Riz

I am running out of energy and interest for this subject; maybe someother day.But would like to add:

I consider myself a little more self respecting than to be buried in debate on a subject needing no debate. I leave you in the safe hands of OLO who will shield you from the simple realities of life, by its lack of balance in articles on this subject.
I wish my family of daughters well with their similar outlook and who live normal lives in our community and are likewise self respecting normal women married in the conventional way to normal blokes and with normal kids. Thank God

And if the older brothers theory turned out to be correct - (according to the article link provided by Celivia for those who have read it) - if the woman's immune system produces antibodies to male-specific proteins after she has carried a male fetus - which in turn may result in the delivery of antibodies to the subequent male fetus she may carry in her womb, "possibly (influencing) affecting its development" - then why in nature might this occur? Hypothetically, this may be an intended biologically pre-determined natural process. According to this research there is a pattern. A 'natural' biological population control switch, perhaps? So, if a mother had 6 sons, the first 5 heterosexual, the youngest one gay - and the reason for this biological diversity was due to the above theorised process - then he may have been naturally selected to play a role (if he chooses to) in population control. Brilliant! As it has already been pointed out -

"They (gays) are not producing children when they are not married either, so nothing changes in that respect."

and

"It was actually Christianity that first took the position that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability to reproduce."

I agree with Celivia and McReal - ""It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.""

"There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something ... is a human biological variation"

Thank you Dotto; it is a very interesting topic to discuss what the evolutionary benefits are if the "older brothers" theory is correct!

"...he (the youngest brother) may have been naturally selected to play a role (if he chooses to) in population control. Brilliant!"

Brilliant indeed!
Not only that, but there might have been a survival advantage within families, if there were any surplus childless family members, who could help take care of the family's children, taking into account that there were high levels of maternal death due to complications in childbirth and male deaths due to outside dangers were common as well.
Having a few lesbians and gays handy to help out raise the children would definitely be beneficial to the survival of a group/tribe.

McReal,
Ok we are talking about the same thing here then. I wasn't sure what you meant by "events". Fully understand what you meant now, thanks.

Dan... Nothing new that you want to stop discussing this topic; you will no doubt be back on another thread about homosexuality or same-sex marriage with the exact same objections you have made now, as if you have not learned anything new about the topic. Me thinks you are leaving the discussion because you are confronted with logical arguments, and have no valid rebuttals left.

I'm really glad that all your family is heterosexual because they would have an incredibly hard time to cope with it, knowing how their closed ones, like yourself, will judge them negatively.
This is a reason why many, many homosexual people do not dare come out early in life but rather after they married to please their family, only to discover that their true longings are with the same sex.
And this is very sad indeed, especially when children are involved.

Dan,

Finally, you make a good point. Equal rights for all people is something that shouldn't require any debate at all.

Just 'coz every article on this topic does not agree with your views on the subject, it does not follow that they lack balance. I would suggest that 'tis yourself, rather than the articles, who is unbalanced.

And just 'coz I can out-argue you, that's no reason to take your bat and go home. That's just a bit sad and childish. But I can't stop you from throwing your little man-tanty, so:

Riz 1; Idiots 0

Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster

Yes, and thank you for the article link Celivia, "it is a very interesting topic to discuss the evolutionary benefits if the "older brother" theory is correct." It's also very interesting to consider the evolutionary benefits of the "older brother" theory to group and tribe as this may relate to 'balance' (are you listening Diver Dan?) and how biological diversity is necessary for group or tribe balance. Imagine being part of a tribe where all the men were 100% heterosexual and very testosterony, just as one example. There would be some survival advantages for the tribe, but could also be quite stressful (excessive stress not good for health) simply due to the over-abundant presence of the behaviouaral effects of high testosterone levels. Stress between the males, stress for the females, stress all around for the children. A black and white world may sound much neater and safer Diver Dan, but life simply is not 100% of anything all the time, and for a very good reason - 'balance'. Now pick up your bat, wipe that spaghetti off your shirt (Riz is a very good shot!) - it's okay you haven't lost, you still have a chance to take yourself outside of yourself and consider that those who judge others against themselves, can't see very far. And what's OLO? Is it an inside out LOL?