If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Are there scientific reasons to oppose gay marriage? Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooooo (but thanks for athking)   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 116
    More: Amusing, social construction, marriage vows, slippery slope  
•       •       •

2402 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 May 2013 at 4:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-29 02:59:02 PM
You can keep your science and your Darwin and your progress, me and Jesus will be over here waiting for our eternal glory and hating teh homogays!
 
2013-05-29 03:22:54 PM
Of course there are scientific reasons to oppose gay marriage.

 Subjects who have an unhealthy obsession with the behavior of others when that behavior has no impact on said subject obviously suffer from some manner of psychosis or chemical imbalance. They may also suffer from latent homosexuality. These are clearly scientifically related.
 
2013-05-29 03:27:37 PM
Athking?
 
2013-05-29 03:36:16 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Athking?


It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.
 
2013-05-29 03:55:35 PM

Car_Ramrod: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.


That was my assumption but wanted to give subby the benefit of the doubt
 
2013-05-29 04:05:59 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Car_Ramrod: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.

That was my assumption but wanted to give subby the benefit of the doubt


I found it mildly amusing.
 
2013-05-29 04:06:24 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Athking?


Say it out loud, with an emphasis on the th.
 
2013-05-29 04:07:42 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Peter von Nostrand: Car_Ramrod: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.

That was my assumption but wanted to give subby the benefit of the doubt

I found it mildly amusing.


Me too, mildly being the operative word
 
2013-05-29 04:25:53 PM

Peter von Nostrand: antidisestablishmentarianism: Peter von Nostrand: Car_Ramrod: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.

That was my assumption but wanted to give subby the benefit of the doubt

I found it mildly amusing.

Me too, mildly being the operative word


So its fabulouth?
 
2013-05-29 04:27:15 PM
Shortly hereafter... Fox News headline: "Believing in Science Makes you Gay"
 
2013-05-29 04:28:23 PM
All I really got from the article is that the author doesn't understand the difference between "science" and [social] engineering.
 
2013-05-29 04:29:17 PM
I don't think Spence was ever anyone's basis.
 
2013-05-29 04:29:36 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Athking?


Thubby's an athking.
 
2013-05-29 04:30:11 PM
I oppose all marriage, gay, straight, doesn't matter.

lordargent.com
 
2013-05-29 04:31:03 PM

Ned Stark: I don't think Spence was ever anyone's basis.


Science.who the heck is Spence?
 
2013-05-29 04:36:24 PM

Warthog: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

Say it out loud, with an emphasis on the th.


How would a gay successful and attractive American pronounce that? Akthing?
 
2013-05-29 04:43:59 PM
I don't need science to tell me that it's icky.  I know it's gross and I exist so therefore I am science.

I win, you lose.
 
2013-05-29 04:46:36 PM
On the one hand gay marriage is bad because there will be no incentive for male homosexuals to reproduce and the general beauty of men will decrease.

On the other hand gay marriage is good because there will be no incentive for female homosexuals to reproduce and the general beauty of women will increase.
 
2013-05-29 04:49:06 PM
1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.
 
2013-05-29 04:51:50 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Athking?


See also South Park - Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride

/Super! Thanks for athking!
 
2013-05-29 04:54:48 PM

mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


Extreme failure.

Marriage as a legal status does not depend in any way on a couple's ability to produce or raise children, much less "successful" children.
 
2013-05-29 04:55:17 PM
It's amazing how much of conservative think boils down to "it looks icky".
 
2013-05-29 04:57:05 PM
Technically, there are no scientific reasons to oppose anything. Science gives us knowledge and an understanding of cause & effect in our world. Science can't tell you whether an action is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral, immoral, or amoral.

Really, when you say "There's a scientific reason to do XYZ," what you really mean is that science has shown that XYZ will cause something to happen that you think is good, ethical, or moral.
 
2013-05-29 04:58:52 PM

mark12A: 5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


Okay. You're not a troll. You're a f*ckwit. Happy?

mark12A: Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens.


[citation needed]

mark12A: Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.


Doesn't matter. Gay couples, like straight couples, can already rear children with or without marriage. It's going to happen regardless of whether or not you deny equal status under the law based on "eww icky".

mark12A: GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT


ALL THINGS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY NOT ALLOWED UNDER LAW ARE EXPERIMENTS. THEREFORE NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING. LOOK HOW LOUD AND STUPID I'M BEING.

mark12A: BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more


Not this stupid statement is relevant to anything or needs refutation, but current laws allow a pedophile and a serial killer to be married if their genders are correct.

mark12A: The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents.


[citation needed]
 
2013-05-29 05:00:45 PM
Try saying "but thanks for asking" with your first two fingers in your mouth. There is your "athking" anther.
/blech
 
2013-05-29 05:01:02 PM
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html "What Science Knows About Homosexuality"

Pretty informative.

The tl;dr version is that scientists can essentially turn animals gay by altering the hormones they receive during prenatal development, suggesting a biological, hormonal cause behind homosexuality.
 
2013-05-29 05:01:19 PM

mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


If that's not a troll why say such stupid (traditional marriage means what you consider traditional apparently) baseless (omg gay marriage means no more lawyers or doctors!) and trolly (this is not a troll!) things?
 
2013-05-29 05:07:55 PM
If you are a proponent for the freedom of religion, there isn't really a reason to oppose it either.

If your ministry opposes marrying folks of the same sex, roll on. That's your right, and I support staying true to your beliefs. The difficulty lies in forbidding other ministries their right to interpret Sripture or the articles of their faith equally. What happens in your ministry you have the right to determine. Not what Methodists, Episopalians, Unitarians or pagans do. No more so than Jews have any right to demand EVERYONE have a bris. Nor do you have any right to demand that folks of no faith follow the conventions of your faith. That's what freedom of religion is about.

Please, tell folks that they're going to Hell for marrying the same sex or different races. Your right to speak out. Just not to legislate from the pulpit.
 
2013-05-29 05:08:18 PM

(but thanks for athking)


*dusts off Hayes manual*

*searches for ATHKING*

*leaves confuzzled*
 
2013-05-29 05:08:24 PM

mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


I don't think it's a troll. I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt of assuming this were just some childish attention seeking mechanism. It's moronic gibberish that you use as a pathetic cover up for your homophobia. So yes you're a farking awful person, not a troll.
 
2013-05-29 05:09:07 PM
Here, let me do this preemptively:

It's my thurname.
 
2013-05-29 05:09:09 PM
The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?
 
2013-05-29 05:11:12 PM

JohnAnnArbor: The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?


there is no legal framework for how all the thousands of rights and privileges would work with 3+ people.  Once someone puts forth a framework, we can debate it's merits.

Gay marriage is just a reprinting of forms with 'spouse 1/ spouse 2' instead of 'bride/groom'.  No real changes to how anything works.
 
2013-05-29 05:15:36 PM

mark12A: NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL.


Dude - you don't have to be trolling to be wrong and stupid.
Just wrong - and stupid.
 
2013-05-29 05:17:02 PM

mark12A: 1. ...The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.


Really?  Look at Scandinavia.  Legal same sex unions, starting with Denmark, for 14 years.  It's working out just fine.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out.

Really?  Look at Scandinavia.  Legal same sex unions, starting with Denmark, for 14 years.  It's working out just fine.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive.

I hear the country club is even accepting Jews now.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't.

Really?  Look at Scandinavia.  Legal same sex unions, starting with Denmark, for 14 years.  It's working out just fine.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL.

I don't think you're a troll.  I just think you're an idiot.
 
2013-05-29 05:17:47 PM
Crap.  Replace 14 years with 24 years in everything I just said.  Still working out fine.
 
2013-05-29 05:19:34 PM

JohnAnnArbor: The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?


There's a compelling state interest to keep it illegal. One that doesn't exist for homosexual marriage.
 
2013-05-29 05:23:45 PM

js34603: JohnAnnArbor: The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?

There's a compelling state interest to keep it illegal. One that doesn't exist for homosexual marriage.


And that interest is?  Seriously.  If everyone's consenting, what is it?
 
2013-05-29 05:25:41 PM
(but thanks for athking akthing)
 
2013-05-29 05:26:01 PM

JohnAnnArbor: The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?


There is no logical argument against it that I'm aware of. I'd support legalizing that too.
 
2013-05-29 05:26:01 PM
Republicans want to legalize marriage between people and animals.  It's so they can keep farking that chicken and feel good about it.
 
2013-05-29 05:26:22 PM

ZoSo_the_Crowe: http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html "What Science Knows About Homosexuality"

Pretty informative.

The tl;dr version is that scientists can essentially turn animals gay by altering the hormones they receive during prenatal development, suggesting a biological, hormonal cause behind homosexuality.


Can they fix it yet?  I know too many hot lesbians and it's getting depressing.  Make 'em at least bi or something....
 
2013-05-29 05:29:28 PM
Imagine the boundless joy of all the divorce lawyers, just drooling at the prospect of all those new (statistically certain) divorces.
 
2013-05-29 05:36:41 PM

OdradekRex: Imagine the boundless joy of all the divorce lawyers, just drooling at the prospect of all those new (statistically certain) divorces.


While I don't doubt your point at all, I think it will be interesting to see statistical comparisons a few years down the road.
 
2013-05-29 05:36:56 PM

mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


I am pretty sure people said this about interracial marriage... That said, marriage is a legal arrangement. It has nothing to do with how well someone raises children or how manly someone is.
 
2013-05-29 05:38:37 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Peter von Nostrand: Car_Ramrod: Peter von Nostrand: Athking?

It's hilarious because all gay dudes have a lisp. Get it? Subby is a comic genius.

That was my assumption but wanted to give subby the benefit of the doubt

I found it mildly amusing.


As someone who spent two years of speech therapy to get rid of the damn lisp as a kid - I didn't.
 
2013-05-29 05:41:51 PM

Tigger: mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.

I don't think it's a troll. I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt o ...


Oh you are sooo cute ...
 
2013-05-29 05:42:13 PM

mark12A: 1. Traditional Marriage is a social living arrangement and and more importantly, a child rearing institution that produces quality replacement citizens. Gay marriage reduces marriage to a simple social living arrangement. Please don't bleat on and on about how "many" gay couples rear children successfully. The data is simply not there yet. We have NO IDEA how successful it will be.

2.  GAY MARRIAGE IS AN EXPERIMENT. We don't really know how it will work out. If it was a viable way of producing families with well adjusted, successful children, it would have existed previously. It has not. There must be reasons for that.

3. BECAUSE *anybody* can now get married, the "prestige" of marriage has been reduced even more. It is now less exclusive. There is now even less incentive for men to forgo commiting to one partner, less incentive to commit their resources to a mate and raising children. There was a time when men wanted to get married because of the prestige of being "Master of the House" and showing off one's virility by fathering children. Nowadays with the non-stop denigration of men, with half the TV shows and commercials portraying husbands as clueless idiots, more men just say fark that noise and don't marry. Gay marriage doesn't help this situation. Makes marriage appear even less manly.

4. The data we do have with adopted children and stepchildren doesn't indicate they're going to be *as* successful and well adjusted as natural children raised by their natural parents. Sorry, they just aren't. Gay marriage is just going to expand this pool of damaged replacement citizens. Good luck getting replacement doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, etc. in the future. Half the men in the future will be in therapy over unresolved daddy issues.

5. NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


It's not our job to educate you, you stupid, stupid person.
 
2013-05-29 05:43:18 PM

mark12A: NO, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I really am fed up with the reflexive Fark reaction to arguments they don't agree with by dismissing it as a troll.


Allow me to share with you some wisdom from the dawn of the Internet: if people are assuming that something you said is due to trolling, it's because they are extending to you the benefit of the doubt that you aren'tactually an idiot.
 
2013-05-29 05:43:54 PM

JohnAnnArbor: js34603: JohnAnnArbor: The anti-polygamy argument is weak.  What's the argument against it now, other than "we don't like it"?

There's a compelling state interest to keep it illegal. One that doesn't exist for homosexual marriage.

And that interest is?  Seriously.  If everyone's consenting, what is it?


1) There is a long, storied history of polygamy being used to abuse and suppress the rights of women.  Obviously, this isn't the case for every polygamist, but it's enough of a problem historically that it's right to hesitate at the idea of legalizing it.

2) There is a morass of laws, rights, and responsibilities that are conferred upon married couples under the assumption that one spouse can speak for the other.  If I am sick and incapacitated, my wife has the power to make medical decisions for me.  What happens in a plural marriage where the remaining spouses have conflicting opinions about what's best?  There are a whole host of these problems that are solved easily in a two-person arrangement, but cause problems in a plural arrangement.

3) Monogamy is better for society because it decreases crime, increases gender equality, encourages more stable households, decreases child abuse, and boosts economic productivity:

"In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of
unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide."
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report