceived physical attractiveness,[27] fluctuating asymmetry,[28] and low vocal pitch[29] are positively related to short-term mating success in men but not in women. Women prefer purported good genes indicators more for a short-term mate than for a long-term mate, and a related line of research shows that women’s preferences for good genes indicators in short-term mates tends to increase during peak fertility in the menstrual cycle just prior to ovulation.[30]

chris said...


If you’re after actual journal articles by scientists here are some;

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/pillsworth_haseltonARSR.pdf

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/Human%20Mating%20Strategies.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483982

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165805.pdf

Here is a review of a book on the topic which summarises a lot of things;

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP05358362.pdf

Google this stuff yourself. Use terms like, ‘human mating strategies’, ‘dual mating strategy’, ‘long-term mating strategy’, ‘cad vs dad’. Names like Buss and Gangestad, Shackelford, Pillsworth and Haselton are well-known in this field for dealing with (at least the foundational aspects) of this topic.

chris said...

“Second, what if you replaced the word "gay" for the word "black" and the word "straight" for the word "white"? Would you be now against Black men marrying Black women just because they have higher adultery rates? Do you really think that White people would use the excuse of Black adultery as a reason for their own adultery?”

Black males and females are still pursuing mating behaviour underwritten by an evolutionary biological normative schema.
The fact that you believe this is a counter-example suggests to me that you did not understand the argument or the topics I was discussing, and are just listing off marriage equality talking points.
The fact that you claimed assumptions 2 and 3 are not true and do not reflect reality when they have rigorous scientific backing and logically follow from the theory of evolution also suggests this to me.

I’m not going to discuss assumption 1 as I doubt there is anything I could do to prove to you that you are wrong.

If I referred to other examples of marriage in other cultures that conformed to this underlying schema you would probably jut cry “Anecdote! Anecdote!”

If I then came up with several more examples the cry would be “the plural of anecdote is not data!”

If I quoted from law textbooks on the legal traditions of the West, or pointed out the recent laws surrounding illegitimacy and fault-based divorce, the cry would be ‘that’s in the past it doesn’t apply now!”

I would wager that if a scientific survey were done, (if it was possible), and they examined all known cultures and the rules relating to marriage, there would be a high correlation between their legal norms and the underlying evo-bio normative schema I’ve described above.

If presented with such a study I imagine you would then argue that the non-perfect 1 to 1 mapping “clearly refutes my argument!” You are obviously biased and can’t even recognise it.

All of this is beside the point though. The key terms I used were social-codification. Societies codify their own institutions. It is a (potentially) ever changing phenomenon drawn up through the consent and consensus of those in the society. This social codification is done because it has some utility for those in society.

What is the utility of having marriage laws based on an evo-bio normative schema? The successful reproduction of the reproducing individuals within that society and hence that society itself (remember, even all homosexuals are born from heterosexuals not the other way around).

What is the utility of having marriage laws not based on an evo-bio normative schema? Not hurting the egos of those who don’t abide by such a schema.

I think the genetic interests of 98% of society outweighs the hurt egos of 2%. (In fact considering that even homosexuals inclusive fitness would be enhanced from the successful sexual reproduction of heterosexuals (homosexuals have brothers and sisters too) then it is arguable that it is the genetic interests of 100% vs the hurt egos of 2%.)