|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:11 pm Post subject: 241 |
 |
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I did question how evolution would select for a bond strengthening function in the rectum among non-reproductive individuals, since "selection" means selected to reproduce. |
Um, does this not answer itself? Or is that what you were trying to get at? (In which case, why are you bothered at all?) |
I'm not getting what you're saying here at all.
I said that in response to "assuming that only a male/female relationship deserves any sort of bond strengthening anyway". It has nothing to do with "deserving", but in how evolution would make it come about, and I think the answer is that evolution did not make it come about ... that there's neither empirical nor rational reason to believe it has come about, i.e. the rectum has been repurposed as a sex organ by men who are, due to a disorder, attracted to men, who have no actual sex organs of the "female" 1 kind that they can have intercourse with. Evolution has not made the rectum particularly good for having sex, but it's there.
1 - "female" in the sense of, from Merriam-Webster, "designed with a hollow or groove into which a corresponding male part fits <the female coupling of a hose>" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:45 pm Post subject: 242 |
|
|
What I meant was that it wasn't a problem in the sense of the joke "if all homosexuals had their bottoms sewn up, they'd die out." There's no need for evolution to select against non-reproductive sexual techniques because by definition they are non-reproductive. That's probably why they survive.
After all, there is plenty of evidence of "homosexual" behaviour in other species to suggest that it is hardly unique to human beings.
It's also possible that, as with your sickle cell analogy, the homosexual "disorder" (as you persist in calling it) confers some other weird advantage (e.g. it means that Broadway musicals continue to be written) that means that genetic strains that have it are more successful in general even if certain offspring cannot pass their own genes on.
As I have said however, my contention is that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not two people (of whatever gender) can form strong emotional bonds - or even whether they are or are not entitled to certain legal rights. What I (and others) are arguing is that they can do this regardless of what their sexual practises actually are. You are apparently able to know that a homosexual couple (of either gender) are unable to have the same sort of deep emotional bond that a heterosexual couple can - because in your view heterosexual reproductive sexual relations are imbued with a unique quality that no other form of human intimacy can match. I guess I want to know if you have tried them all out in order to be so confident in that position.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: 243 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| As I have said however, my contention is that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not two people (of whatever gender) can form strong emotional bonds - or even whether they are or are not entitled to certain legal rights. What I (and others) are arguing is that they can do this regardless of what their sexual practises actually are. You are apparently able to know that a homosexual couple (of either gender) are unable to have the same sort of deep emotional bond that a heterosexual couple can - because in your view heterosexual reproductive sexual relations are imbued with a unique quality that no other form of human intimacy can match. |
I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe, such that people may be justified in their belief that marriage between a man and woman is special enough to warrant the term "marriage" be reserved for it in their vocabulary. Respect for that belief is in order; it isn't motivated by bigotry or homophobia.
| Quote: |
| I guess I want to know if you have tried them all out in order to be so confident in that position. |
No, I have not, nor do I think it would be a valid comparison (and nor would I do it for sake of comparison). As I mentioned earlier, a gay friend tells me that when he kissed women, he found it repulsive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:18 pm Post subject: 244 |
|
|
All this evolutionary selected talk makes it sound like y'all are arguing over if every human would be better off with anal or vaginal sex. It's like arguing if an apple or a banana is better naturally selected to taste good, doesn't change the fact that some people like apples and some people like bananas, and neither will kill you off so genes for liking both stay in the pool. (Part of what Scurra just said)
Do straight genes have an advantage in increasing their gene pool population? Yeah.
And I really don't understand what the term "bond-strengthening" means, though I only caught up starting at page 7. I'm assuming it's an attempt to argue about the science half of relationships without claiming anyone's love is wrong. But seeing as modern "bond-strengthening," and even ancient versions, are cultural events, you guys should be arguing anthropology and not biology.
In conclusion: Are there gay/queer/asexual people? Yes. Are they rarer than people who like vagina sex? Yes, due to years of first feral breeding, then social dictation of heterosexual norms and lack of artificial pregnancy technologies. Meaning for "gay" or queer or bi or non-hetero to become the majority there would be a lot of human intervention. (and I wouldn't have a problem with that  )
PS: I think extra stopped talking about whose emotional value was better a while ago, that might be part of the problem here. (And also why 'bond-strengthening' suddenly became a term)
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: 245 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe, such that people may be justified in their belief that marriage between a man and woman is special enough to warrant the term "marriage" be reserved for it in their vocabulary. Respect for that belief is in order; it isn't motivated by bigotry or homophobia. |
I don't think the marriage or bond between two people would be more special with man-woman relations. I guess if your arguments come from biology and rational thinking, you are perhaps discussing pregnancy and child bearing. Those do in fact have a wide variety of emotional and hormonal events that adopting or surrogacy could be missing out on.
However that makes me dust off my "non-reproductive marriage isn't true marriage" counter-argument. I do concede though that my belief about what is and isn't a marriage does become quite blurry and tangential to friendship, so I do understand the urge to have a clear demarcation of where a married couple begins and committed friendship or casual sexual relations ends.
<joke> Unless you mean the prospect of child-rearing is special. Like a some big tease  </joke>
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: 246 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe, such that people may be justified in their belief that marriage between a man and woman is special enough to warrant the term "marriage" be reserved for it in their vocabulary. |
Wait, what? It's not obvious to me. What is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:07 am Post subject: 247 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe, such that people may be justified in their belief that marriage between a man and woman is special enough to warrant the term "marriage" be reserved for it in their vocabulary. Respect for that belief is in order; it isn't motivated by bigotry or homophobia. |
OK, so we're back to the original argument that started this thread again. To which I say yes, I completely agree with you. I personally happen to think that "marriage" should be a term which refers to the creation of a life-long bond between two people and, importantly, being made before God. (And nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.)
However - where I have issues is (a) using the term for something that is not actually intended as a religious commitment, but more as a social, political and economic convenience, and (b) with restricting said religious commitment to merely a male/female partnership. I want the gay couple in my congregation to be able to get "married" if they so choose but I don't think that the folk who queue up at e.g. the Las Vegas Chapel of Love should automatically be able to call what they get a "marriage". Indeed, if it didn't have that name, perhaps they wouldn't be so hasty about rushing into it? (I am not saying that some of those people don't end up staying happily married all of their lives, but the stereotype is useful.)
Whilst I realise that several thousand years of social structures militate against my position, I don't think that means I shouldn't continue to argue what seems to me to be a far more equitable proposition. To me, the core of the original argument seems to be to ask whether we should maintain a position that discriminates against someone for no reason beyond one which says that because of an historical quirk a term is being used for a legal purpose for which it is no longer fit for use. I have seen no definition of "marriage" that convinces me that it meets either of the two objections I raised above - certainly not in modern western society.
I can't remember if I have mentioned this on the thread, but a heterosexual couple in the UK tried to get a "civil partnership" and were denied precisely because of the absurd legal anomaly which this whole argument is predicated on - that it appears to be a deliberate attempt at discrimination against a specific group, not just a mild case of terminological inexactitude. That's why it seems reasonable to claim that this argument is driven by homophobia, rather than merely legal niceties.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: 248 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe, such that people may be justified in their belief that marriage between a man and woman is special enough to warrant the term "marriage" be reserved for it in their vocabulary. Respect for that belief is in order; it isn't motivated by bigotry or homophobia. |
OK, so we're back to the original argument that started this thread again. To which I say yes, I completely agree with you. I personally happen to think that "marriage" should be a term which refers to the creation of a life-long bond between two people and, importantly, being made before God. (And nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.)
However - where I have issues is (a) using the term for something that is not actually intended as a religious commitment, but more as a social, political and economic convenience, and (b) with restricting said religious commitment to merely a male/female partnership. I want the gay couple in my congregation to be able to get "married" if they so choose but I don't think that the folk who queue up at e.g. the Las Vegas Chapel of Love should automatically be able to call what they get a "marriage". Indeed, if it didn't have that name, perhaps they wouldn't be so hasty about rushing into it? (I am not saying that some of those people don't end up staying happily married all of their lives, but the stereotype is useful.)
Whilst I realise that several thousand years of social structures militate against my position, I don't think that means I shouldn't continue to argue what seems to me to be a far more equitable proposition. To me, the core of the original argument seems to be to ask whether we should maintain a position that discriminates against someone for no reason beyond one which says that because of an historical quirk a term is being used for a legal purpose for which it is no longer fit for use. I have seen no definition of "marriage" that convinces me that it meets either of the two objections I raised above - certainly not in modern western society.
I can't remember if I have mentioned this on the thread, but a heterosexual couple in the UK tried to get a "civil partnership" and were denied precisely because of the absurd legal anomaly which this whole argument is predicated on - that it appears to be a deliberate attempt at discrimination against a specific group, not just a mild case of terminological inexactitude. That's why it seems reasonable to claim that this argument is driven by homophobia, rather than merely legal niceties. |
I have to confess that I can't follow what you're saying here at all. I'll try to get back shortly with more line-by-line requests for clarification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:45 am Post subject: 249 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| That's why it seems reasonable to claim that this argument is driven by homophobia, rather than merely legal niceties. |
Which argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:50 am Post subject: 250 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Wait, what? It's not obvious to me. What is it? |
What's not obvious? (just so I don't go re-explaining the wrong thing) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:04 am Post subject: 251 |
|
|
I've been reading along, but having trouble understanding some of the conflict. If someone, i.e. extro, feels that "marriage" should be applied solely to a 1 man/1 woman committed, monogamous, permanent relationship, can he believe that without being a homophobe, a racist, a bigot, a sexist? Can someone with that belief be non-prejudiced, but simply feel that way in an effort to keep the union sacred?
Without regard to evolution, reproduction, or anything else, I just don't see why a person can't believe that way without having negative traits attributed. I don't see extro as any of those things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard him try to deny anyone else any rights, privileges, or respect because of their sexual orientation.
I also think it is valid to believe the term marriage could apply to any two people, regardless of gender. That wouldn't suggest any negative traits either. I gather Mackay's orientation is purely an attempt to establish equality. I guess I don't really understand the disagreement very well.
No one here really wants to see anyone treated unfairly or even differently....I think. Is this giant debate really reflective of a fundamental difference, or is it mostly a matter of semantics? I don't know the answer but it seems time for the primary debaters in this one to take a step back. Maybe I'm just missing the point. Whatever, I'm sure it's Obama's fault.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: 252 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
I've been reading along, but having trouble understanding some of the conflict. If someone, i.e. extro, feels that "marriage" should be applied solely to a 1 man/1 woman committed, monogamous, permanent relationship, can he believe that without being a homophobe, a racist, a bigot, a sexist? Can someone with that belief be non-prejudiced, but simply feel that way in an effort to keep the union sacred?
Without regard to evolution, reproduction, or anything else, I just don't see why a person can't believe that way without having negative traits attributed. I don't see extro as any of those things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard him try to deny anyone else any rights, privileges, or respect because of their sexual orientation. |
I hate to bring it up again, but I think the accusation of bigot / homophobe largely revolves around my sincere belief that sex is best between a man and a woman (which I believe follows from sound reasons pertaining to evolution), along with my expressing some aversion to excrement. No, I don't think the accusation is warranted, and I do think it's motivated purely by political correctness. Perhaps the mere mentioning of these things, even if they are legitimate beliefs and feelings, is what is seen as denying respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:33 am Post subject: 253 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| What's not obvious? (just so I don't go re-explaining the wrong thing) |
You said "I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe" in response to Scurra's "You are apparently able to know that a homosexual couple (of either gender) are unable to have the same sort of deep emotional bond that a heterosexual couple can".
What you are calling obvious, I don't see anywhere, particularly in light of your earlier claim that it is impossible to know the strength of anybody's marital bond other than one's own.
| Quote: |
| I hate to bring it up again, but I think the accusation of bigot / homophobe largely revolves around my sincere belief that sex is best between a man and a woman |
It comes from your claim that there is something inherent to an opposite-sex relationship which is lacking in same-sex relationships. Given that you agree that it is impossible to know the strength of anybody else's bond, there is no rational basis for you to make this claim. Therefore, it must come from something else - whether religion, or just an instinctive emotional reaction - and it is a direct claim that homosexual relationships are inferior. This is prejudicial behaviour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:56 am Post subject: 254 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| I've been reading along, but having trouble understanding some of the conflict. If someone, i.e. extro, feels that "marriage" should be applied solely to a 1 man/1 woman committed, monogamous, permanent relationship, can he believe that without being a homophobe, a racist, a bigot, a sexist? Can someone with that belief be non-prejudiced, but simply feel that way in an effort to keep the union sacred? |
Honestly, I don't know. It's an excellent question, but even the way you ask it shows how some biases may be interpreted as bigotry. For instance, "keep the union sacred" implies that allowing homosexuals to marry is a defilement of said union. Is that bigotry? Again, I'm not sure. If "marriage" had remained solely a religious term, perhaps not. With it being the government contract it currently is, it probably swings toward "yes".
Is the belief intrinsically prejudicial? Probably not, though I'm struggling to come up with an immediate counterexample.
There is a specific problem with extro's argument which has led me to believe that he is prejudiced. He believes that heterosexual relationships have some kind of bond not possible between two men or two women. He has stated that it is impossible to know the strength of anybody else's marital bond, yet persists in the belief that homosexuals' are less strong than his. This is not rational, yet it is a claim he stands by. This suggests an inherent belief in the inferiority of homosexual relationships, which I would call bigotry.
| Quote: |
| Without regard to evolution, reproduction, or anything else, I just don't see why a person can't believe that way without having negative traits attributed. I don't see extro as any of those things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard him try to deny anyone else any rights, privileges, or respect because of their sexual orientation. |
I would suggest that the insinuation that gay couples are inherently less capable of having a deep marital bond is disrespectful. I would suggest that repeatedly mentioning fecal matter when discussing homosexual sex is disrespectful. I would suggest that "found a hole to stick it in" is incredibly disrespectful language.
| Quote: |
I also think it is valid to believe the term marriage could apply to any two people, regardless of gender. That wouldn't suggest any negative traits either. I gather Mackay's orientation is purely an attempt to establish equality. I guess I don't really understand the disagreement very well.
No one here really wants to see anyone treated unfairly or even differently....I think. Is this giant debate really reflective of a fundamental difference, or is it mostly a matter of semantics? I don't know the answer but it seems time for the primary debaters in this one to take a step back. Maybe I'm just missing the point. Whatever, I'm sure it's Obama's fault. |
You seem to have my argument understood perfectly, or at least the gist of it.
The debate has changed considerably from when it started, I'm pretty sure it's a bit of both.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: 255 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| What's not obvious? (just so I don't go re-explaining the wrong thing) |
You said "I don't know, but there is ample obvious rational reason to believe" in response to Scurra's "You are apparently able to know that a homosexual couple (of either gender) are unable to have the same sort of deep emotional bond that a heterosexual couple can".
What you are calling obvious, I don't see anywhere, particularly in light of your earlier claim that it is impossible to know the strength of anybody's marital bond other than one's own. |
That wasn't my earlier claim. I said you couldn't know that from personal subjective reports.
I've laid out very rational reasons why it's virtually impossible that evolution made the physical aspects of homosexual activity equal to heterosexual sex. The best counterargument thus far has been casinopete's "it's too complex to know, so maybe it did", but he's demonstrated a weak grasp of the basics of evolution, hence his overblown perception of complexity. I think you could pick this up though, so I'd be happy to go over it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:33 am Post subject: 256 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| There is a specific problem with extro's argument which has led me to believe that he is prejudiced. He believes that heterosexual relationships have some kind of bond not possible between two men or two women. He has stated that it is impossible to know the strength of anybody else's marital bond, ... |
... from personal subjective reports from people who have no basis for comparison ...
| Mackay wrote: |
| yet persists in the belief that homosexuals' are less strong than his. This is not rational, yet it is a claim he stands by |
The argument from evolution is entirely rational and sound. That's what I stand by.
| Mackay wrote: |
| I would suggest that the insinuation that gay couples are inherently less capable of having a deep marital bond is disrespectful. |
But is it incorrect? (and I don't mean in the political sense)
| Mackay wrote: |
| I would suggest that repeatedly mentioning fecal matter when discussing homosexual sex is disrespectful. |
Homosexuals have mentioned it, and repeated it to the point that it brought their definition of 'santorum' to the top of a google search. They selected it for the perceived "ick" factor. Are they bigots?
| Mackay wrote: |
| I would suggest that "found a hole to stick it in" is incredibly disrespectful language. |
And I would suggest it's accurate. That's not the purpose that that hole evolved for, as evidenced by damage often done to it. (including "A 1993 study of 40 anal-receptive gay men found 14 experienced frequent anal incontinence", among several other risks mentioned here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2858/what-are-the-risks-of-heterosexual-anal-sex ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:04 am Post subject: 257 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| If an evolutionary biologist said "The lungs were intended to absorb oxygen from air, and not from water", would you seriously interrupt him with "excuse me, but I think you misspoke"? And if he did it a second or third time, interject with "Aha! You didn't misspeak!"? |
You've badly misrepresented "my" reactions in your little scenario. To make it comparable to the conversation in this thread, I do absolutely nothing when he uses the word intention the first time. When he has used it several times, and made it a central feature of an argument he's making, I tell him that it's not actually intentional (despite hoping he's already aware of it), and that using that phrasing is badly biasing his argument. And when he tells me he doesn't mean intentional in that sense, I move on.
If, after I accept that he didn't mean intent when he used the word "intended", he claims he has never been talking about intention and never even implied intention, and acts like I have deeply injured him by quoting him, I point out that using the word "intended" does, in fact, imply intention. Perhaps your biologist's English isn't very strong?
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
You are plainly wrong. Sickle cell anemia is a serious eventually fatal blood disorder that is in no way a selectively advantagious trait.
[and four more paragraphs working furiously to link the word "inferior" to homosexuals] |
I was talking about the genes, not the disease, exactly as you were when you were weighing advantage. If my phrasing communicated otherwise, I'm sorry. I suspect most people understood this, though.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I think the theory of evolution would be on shaky ground if we couldn't perceive a difference between advantageousness of traits as you suggest. We can measure pretty well the differences in likelihood of individuals with one trait reproducing versus individuals with another. |
You are wrong. Evolution works on the genetic level. That's basically what the definition of gene is, enough dna to make an evolutionary difference. Traits, especially complex traits like homosexuality, are caused by the interaction of many genes, each of which have their hand in effecting other traits. We can measure the differences in how many people carry a gene, and then describe that gene as selectively advantageous or disadvantageous. We cannot do that with traits. Evolution is too complex.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
And again, the suggestion that anyone who believes they sees such a difference, when that difference doesn't fit your political beliefs, is a bigot, is absurd.
...
If we're having a discussion about objective matters of fact, calling someone a bigot for statements they make which are correct, that's absurd.
...
It's absurd, and to call someone a bigot for saying so is hateful.
...
Your counter is essentially "it's all so complex, either be politically correct or be a bigot". |
I didn't suggest you were a bigot for believing you see a difference. In fact, I didn't use the word "bigot" at all, or suggest anything about bigotry until you directly told me that I only had the two options of calling you correct and calling you a bigot. Perhaps you jumped the gun there a bit?
But of course, now I have called you a bigot, and I have stated exactly why. No matter how many other reasons you imagine for it (and you've racked up an impressive number - I suppose because you started before I mentioned bigotry at all), it is because you keep loosing your disgust and deliberately offensive language into the conversation. It is especially disagreeable because it actually interferes with your stated purpose of rational conversation.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You see the problem, and you're closing your eyes to it. Evolution did not support your notion of political correctness, so you claim "we can't decipher why evolution is selecting particular traits". Big mystery, all of a sudden. Pathetic. Grow a freaking backbone, look at what's in front of you, and man up. You're wrong. |
Claiming that you can track the natural selection of genes involved in homosexualty when no one else in the world will even claim to know which genes are involved is "growing a backbone"? Chanting "anus, anus, anus" at people who disagree with you is "manning up"? Are you just trying to bait me into calling you an idiot so you can whine about ad hominem and storm off in a huff again?
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| And what kind of magical thinking would be behind: Evolution ensured that anal sex between two non-reproductive men is equally pleasurable and bond-strengthening as vaginal sex between a man and a woman. How did evolution do this? Is the magic of evolution in that regard beyond our understanding? |
The scorn is a little funny, I suppose, but since you're directing it at thoughts I haven't expressed, I'm at a bit of a loss how to proceed. But just keep chanting "poopdick" at me, I'm sure you'll convince me eventually.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| My jaw drops, because it's you who've been speculating that somehow the rectum was evolved to serve a function in strengthening bonds between men who likely won't reproduce - a far, far less obvious conclusion to speculate toward - and furthermore evolved to be equal to the function of a vagina in that regard, without a shred of even speculation as to how that equality could be maintained. |
I have not so speculated. Feel free to search all my posts for "anus" and "rectum" and see for yourself. Just because you are transfixed by the thought of anuses does not mean the rest of us are. That you constantly argue against things I haven't said conflicts a bit with your constant whining about being misrepresented.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You're being deliberately obtuse in denying the obvious. You're actually starting to sound like the Bible thumpers who say God's way is beyond our understanding. Imagine trying to defend evolution with natural selection is far too complex for us to discern what it's doing. |
The difference might be that I am not defending evolution. It doesn't need to be defended. I am correcting your misunderstandings about it. Your insults are requiring more and more of a stretch now.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
My arguments are rooted in some very plain facts:
1) Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
2) There is no conceivable way to explain how evolution would ensure the rectum would function equally as well in the role of bond strengthening between men as heterosex does between man and woman.
Your counter is essentially "it's all so complex, either be politically correct or be a bigot". |
None of your arguments are rooted in the 2) you just named. You absolutely have not been limiting yourself to pointing out that the other side hasn't yet made a convincing argument. Instead you have been making the positive claim that heterosex is better than homosex. This claim about your arguments is flat-out untrue, and I cannot see how you could have overlooked that.
Also, you have forgetten 3) poopdick.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Sickle-cell anemia confers no advantage, and confers a great disadvantage, but will not be bred out of the species by evolution, because being a carrier of a single copy of the gene confers the advantage of malaria resistance.
Homosexual attraction, like sickle cell anemia, is a phenotypic trait. There are countless disadvantageous traits which evolution does not breed out. |
You are mixing up "disadvantageous to an organism" with "selectively disadvantageous". Sickle-cell anemia is not selectively disadvantageous, because selection doesn't operate on trait level. Homosexual attraction is, as you say, a trait. It is not selectively disadvantageous because selection doesn't operate on trait level.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| This is you oversimplifying, and it's false. |
I may have been simplifying. Interesting to see how it gets you in a bit of trouble to simplify about evolution, neh? But it's not false, it is the fundamental principle of evolution.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Everything I've said here is reality, and it's disagreeing with you. |
Almost everything you've said here is idle speculation and fantasy. I can say with absolutely certainty that the dozen motives and arguments you've invented me sprang forth from your imagination, and not from reality.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:18 pm Post subject: 258 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| That's why it seems reasonable to claim that this argument is driven by homophobia, rather than merely legal niceties. |
Which argument? |
Well the problem as I see it is that there are several which seem to have got badly tangled up in this particular thread, thus causing the usual misunderstandings.
1. What the term "marriage" actually means, and whether the term "marriage" can only apply to a particular relationship between a man and a woman.
2. Whether male/female reproductive sexual intercourse is the only form of sex that can produce emotional bonding (and whether such reproductive intercourse needs to be within a prescribed relationship.)
3. That there is some evolutionary advantage to male/female sexual relations.
Let me try and articulate my position again. Please note that I am not ascribing these positions to you or anyone in particular. I am just attempting to disentangle them as I see it.
1. My position on this is that a lot of the problems we are having stem from our societies being still in the middle of a transition from cultures where religion was a central plank of society to ones where it is much more of a personal thing that isn't a political or legal requirement. This shift has only been going on for a few hundred years so it's far too soon for it to be over.
A lot of the confusion stems from the problem that we use "marriage" to refer to a single ceremony which actually has two different component parts - the legal bit and the religious bit.
A good comparison might be with a baptism/christening. There is a legal requirement for a baby to have a name (at least, I believe there is!) For millennia in Christian societies, this has mostly been done as part of a religious ceremony, where the child is baptised into whichever denomination the parents are members. This is no longer the case. We don't require a child to have to have a baptism service in order to have a legal name.
This is clearly what is happening with "marriage" as well. There is no need to have a "marriage" (in the sense of a formal religious or even civic ceremony) in order for two people to enter into the legal status that grants them particular rights, they just have to sign the relevant papers in front of witnesses. But that's a bit dull, I think you'd agree.
So here's my question to you relating to issue 1: Do you think that the only people that should be entitled to sign those papers are a man and a woman?
(supplementary question: If not, then is this not merely a terminology question?)
2. The argument that there are unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship that arise from reproductive sexual intercourse and they cannot be replicated in any other form.
My position on this is simple. Since this judgement is being made by people about other people it cannot possibly be made from a position of knowledge and must be made from a position of prejudice (pre-judging.) There are people in this world who gain emotional pleasure from watching Baseball. I cannot understand this myself. However, I am a fan of Doctor Who. I do not, however, presume that the emotional pleasure I get from watching Doctor Who is somehow greater or of more worth than those who watch Baseball. It is worth noting that neither of these things has anything to do with sex but there will be plenty of people who would attest to them producing responses which are on a similar level - or higher! You may think they are deluded, but that's still only your opinion.
So here's my question to you relating to issue 2: Are you saying that your belief about the superiority of male/female emotional bonding through sex is sufficient to entitle you to decide that all other forms are inferior and to impose that belief on others?
3. I really can't speak to the evolutionary argument because I don't know enough about it and I prefer not to fall into the Dawkins Delusion. However, I don't think anyone is arguing against the clear fact that (artificial methods aside) male/female reproductive sex is the only way the human species can propagate.
So here's my question to you relating to issue 3: What the hell does this have to do with the issue of "marriage"?
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: 259 |
|
|
| regarding the word 'intended', casinopete wrote: |
| You've badly misrepresented "my" reactions in your little scenario. To make it comparable to the conversation in this thread, I do absolutely nothing when he uses the word intention the first time. When he has used it several times, and made it a central feature of an argument he's making, I tell him that it's not actually intentional (despite hoping he's already aware of it), and that using that phrasing is badly biasing his argument. And when he tells me he doesn't mean intentional in that sense, I move on. |
It should in no way bias my argument, but then I'm assuming you understand the argument, which you clearly do not.
| casinopete wrote: |
| If, after I accept that he didn't mean intent when he used the word "intended", he claims he has never been talking about intention and never even implied intention, ... |
I explained what I meant rather verbosely by the figurative use of the word "intended". Actually, I didn't - I explained what I meant by "design" in a particular context. I used the word "unintended" meaning for purposes other than what it was designed for. My explanation of "design" was this:
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
In saying:
"if evolution did in fact design the rectum to fulfill a sexual purpose ..."
I mean this:
"if there were random mutations producing genes which produce traits that made the rectum better suited for anal sex, and if those traits actually conferred a selective advantage to the individual in making reproduction more likely, and if such mutations and the advantagious traits they produced were selected for over millions of years through the increased rate of reproduction they contributed to in comparison to individuals without those genes, and thus traits making the rectum well suited for sex became predominant ...".
|
Can you show where my argument in any way employs your reading of "unintended"? It doesn't. You're nitpicking on words, and avoiding completely where I've demonstrated you are wrong, but perhaps you overlooked it, so I will do it again very clearly.
| casinopete wrote: |
| ... and acts like I have deeply injured him by quoting him, ... |
Did I do that? I never felt injured, and I think I would recall a decision to pretend so, or if not recall, at least still be able to see how pretending so would help my case, if I could ever see how.
| casinopete wrote: |
| I point out that using the word "intended" does, in fact, imply intention. Perhaps your biologist's English isn't very strong? |
And I point out, as above, what was meant by "unintended". It's a straw man - my argument in no way depends on "intention", as in a preconceived plan or goal. I hereby deny any preconceived plan or goal, and ask you where my argument depended on such a notion?
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
You are plainly wrong. Sickle cell anemia is a serious eventually fatal blood disorder that is in no way a selectively advantagious trait.
[and four more paragraphs working furiously to link the word "inferior" to homosexuals] |
I was talking about the genes, not the disease, exactly as you were when you were weighing advantage. If my phrasing communicated otherwise, I'm sorry. I suspect most people understood this, though. |
Now, yours is not just a problem in phrasing, and I know why you skipped those paragraphs you dismiss as 'working furiously to link the word "inferior" to homosexuals'.
I'm fine with your glossing over or mixing up or abusing the distinction between genotype and phenotype, except where it becomes relevant, as it is here.
| casinopete wrote: |
| Evolution works on the genetic level. |
I'm gonna use wikipedia ... some will always cry foul, but I'll back it up with other sources if you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
| Quote: |
| Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). |
Regarding "but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common", the article goes on to point out an example where there can be a limiting factor to that:
| Quote: |
| Finally, a number of forms of balancing selection exist, which do not result in fixation, but maintain an allele at intermediate frequencies in a population. This can occur in diploid species (that is, those that have two pairs of chromosomes) when heterozygote individuals, who have different alleles on each chromosome at a single genetic locus, have a higher fitness than homozygote individuals that have two of the same alleles. This is called heterozygote advantage or overdominance, of which the best-known example is the malarial resistance observed in heterozygous humans who carry only one copy of the gene for sickle cell anemia. |
You're ignoring or missing the whole point of the sickle cell anemia lesson, and I can come up with others to reinforce it, but chose this for its simplicity.
| casinopete wrote: |
| We can measure the differences in how many people carry a gene, and then describe that gene as selectively advantageous or disadvantageous. We cannot do that with traits. |
Homosexuality and sickle cell anemia are both phenotypic traits, and that is what natural selection acts on. We're discussing whether the traits are advantageous, and before you balk, let me assure you that I will explain why that's the only relevant thing to discuss in the context of our argument.
Sickle cell anemia is governed by a single gene with two alleles: A and S. There are three phenotypes: AA, AS and SS.
- AA is 'normal' (for lack of a better word; it's what you and I are).
- AS is sometimes called sickle cell trait, though not to be confused with having the phenotypic trait sickle cell anemia. AS individuals have a phenotypic trait of being more resistant to malaria, which natural selection favors in environments where malaria is prevalent. They do not have the phenotypic trait sickle cell anemia.
- SS individuals have sickle cell anemia, a blood disorder wherein their red blood cells do not transport oxygen as well and have a much shorter life than do the blood cells of people without the disorder. They are also, of the three phenotypes, most at risk from malaria. From the perspective of the discernable function that red blood cells perform, their red blood cells are inferior in performing that function. Natural selection does not favor these individuals. Sickle cell anemia is a selectively disadvantageous trait.
Your claim (further below) that:
| casinopete wrote: |
| Sickle-cell anemia is not selectively disadvantageous, because selection doesn't operate on trait level. |
... is patently false on both counts, and it isn't just a matter of phrasing, but an irreperable logical flaw in your argument.
Now, repeat quoting to address the second sentence:
| casinopete wrote: |
| We can measure the differences in how many people carry a gene, and then describe that gene as selectively advantageous or disadvantageous. We cannot do that with traits. |
The second sentence is also patently false. We can measure what percentage of individuals have which phenotypic traits, and we can, in a number of ways, accurately determine the relative selective advantage of those phenotypic traits.
Individuals with sickle cell anemia, like individuals with homosexual orientation, are less likely to reproduce (fact). Both of these phenotypic traits are a selective disadvantage, in that both result in an inferior potential to perform a particular function, leading to decreased likelihood of passing on ones genes. That the genes responsible for these disadvantageous traits have not been bred out of the species in no way contradicts that nature selects against these traits. They are both inferior traits in terms of how they fair against natural selection. And yes, I'm using the word inferior deliberately. I do it to demonstrate it is a reasonable and valid conclusion, and not a prejudice (for whoever may have thought it was, not necessarily you).
Ive also cited the evidence of genetic factors that contribute to both increased fecundity in women and homosexuality in men, again suggesting a mechanism whereby the selectively disadvantageous trait of homosexuality would be maintained at a certain level in the population.
It is extremely obvious why there would be strong selective advantage to male-female vaginal sex being pleasurable.
There is no discernable reason why male-male sex being pleasurable would confer a selective advantage, i.e. a greater likelihood of passing on ones genes.
To claim that somehow the trait with no selective advantage (pleasurableness of homosex) would evolve to as great an extent as the trait with a very definite selective advantage (pleasurableness of heterosex) is absurd. The alternative to the absurdity is that it isn't that way - the one is not as pleasurable as the other.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| And what kind of magical thinking would be behind: Evolution ensured that anal sex between two non-reproductive men is equally pleasurable and bond-strengthening as vaginal sex between a man and a woman. How did evolution do this? Is the magic of evolution in that regard beyond our understanding? |
The scorn is a little funny, I suppose, but since you're directing it at thoughts I haven't expressed, I'm at a bit of a loss how to proceed. |
You haven't expressed the thought anal sex between men is not inferior to vaginal sex between a man and a woman? I apologize for that then.
| casinopete wrote: |
| ... I am not defending evolution. ... I am correcting your misunderstandings about it. |
Do you still think so? I hope not.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
My arguments are rooted in some very plain facts:
1) Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
2) There is no conceivable way to explain how evolution would ensure the rectum would function equally as well in the role of bond strengthening between men as heterosex does between man and woman. |
None of your arguments are rooted in the 2) you just named. You absolutely have not been limiting yourself to pointing out that the other side hasn't yet made a convincing argument. Instead you have been making the positive claim that heterosex is better than homosex. This claim about your arguments is flat-out untrue, and I cannot see how you could have overlooked that. |
Heterosex is better than homosex because:
1) it confers a great selective advantage in terms of increased likelihood of reproduction (duh!), and because
2) anything else advantageous about any genetic variation that makes homosex "better" in whatever sense of "better" you choose is moot if it won't contribute to greater likelihood of that genetic variation being passed on
By whatever measure you choose for "better" or "good", if it doesn't confer increased likelihood of one's genes being passed along, it isn't selected for.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Sickle-cell anemia confers no advantage, and confers a great disadvantage, but will not be bred out of the species by evolution, because being a carrier of a single copy of the gene confers the advantage of malaria resistance.
Homosexual attraction, like sickle cell anemia, is a phenotypic trait. There are countless disadvantageous traits which evolution does not breed out. |
You are mixing up "disadvantageous to an organism" with "selectively disadvantageous". Sickle-cell anemia is not selectively disadvantageous, because selection doesn't operate on trait level. Homosexual attraction is, as you say, a trait. It is not selectively disadvantageous because selection doesn't operate on trait level. |
I trust it's now clear you're completely wrong there, yes?
Genes which have an advantage (i.e. they are likely to be propagated and persist in the gene pool) may well produce disease, disorders, selective disadvantages, inferior capacity to perform some function. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: 260 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
So here's my question to you relating to issue 1: Do you think that the only people that should be entitled to sign those papers are a man and a woman?
(supplementary question: If not, then is this not merely a terminology question?) |
Yes, it's a terminology question, though 'merely' may be dismissive of the importance of terminology as it influences how people think, and I don't think government should be influencing how people think in this case.
| Scurra wrote: |
2. The argument that there are unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship that arise from reproductive sexual intercourse and they cannot be replicated in any other form.
My position on this is simple. Since this judgement is being made by people about other people it cannot possibly be made from a position of knowledge and must be made from a position of prejudice (pre-judging.) |
A judgement can be made by people about pigs and ponies, so why not about other people? The position of knowledge you refer to is first hand subjective knowledge, requiring being the thing the judgement is about, but there are other kinds of knowledge. A judgement from "what would evolution do?", from what we know of evolution, and what we know of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and other facts, is from knowledge, albeit not complete, but not so incomplete as to conclude prejudice.
| Scurra wrote: |
| So here's my question to you relating to issue 2: Are you saying that your belief about the superiority of male/female emotional bonding through sex is sufficient to entitle you to decide that all other forms are inferior and to impose that belief on others? |
I'm not suggesting imposing a belief on anyone, but am saying that people who believe husband-wife marriage has unique qualities, and/or greater quantities of some attribute they deem important, cannot readily be dismissed as bigots or homophobes for having that belief, as seems to be quite fashionable to do. They may have valid reasons for beleiving it (as I believe I've expressed - the evolutionary argument), or the belief may be true and they just have an intuitive sense of it that they can't quite express as reasons.
| Scurra wrote: |
| 3. I really can't speak to the evolutionary argument because I don't know enough about it and I prefer not to fall into the Dawkins Delusion. However, I don't think anyone is arguing against the clear fact that (artificial methods aside) male/female reproductive sex is the only way the human species can propagate. |
There's more to it than just "male/female reproductive sex is the only way the human species can propagate". Evolution made male-female sex pleasurable because it's the only way humans propagate, and possibly also because it aids in bonding, and that this in turn aids in survival of offspring (and thus propagation). Why would evolution make male-male sex pleasurable?
| Scurra wrote: |
| So here's my question to you relating to issue 3: What the hell does this have to do with the issue of "marriage"? |
It supports the answer to question 2, that a belief that husband-wife marriage is special enough to deserve it's own name isn't necessarily dismissable as bigotry or homophobia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:15 pm Post subject: 261 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A judgement can be made by people about pigs and ponies, so why not about other people? |
If you can't see the difference then this argument is going nowhere. (For the record, I think that making prejudgements about how pigs and ponies should be treated is also wrong. Even if it turns out that they make prejudgements about us.)
| Quote: |
| The position of knowledge you refer to is first hand subjective knowledge, requiring being the thing the judgement is about, but there are other kinds of knowledge. A judgement from "what would evolution do?", from what we know of evolution, and what we know of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and other facts, is from knowledge, albeit not complete, but not so incomplete as to conclude prejudice |
And you are conflating my points 2 and 3 again in order to make an answer. One of my problems with this issue is that the different aspects keep on being mixed together. I specifically did not include the evolution argument in this part because, as you rightly point out, it is drawn from a different sort of knowledge, crucially one that doesn't change depending upon your own beliefs. It might change as a result of different information being discovered, or a fuller understanding of the evidence, but that is very different from making a judgement about another person that is based on your own set of beliefs.
And my concern isn't even particularly with whether an individual holds one sort of belief or another - it's the imposition of that belief onto others. In that sense we are in total accord on this point. It's just that you seem to think that removing a current restriction (by widening it to such an extent that there are no exclusions) is in some way imposing something on people, whereas I think it's entirely the opposite...
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: 262 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A judgement can be made by people about pigs and ponies, so why not about other people? |
If you can't see the difference then this argument is going nowhere. |
Can you explain what difference you think is relevant here?
| Scurra wrote: |
| (For the record, I think that making prejudgements about how pigs and ponies should be treated is also wrong. Even if it turns out that they make prejudgements about us.) |
But the answer to your question ... and you're trying to keep the seperate arguments from mixing ... isn't about how they're to be treated. The question was about "unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship ...".
| Scurra wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The position of knowledge you refer to is first hand subjective knowledge, requiring being the thing the judgement is about, but there are other kinds of knowledge. A judgement from "what would evolution do?", from what we know of evolution, and what we know of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and other facts, is from knowledge, albeit not complete, but not so incomplete as to conclude prejudice |
And you are conflating my points 2 and 3 again in order to make an answer. One of my problems with this issue is that the different aspects keep on being mixed together. I specifically did not include the evolution argument in this part because, as you rightly point out, it is drawn from a different sort of knowledge, crucially one that doesn't change depending upon your own beliefs. It might change as a result of different information being discovered, or a fuller understanding of the evidence, but that is very different from making a judgement about another person that is based on your own set of beliefs. |
I'm not conflating points 2 and 3. If you're asking me to address 2, about "unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship", under the hypothetical situation that I know nothing mentioned in 3, then, I suppose my response would be that I don't know.
But emotional qualities are the result of the physical organism, which is the result of evolution. You want to divorce them. I'm not conflating them.
| Scurra wrote: |
| And my concern isn't even particularly with whether an individual holds one sort of belief or another - it's the imposition of that belief onto others. In that sense we are in total accord on this point. It's just that you seem to think that removing a current restriction (by widening it to such an extent that there are no exclusions) is in some way imposing something on people, whereas I think it's entirely the opposite... |
Government redefinition of "marriage" will impose, over time, a change in how people think about it, and such a change should come from the collective consciousness of the people, not from government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject: 263 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Government redefinition of "marriage" will impose, over time, a change in how people think about it, and such a change should come from the collective consciousness of the people, not from government. |
First, the government is the collective consciousness of people.
Second, a change in how people think about things changes the government, not the other way around, no matter how much 1984 you've read.
| Quote: |
Can you explain what difference you think is relevant here?
|
Rationality and Morality.
That is what differs us from our beasts of burden.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:28 pm Post subject: 264 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Government redefinition of "marriage" will impose, over time, a change in how people think about it, and such a change should come from the collective consciousness of the people, not from government. |
First, the government is the collective consciousness of people. |
All governments, or just the US government?
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Second, a change in how people think about things changes the government, not the other way around, no matter how much 1984 you've read. |
All governments and their people, or just the USA?
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Can you explain what difference you think is relevant here?
|
Rationality and Morality.
That is what differs us from our beasts of burden. |
How are rationality and morality relevant to the claim of impossibility of people making knowledgeable judgements about existence and irreproducability of emotional qualities unique to the man-woman relationship? I'm claiming those emotional qualities have a physical basis and are a result of evolution, and that we have enough knowledge about evolution to make some general claims. Rationality and morality is a roadblock there, how? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:13 pm Post subject: 265 |
|
|
Also, in my earlier post I wrote:
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| We're discussing whether the traits [as opposed to the genes] are advantageous, and before you balk, let me assure you that I will explain why that's the only relevant thing to discuss in the context of our argument. |
If it's not already clear, I want to make sure I make good on that promise.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Sickle cell anemia is a serious eventually fatal blood disorder that is in no way a selectively advantagious trait. |
I was talking about the genes, not the disease, exactly as you were when you were weighing advantage. If my phrasing communicated otherwise, I'm sorry. I suspect most people understood this, though. |
If we're talking about some relative inferiority of homosexuals - their likelihood of reproducing, the quality of their relationships, whatever, we are not talking about their genes.
It's not just a phrasing mistake to say "selectively advantagious/disadvantageous", which typically means natural selection or nonselection of traits, when one means purely the genes involved.
If you've got sickle cell anemia, a fatal disease, and you get diagnosed by a doctor, he doesn't say "good news, you've got a gene which confers resistance to malaria, BUT, even better, you have it TWICE, so it's gonna kill you". Actually, in the case of sickle cell anemia, he could put the positive spin on it by telling you "if your spouse does not carry the gene, all your children will have resistance to malaria".
If the genes that produce homosexuality also produce benefits to other non-homosexual individuals (like genes for sickle cell anemia produce benefits for individuals without the disease), that would account for the genes being present in the population, but it doesn't mean the following:
| casinopete wrote: |
| If homosexual attraction was selectively disadvantageous, it would have been bred out of the species |
Not at all.
It is disadvantagious, and you can't even put the positive spin on it that those genes might be good for your offspring. What offspring?
Your earlier nitpicking on my phrasing ("unintended", "design", etc) isn't relevant to my argument, because my argument doesn't in any way depend on the false statements you misread my words as making.
You are mixing two issues here, and this is the crux of your confusion. When you make the following incorrect statement:
| casinopete wrote: |
| If homosexual attraction was selectively disadvantageous, it would have been bred out of the species |
... it's not just a problem with phrasing. The statement can be corrected to
| casinopete wrote: |
| If the genes which produce homosexual attraction in all circumstances produced selectively disadvantageous traits, and don't produce advantagious traits in heterosexual individuals, they would have been bred out of the species |
Then it's true, but then that doesn't any longer support you argument, which is that if homosexuality entailed certain inferiorities, it would be bred out of existence (and concluding that since it hasn't been bred out, it isn't inferior).
Your argument depends on the claim that: If the phenotypic trait homosexual attraction was selectively disadvantageous, it would have been bred out of the species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:04 pm Post subject: 266 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| But emotional qualities are the result of the physical organism, which is the result of evolution. You want to divorce them. I'm not conflating them. |
And that's why this conversation is going nowhere. Your position appears that there is nothing beyond evolution that has any bearing on human relationships or behaviour. and therefore you cannot see any reason to separate my points 2 and 3 because you seem to consider my point 2 irrelevant. I accept that. I will however, continue to disagree with you, because I think that "rationality and morality" amongst other emotional responses are not merely products of genetic abnormality amongst some species of primates.
I still don't see how it has anything to do with "marriage" as a legal and social construct though. Not to mention that the "people" (in many western societies - which is what we are talking about here after all, although it's not an unknown issue elsewhere) are already collectively changing the way they think about it; otherwise the issue would not be being discussed at all. Isn't that how it usually works?
| Mahatma Gandhi wrote: |
| First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. |
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:32 pm Post subject: 268 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Your position appears that there is nothing beyond evolution that has any bearing on human relationships or behaviour. and therefore you cannot see any reason to separate my points 2 and 3 because you seem to consider my point 2 irrelevant. |
I try to avoid arguments from supernatural causes (God, soul, etc) when it comes to things pertaining to government. Besides, somebody will say their God says my God is a fraud, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: 269 |
|
|
That's what happens when you hand it over to the feds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:00 pm Post subject: 270 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Your position appears that there is nothing beyond evolution that has any bearing on human relationships or behaviour. and therefore you cannot see any reason to separate my points 2 and 3 because you seem to consider my point 2 irrelevant. |
Furthermore, this makes no sense at all. It's like:
| Suppose you wrote: |
Point A: Can anyone really know what 1+1 is?
Point B: What does the fact that 1+1=2 have to do with ... whatever?
Now, keep them separate ... don't conflate A and B. |
| Suppose I wrote: |
| Well, regarding Point A, 1+1=2 |
| Suppose you wrote: |
| But you're conflating my points A and B |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gomez*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:03 am Post subject: 271 |
|
|
| I've not read the whole thread because, well, it's massive, but I've a question for all gay marriage opponents, whoever and wherever you may be: Why can't you just be cool? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:18 am Post subject: 272 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I try to avoid arguments from supernatural causes (God, soul, etc) when it comes to things pertaining to government. |
As indeed do I. Are you actually reading my posts at all?
I have been saying since I joined in that my problem is that the term "marriage" is being used for both a legal contract (i.e. the government bit) and a bonding ceremony (what you want to call a "supernatural" bit, although given that you are apparently arguing a completely evolutionary process for it, I don't see how you can say it is "supernatural".)
The legal contract part of it has nothing whatsoever to do with that part of it. And, as I said, extending the legal contract is hardly imposing it on people - unless the extension also said "oh, and by the way, if you want to move in with someone you have to get married." Now that would be an imposition.
| Quote: |
| Besides, somebody will say their God says my God is a fraud, etc. |
Well I agree with that certainly. But that's got nothing to do with this particular argument, it's an entirely different one.
| Suppose I (Scurra) wrote: |
Point A: Can anyone really know what 1+1 is?
Point B: What does the fact that 1+1=2 have to do with ... whatever?
Now, keep them separate ... don't conflate A and B. |
I honestly don't understand you just like you clearly don't understand me. (And there's nothing wrong with that. )
But from here it seems to me that the argument in point B is irrelevant to the argument in point A.. Thus if
| And then you (Extro...) wrote: |
| Well, regarding Point A, 1+1=2 |
that has nothing to with point B, it's just an answer to point A.
By adding the words "the fact that" into point B makes it look as though the two points are indeed connected - and also that there is a single clear answer to point A which inevitably leads to point B. We disagree on this point.
Restate point B as:
Point B: What does 1+1 have to do with ... whatever?
and it is clear that point A and point B are entirely separate.
I am arguing that you are the one who is trying to introduce a link between A and B by inserting a single inescapable conclusion into point B. If that single inescapable conclusion existed then there would be no need to ask point A in the first place.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: 273 |
|
|
Scurra, if you had presented only point 2, and the question, and not the 1st or 3rd points and question, the 3rd mentioning evolution, I'd have answered the 2nd point and question the same way. Evolution is involved. We have knowledge of evolution, and your 2nd point is about whether we might have knowledge to make some judgement. I'm not understanding the constraint that I not bring evolution into that, especially when it seems to me the reason is simply that you mentioned evolution in an unrelated point 3, and want to keep them separate. Question 3 mentions evolution, therefore I must pretend evolution isn't the answer to 2?
Anyway, it probably doesn't matter, as question 2 is about imposing beliefs, and I don't advocate that.
Separating legal marriage from social marriage is best done by having different terms for them, like "civil union" (for legal) and "marriage" (for whatever people agree is a marriage). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:53 am Post subject: 274 |
|
|
| Gomez* wrote: |
| I've not read the whole thread because, well, it's massive, but I've a question for all gay marriage opponents, whoever and wherever you may be: Why can't you just be cool? |
Ron Paul is cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: 275 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| That's what happens when you hand it over to the feds. |
I'm sort of curious: would you be OK if there was a government temporary two year civil union? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: 276 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| re: Bravehat - by stating that his reasons are personal, he has made it clear that he doesn't want those views questioned in this thread (at least that's how it seemed to me), and I respect that even though I disagree with him. |
What exactly to you disagree with me on? I haven't expressed any opinion about homosexual relationships at all. I'm merely observing that the term "marriage" means different things to different people, is extremely interpretive , and so not as good of a legally binding term as "civil union". "Civil union" is not really interpretive. It is simply defined as a legal union constituting certain rights and privileges and certain obligations, like any other legal contract. Very clearly delineated. "Marriage" is not a clearly delineated term.
I fail to see how anyone's opinion on the equality or inequality of gay marriage to hetero marriage has any bearing on the government's role in this situation.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:24 pm Post subject: 277 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| That's what happens when you hand it over to the feds. |
I'm sort of curious: would you be OK if there was a government temporary two year civil union? |
Sure, because I don't think anyone really cares about the term "civil union" in the way they do "marriage".
[edit: Not simply just care about the 'terms', but the things they believe those terms refer to.]
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I fail to see how anyone's opinion on the equality or inequality of gay marriage to hetero marriage has any bearing on the government's role in this situation. |
I agree. The only reason I defended that the idea that they're unequal in the context of this discussion is because of the suggestion that that idea comes from bigotry and/or homophobia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: 278 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Sure, because I don't think anyone really cares about the term "civil union" in the way they do "marriage".
[edit: Not simply just care about the 'terms', but the things they believe those terms refer to.] |
This comment makes your complaints seem of a petty linguistic nature rather than fundamental. Most of us can distinguish between the legal and religious definitions of marriage without have to use a different phrase for them.
(I can understand a worry about how the legal issues might have an easier influencing the religious issues if they use the same name. I just don't think the religious issues are likely to change without a simultaneous reevaluation of the nature of marriage by the entire population that makes them justifiable.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: 279 |
|
|
| Thok* wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Sure, because I don't think anyone really cares about the term "civil union" in the way they do "marriage".
[edit: Not simply just care about the 'terms', but the things they believe those terms refer to.] |
This comment makes your complaints seem of a petty linguistic nature rather than fundamental. Most of us can distinguish between the legal and religious definitions of marriage without have to use a different phrase for them. |
And I believe you underestimate the influence language has on thought.
We can distinguish, but one word for two things very definitely blurs the distinction. "Marriage is marriage" is just one instantiation of the common phrase pattern "X is X", an explicit and common reinforcement of the notion that a thing called X and a thing called X are equal.
The entire thread has had two branches:
1) the linguistic issue
2) me disputing the suggestion that the linguistic issue is only a concern of bigots
The title of the thread is Should gay marriage be called "marriage"?/some old white guy. Yes, it's about language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: 280 |
|
|
If it's about language, then you must realize that the word used for gay marriage is gay marriage and not civil union for a reason.
It's the same reason we say clean instead of cleanse, yes instead of affirmative, and countless other useless synonyms, so useless I would need a thesaurus to remember them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
