"If an XXY cannot father a child without in-vitro fertilization, (s)he would not need marriage under the economic criterion."

So the economic criterion for marriage only exists for the purpose of stinking a penis in a vagina and ejaculating to inseminate an egg? After which point there is no need for economic advantages of marriage? I don't see how a person is impregnated through in-vitro (or hell if they're braver souls and adopt a needy child) makes their rearing of a child any less needy of the economic advantages of marriage. The plain and simple fact of maintaining marriage as a man and a woman stems solely from religion, and last time I checked there is a seperation of church and state within the constitution so that all men (people) can be created equal. This protection isn't there to allow the majority to rule roughshod over the country but to protect the minority and maintain their freedoms even if their lifestyle you may not agree with.

"this is actually not true, there are many evolutionary advantages for having a small chanse of being gay. that is why in almost every single herd animal, there is gay sex. having some gays increases the cohesion of the herd and creates an individual which will focus his/hers life on helping his/hers sisters and brothers bringing up their children, without having any conflict of interest with ones own children."


So we aren't scientifically designed to mate male with female? Our society would die without homosexuals?

I'm confused...

Kehoe:

Marriage came about because men can't keep their fly zipped. It is practised outside the United States. It is practised among atheists.

With in-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers, all sorts of roll-your-own contractual agreements can be made in regard to the custody and upbringing of children, but you don't have to call them marriage.

Also, adoption does not presuppose that the person(s) doing the adopting are married. Adoption is a second-best remedy and sometimes you may need to use second-best people.

The transactions costs problems for in-vitro fertilization are different than for natural fertilization: be sure the right name is on the right vial. You don't need marriage to solve this problem.

Skrum, I'm pretty sure everyone is arguing marriage to be a right to any pair of people that love each other and want to "unite" themselves legally. While I don't particularly agree I don't really care either. I simply like to argue to the contrary of others most days.

Your input is grossly obtuse to the argument people are presenting. They simply want people who love each other to be able to enter the institution of marriage legally.

I am not a native speaker. Use simple sentences preacher. Else I might not get it for grammar reasons.

If a wife can't have children from an economical point of view the husband should try to impregnate some other females to fulfill his duty in reproducing. Is that what you were saying?

Thrax - I like how you provoke controversy, but needing to be gay to further exist is a bit out of line. :-) Some gay shepherds (Eunuchs in the Serail) do a good job at times, don't they? So it might be useful to have a small fraction of gay persons (regardless if that's genetical or educational). I like that point of Kreuz.

He called homosexuality an "evolutionary advantage". Isn't that a bit far fetched???

Louis:

No I am not saying that a man has a duty to create offspring. I am saying that he has a duty to give his attention to the marriage and if he has offspring elsewhere it takes some of his attention away from the marriage.

@Thrax: as an addition it might just be a plus for the species. That will be tough to judge. As an exclusive variant, it would be lethal in 1 generation, so hardly a benefit.

@skrum: If the marriage can't have children, he ought to divorce instandly and try to spawn children elsewhere or take care of other, already existing children... He should not have married in the first place when he had children with another female. That is, when creating offspring is the one deciding aspect of marrying... If it was not the deciding aspect, what's wrong with homosexual marriage? Especially if it was true what Kreuz stated?

to have a certain chanse of homosexuality IS an evolutionary advantage.

if there are 15 brothers, then it might be advantagous for the genes of those 15 brothers if 1 of them is gay, and the rest is straight. the 1 gay guy would be outside the bickering and contest for women and the focus the other 14 brothers have on their own children, rather than helping all of the children. The one gay dude will is then able to help whomever needs it most, and can be a factor in keeping the brothers united and solving arguments.

so to have 1 gay guy in a group of 15 brothers/sisters can have a positive effect on how many grandchildren that survive, how healthy they are, and how well the group cooperates.


that is a pretty clear evolutionary advantage of having a gene that will make a person gay in forex 3 % of the cases.

Knowing that the offspring you are taking care of is yours is the deciding aspect of marriage.