Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: The E on February 02, 2010, 07:22:04 pm
-
I sort of said to myself that I would try to stay out of the whole gay-marriage-in-the-US debate, because I sort of think the whole issue is silly.
But then, Boing Boing posts this: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/02/same-sex-marriage-is.html
which leads to http://tongodeon.livejournal.com/880030.html
and my day was practically made. It's just too funny to not spread around.
-
Well, it was never a secret that the judge wanted to know what the deal was before he ruled. He hit them with that the day the trial opened.
The amazing thing is they weren't able to bull**** something up before the hearings started.
-
It is a silly issue, because it is just that; an issue.
I want to puke when I hear about religious practices and beliefs poking into our government. Soon the United States will become a country not unlike the ones people fled from to create it.
-
The defense experts were a complete joke. They only found two who would testify for them, and there was a third one that the plaintiffs called up as a witness for *our* side. XD Of course the two they did get to testify did more to damage their case than help anyone.
-
heh, this might actually work out alright after all. I never expected the opposition to make an absolute jackass mockery of them selves like that, if they keep this up they'll succeed where the liberals have failed for the last decade in attaching a stigma of 'idiot' to the anti-gay-marriage position this might just put them into the same category as creationists in the public's eye.
-
I think the opposition has made it clear that they really "don't know" what case they're fighting. Looks like they planned to just show up and win by default. Just sad, really, that they can't even prepare for a huge trial.
-
No wonder they fought so hard to keep the thing from being broadcast. They claimed it was because their witnesses thought the big bad gays were gonna attack them oh nooooo
-
heh, this might actually work out alright after all. I never expected the opposition to make an absolute jackass mockery of them selves like that, if they keep this up they'll succeed where the liberals have failed for the last decade in attaching a stigma of 'idiot' to the anti-gay-marriage position this might just put them into the same category as creationists in the public's eye.
Do you have any idea how many creationists there still are in the public? That particular brand of bull**** has a long way to go before it's finally buried.
-
yeah, but you don't have to go far to see them made the butt of a joke on a late night talk show.
-
It is a silly issue, because it is just that; an issue.
I want to puke when I hear about religious practices and beliefs poking into our government. Soon the United States will become a country not unlike the ones people fled from to create it.
Beliefs will ALLWAYS poke into the government, because all peopel belive in something. It may be religion, in a specific ideology or somehing else. Government is composed of people. People wahve their wants are views.
You're basicly asking the impossible.
I did notcice on thing tough - why do you think that only religious folk may have something agaisnt gay marriage?
-
Because that's the core reason for opposition to gay marriage.
There's no rational reason, either data-driven or scientific, to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species, and it's evolutionarily important.
-
You're basicly asking the impossible.
I did notcice on thing tough - why do you think that only religious folk may have something agaisnt gay marriage?
Note that this entire hilariousness stems from the inability of the defendants to find rational reasons.
-
I did notcice on thing tough - why do you think that only religious folk may have something agaisnt gay marriage?
I certainly don't. I am quite sure there are non-religious conservative people who oppose same sex marriage simply because it's against their ideological background, but the point is that they can't find rational reasons why same sex marriages would be harmful either.
Tradition goes in the same category as religious reasons in this case.
-
I certainly have never known any nonreligious homophobes. In fact, most (maybe all) of the people I know who went from homophobe to nonhomophobe also went from very religious to less religious or nonreligious.
-
I certainly have never known any nonreligious homophobes. In fact, most (maybe all) of the people I know who went from homophobe to nonhomophobe also went from very religious to less religious or nonreligious.
Fair enough, but correlation doesn't prove causation.
I could post historical examples of non-religion based discrimination against homosexuals or other groups of people that supposedly offended the principles of one ism or another, but I don't feel like Godwining the thread.
-
I certainly have never known any nonreligious homophobes. In fact, most (maybe all) of the people I know who went from homophobe to nonhomophobe also went from very religious to less religious or nonreligious.
Fair enough, but correlation doesn't prove causation.
I could post historical examples of non-religion based discrimination against homosexuals or other groups of people that supposedly offended the principles of one ism or another, but I don't feel like Godwining the thread.
Not to disagree, but I think almost all historical examples would probably be religious in nature simply due to the religiousness of the society at the time.
-
Because that's the core reason for opposition to gay marriage.
There's no rational reason, either data-driven or scientific, to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species, and it's evolutionarily important.
I disagree with the last statement. Evolutionary important? How?
Now I don't have anything against gay marriage, but I don' see anything useful in "gayness" as a whole that's worth preserving. No offense to anyone, k?
-
I don't see anything useful about Christianity that's worth preserving either, so I guess we're even, eh?
-
Because that's the core reason for opposition to gay marriage.
There's no rational reason, either data-driven or scientific, to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species, and it's evolutionarily important.
I disagree with the last statement. Evolutionary important? How?
Now I don't have anything against gay marriage, but I don' see anything useful in "gayness" as a whole that's worth preserving. No offense to anyone, k?
Kin selection. Inclusive fitness. It works on a similar principle to the eusocial principles that drive ant colonies, or alarm calls in ground squirrels, or nest-helping behaviors in young Florida scrub jays.
The idea is that you get more virtual offspring by helping out your parents and siblings than you get offspring by trying to reproduce yourself. Since you're not using up resources for your own kids, more of your siblings and siblings' children survive, and you can help them grow. Since your siblings share half your genetic material, and their kids share a quarter, you're basically getting free 'virtual offspring' by halves and quarters if you help them out.
The relevant equation is rB > C. Homosexuality will be favored whenever the fitness benefit of homosexual behavior (B) multiplied by the coefficient of relationship with the behavior recipient (r) is greater than the fitness cost to the organism.
Transsexuality is also natural and important in many species.
There are a number of other major reasons, too. Read this for a good overview. (http://io9.com/5420937/charting-the-possible-evolution-of-same+sex-liaisons)
-
I don't see anything useful about Christianity that's worth preserving either, so I guess we're even, eh?
Whatever floats your boat.
Altough technicly there already is a volontary way to get rid of religion...it's called a different way of thinking. It's out there, free for the taking. You won't see me stopping you or anyone else from taking it.
@Gen Battuta - sorry, I just don't buy any of that.
-
It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.
You can't 'not buy it'.
Also, for reference, since I doubt you clicked the link:
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/5449/samesexchart.jpg) (http://img294.imageshack.us/i/samesexchart.jpg/)
-
TrashMan: Okay, then please provide scientific data to refute that claim. Saying "I don't buy that" is just about as valid as "I don't believe gravity exists". If you wish to argue with science, you need to use science. Otherwise your opinion will be ignored.
-
It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.
You can't 'not buy it'.
this sounds interesting, what were the studies?
-
See above (I edited in a big chart thing), and for the specific study I'm mentioning:
Mumme, R. L. 1992. Do helpers increase reproductive success? An experimental analysis in the Florida scrub jay. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31:319–328.
That might not actually be complete, but it should be a good start.
You can also just go look at an ant colony; they work entirely on kin selection.
-
I think this perfectly illustrates what's going on with this Prop 8.
It feels wrong to people and that's enough. There are no real facts to back up the claim, but they don't buy the other sides facts.
-
Which is why we should laugh at their stupid "but it feeeeels wrooooong" nonsense until they shut up and go die.
-
I don't think ants are a good example, they are asexual, not homosexual.
-
Ants are not asexual; they are, in fact, very sexual (and very determinedly either male or female), and it is sex that makes their societies work.
Ants are an example of kin selection in action. Kin selection is one of the mechanisms that makes homosexuality valuable. But you're correct that ants are not a direct example of homosex as a valuable social element.
Interestingly, by biological standards, humans are considered socially polygynous/promiscuous and reproductively promiscuous (as we're over the 10% threshold.) About 80% of human societies have been or are polygynous.
-
well, kin selection yeah, but the vast majority of the workers are basically sexually neutral.
-
Yeah, pretty much - they're having sex by proxy, though, and they're definitely female, not asexual.
Ants show a lot of strange reproductive quirks. For example, male ants cannot have sons, but can have grandsons.
-
Yeah, pretty much - they're having sex by proxy, though, and they're definitely female, not asexual.
sex by proxy != sex, AFAIK the workers engage in no intercourse or courtship, the fact that they are acting as an extension of the queen, who does have sex, does not mean that they are having sex themselves.
they are female in so much as that is the biological default.
-
Well, I think we're just quibbling over word choice here. They're definitely female. They just don't have any reason to have sex because they're more closely related to their sisters than to any potential offspring. They have sex by proxy through the queen because it's better than having sex themselves.
It's a function of haplodiploidy. Very weird stuff.
And I don't even know what point you're trying to argue here. The argument is not that ant colonies are full of lesbians. The argument is that they operate based on kin selection and eusociality, in the same way that homosexuality does.
-
Post edited, FYI.
-
my point was they were a poor analogy because they are not gay.
bonobo's are a much better analogy.
-
It's not a fair debate. One side has science and reason. The other side has religion and disdain for intellectualism. Poor Trashman.
-
Not to disagree, but I think almost all historical examples would probably be religious in nature simply due to the religiousness of the society at the time.
Right. If the Nazi Germany isn't enough (their ideology wasn't exactly religion-centric, although there were certainly aspects of personality cult in it and in that respect it was similar to many a religion), you could take a look at Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not talking about communists in general, just Stalin mainly. Communists actually legalized homosexuality (among other things like abortion and divorce without specific offense from either party) after the revolution when they re-wrote the legislation. Stalin expressly criminalized male homosexuality in 1933 with punishments up to five years in hard labour, and as a result you could say homosexuals were discriminated against just as much as they were in Germany.
At this point it may be a good idea to remember that Soviet Union was supposedly an atheist regime, as the communist party - especially Stalin - didn't exactly feel like sharing any of their authority with anyone, including religious authority figures, so they heavily discouraged and practically persecuted church. Despite this, various sources claim that about one third of the population still professed their religion, but I would damn well say it had nothing to do with the policies against homosexuals (and other minority groups like competent officers) in Stalin's purges and much more to do with Stalin's paranoia and madness that probably equalled that of his western colleague Adolf.
The basic idea?
Discrimination against minorities can be used as a tool of control by regimes that don't trouble their heads much with ethics. Doesn't matter what ism or ideology or religion is in the helm at that point, controlling the minorities is a very effective way to keep the majority silent, because if you speak against the government, you're obviously one of those decadent homosexuals and must be punished accordingly.
It's the same basic idea as with rethorics like "you're either with us or with the terrorists" (meaning if you disagree you have terrorist symphaties and should be suspected) and "think of the children" aka. if you disagree with what I'm saying, you are the enemy of children, enjoy ruining their psyche with emotional scars and you're also probably a pedophile.
Not saying it's as bad in the US as that, but there are definitely patterns reminiscent of history here. The main difference at the moment is that USA is not a dictatorship or ruled by one single authority (as much as Democrats and Republicans seem alike in their inefficient pandering around and between Capitol, White House and Wall Street), and the government doesn't control all three branches of power (legislative, executive and judiciary power). And there's really no interest for the government to forcefully control the people because frankly they are easily enough pacified without such crude maneuvers.
No, the Proposition 8 is much more likely simply a demonstration of some people's deep uncomfort against something that supposedly violates their belief system (sanctity of marriage as a church institution, specifically), but they miss the point that this is all about marriage as a state institution, and since state and church are separate it doesn't even make sense to bring the church or religious (or ideological in general) arguments anywhere near it, much less the courtroom.
Regarding TrashMan disregarding science he disagrees with, well, that topic has been handled before.
Sure, you can express your disbelief to some scientific study, but to be taken seriously in the context of science, you're supposed to point out why exactly do you think either the data or it's interpretations is wrong.
For example you can either deny that bonobos have homosexual relations with each other (I don't recommend it), or you can suggest that it doesn't benefit them as a species or group, in which case you should be able to show why it isn't, as opposed to the examples provided on why it in fact is beneficial to them as a group (you can read some of them in Battuta's post earlier).
Otherwise, be prepared to be disregarded just as you disregard the scientific research on the basis of... I don't even know what it is. :rolleyes:
-
Trashman, get out of the thread unless you're going to read what's in it. You just wrote off a massive body of biological research as social science.
You're trying to say you're skeptical of it. But what you're skeptical of is genoprinting, offspring count, banded organism tracking, mate observation, and simple population statistics.
How can you be skeptical of direct physical observation? It's absurd. You can't find any way to criticize it so you're just bull****ting.
You couldn't explain to me what 'kin selection' is right now. You don't even understand that this is what we're talking about. You think we're talking about gay humans. I'm talking about Florida scrub jays and ants and how those explain how homosexuality in humans evolved. You didn't read closely enough to figure that out.
Staggering ignorance. You can expect to receive the level of respect in this scientific discussion that a Flat Earther would receive at an astronomical conference.
Moved all that junk to the split thread. Any more discussion here will be pruned.
-
Which is why we should laugh at their stupid "but it feeeeels wrooooong" nonsense until they shut up and go die.
This is actually true. As I recall, the single most important factor for determining whether one will be opposed to teh evil buttsex marriage is age. When enough old people die, truth and justice and freedom and apple pie will prevail.
-
Godwinned. :D
I would really, really like to move away from the 'omg homos lol' aspect of this--drop biology, drop religion--and just talk about the SECULAR LEGAL implications of this trial.
Anyone agree?
-
Godwinned. :D
I would really, really like to move away from the 'omg homos lol' aspect of this--drop biology, drop religion--and just talk about the SECULAR LEGAL implications of this trial.
Anyone agree?
That's sorta the point. They had no real secular reason for it. That's why these guys are floundering on the stand. When asked why it should be banned, all they have is "ew gays"
-
They had the law on their side. They didn't have to prove anything. They just had to give the judge doubts about our side's case. Their experts didn't seem to know what side they were on.
-
I still don't understand why it's any of their damned business in the first place.
-
Moved all that junk to the split thread. Any more discussion here will be pruned.
Finally! I've been trying to stop the de-rail from going any further anyway. :P
-
Godwinned. :D
I would really, really like to move away from the 'omg homos lol' aspect of this--drop biology, drop religion--and just talk about the SECULAR LEGAL implications of this trial.
Anyone agree?
That's sorta the point. They had no real secular reason for it. That's why these guys are floundering on the stand. When asked why it should be banned, all they have is "ew gays"
The reason why it's an issue at all is simply that people want to live in a society that reflects their moral code. And there is nothing wrong with that. Marriage is a social structure before it is a legal structure, and as long as everyone agreed on what constituted a valid marriage there was no problem having a legal structure that enshrined the social structure. That consensus no longer exists, which is why gay marriage is an issue at all.
Since there is a legal structure tied into the social structure of marriage, both people in favor of advancing gay marriage and people against it are trying to use the legal structure to enforce their preferred version of the social structure. This was a social problem before it became a legal problem though, and, IMHO, a legal solution isn't ever going to really fix it. Either American society will change to the point where gay marriage is solidly accepted/rejected, or it will continue to be a point of division. This is a bit scary to me, because historically big social divides that people couldn't solve have led to either war or by emigration (e.g. the Mayflower). And we're kind of out of places to emigrate to...
I don't think either side has a right to enforce their view of marriage when it is now so far from being the consensus, so IMO the best bet for peace will probably be to get government out of the marriage business, at least by that name, at least until some sort of consensus is restored (if ever). It's not ideal, but I think it's better than the alternatives.
I also think it's important to recognize that this is a real division with good, smart people on both sides. Let's stop calling each other things like "commie athiest heathens" and "religion-deluded wingnuts."
-
<Thaeris gives Sushi Mad Props. :yes: :yes: :yes:>
-
Thaeris, cut that out.
Sushi, while I generally respect your argument, there has never been agreement as to what constituted a valid marriage. Something like 80% of all human societies have been polygynic, for instance. Things change. What we think is normal today is yesterday's aberration.
Furthermore, I'm concerned that you're kind of skirting the fundamental problem that there is something very morally wrong with opposing gay marriage. It's like arbitrarily saying that people under 5' can't hold office.
If you consider marriage a religious institution, fine, whatever. But as soon as it becomes a social institution (with social benefits) and a legal one (with notable legal benefits), denying it to a portion of the population becomes very problematic.
Never mind that straight people are doing pretty badly at marriage and could probably use some help.
-
Sushi, while I generally respect your argument, there has never been agreement as to what constituted a valid marriage. Something like 80% of all human societies have been polygynic, for instance. Things change. What we think is normal today is yesterday's aberration.
There may never have been global consensus, but there certainly has been within specific societies in specific time periods. That's the level I'm talking about here, sorry if that wasn't clear. And you're right: things change. Friction happens when different parts of a society are changing in different directions at the same time.
Furthermore, I'm concerned that you're kind of skirting the fundamental problem that there is something very morally wrong with opposing gay marriage.
The fundamental problem is that people don't agree on what is morally right in this situation. A lot of people believe that there is something very morally wrong with supporting gay marriage. That's my whole point: there's a fundamental social divide going on here, and I don't think that it can be resolved justly by using legal avenues to force one side or the other. Either one side needs to convince the other (without forcing the issue), or we are going to have to learn to somehow live with this disagreement over social structure.
If you consider marriage a religious institution, fine, whatever. But as soon as it becomes a social institution (with social benefits) and a legal one (with notable legal benefits), denying it to a portion of the population becomes very problematic.
I agree. The thing is, using the law to enforce a change in the social institution over the wishes of a large portion of that society is also problematic. That's why I think the best solution will probably be to get government out of marriage. It won't heal the social divide, but it will help by making it so that government doesn't become a weapon for each side to use against the other. It's a lot more conducive to "I think you're wrong, but we can both live and let live."
-
Fair enough.
Although the general trend suggests that attitudes on gay marriage, unlike those on abortion, are steadily becoming more and more favorable. In a few decades I imagine the rift will be largely healed.
-
oh, that's just fine! when I made that exact argument last thread I had everyone try to behead me.
-
Well, let me clarify.
I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.
-
The thing is, using the law to enforce a change in the social institution over the wishes of a large portion of that society is also problematic.
Loving vs Virginia
-
Yeah. That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
I think you can legislate morality. People get used to it. And when that legislation is in line with the overwhelming liberal trend (I mean philosophically liberal, not politically liberal - we're talking liberties, not 'liberal politics') of history, I think it's a safe bet.
-
I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.
Loving vs Virginia
Maybe, but doesn't that make you a bit nervous? I mean, sure, it's all well and good if the government is actually doing the right thing... but we give them the power to do force social change, what's to stop them from using that power for evil as well?
It makes me nervous. :) Sure, social progress without government intervention is going to be longer and harder... but it's also a lot more free. I guess that's important to me. I'd rather the progress be based on persuasion and voluntary change, even if it is slower. I'm not comfortable with putting any government in charge of shaping society.
-
Color me odd, but I really don't want government to start legislating what is moral and immoral. If that happens, then whoever controls the government can legislate their particular brand of morality and force it on everyone else. It may be good if the government is espousing classically liberal and pro-freedom policies, but if a group less concerned with freedom and more about control gets a grip on the reins of power, then it's a very bad thing.
-
I think that I don't want the government to legislate what's moral and what's immoral. I want the government to preserve fundamental, universal human rights.
So, SpardaSon, you would prefer that the government not make any legislation regarding abortion or marriage?
-
free broad band internet and cars are now fundamental human rights.
oh, and lets not forget about intellectual property, it's a fundamental human right too.
note, it's not me saying this it's the next round of congress, what do you do then now that this precedent has been set.
-
I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.
Loving vs Virginia
Maybe, but doesn't that make you a bit nervous? I mean, sure, it's all well and good if the government is actually doing the right thing... but we give them the power to do force social change, what's to stop them from using that power for evil as well?
It makes me nervous. :) Sure, social progress without government intervention is going to be longer and harder... but it's also a lot more free. I guess that's important to me. I'd rather the progress be based on persuasion and voluntary change, even if it is slower. I'm not comfortable with putting any government in charge of shaping society.
It IS using that power for evil by banning gay marriage. Duh.
-
Right, precisely.
-
I think that I don't want the government to legislate what's moral and what's immoral. I want the government to preserve fundamental, universal human rights.
Explain the difference, please.
I mean, I think marriage is a fundamental human right, and that homosexuals should enjoy that right (and I will punch in the face [internet tough guy. grr] the first jackass who says "but gay people can marry!"). I just don't see how that is unrelated to my beliefs about morality.
-
The difference is, what's at issue here is equality: an arbitrary segregation of one group from another.
-
Totally agree. Marriage is a fundamental right, even if because it's so essential in (American) society. I mean, you can give people civil unions and give them all the same legal rights, but it's still not the same thing.
free broad band internet and cars are now fundamental human rights.
Source?
Also, I'd agree that the principles those represent are certainly rights--rights to information, communication, and transportation are certainly essential. (Again, simply because they're so essential to being productive world citizens)
-
It's science. It's based on quantifiable field data. Observers went out there and did hand counts of offspring for years, for god's sake.
You can't 'not buy it'.
Also, for reference, since I doubt you clicked the link:
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/5449/samesexchart.jpg) (http://img294.imageshack.us/i/samesexchart.jpg/)
How does over-dominance and sexually antagonistic selection improve survival of individuals/species involved?
Do those 2 perps not make an individual with them an evolutionary by-product?
Also- do only homosexuals provide resources to their siblings (in the cases of both animals and humans)? If not, than it's no way of evolutionary favouring homosexuality.
Another thing is that in the case of humans, the social glue and solving intrasexual conflict are attained by other means than homosexual behavior, such as war or hanging out with your buddies (unless hanging out with your buddies would fit within the definition of homosexual behavior- I'm no expert here).
I've also never heard of a human case where people practiced reproduction with someone of the same gender only to move on to a heterosexual relationship when they figured everything out.
And last, but not least- which of our ancestors used indirect insamination? And does indirect insamination involve relationships between 2 males, or is it one male using the other as a 'proxy'?
P.S. Lots of animals fight (often to the death) over females, food and territory. Why are so many of us against wars, which are so common in nature? :p
-
How does over-dominance and sexually antagonistic selection improve survival of individuals/species involved?
Do those 2 perps not make an individual with them an evolutionary by-product?
It improves the fitness of males/females with the trait. Individuals of the opposite gender end up as homosexuals. The trait improves the fitness of one gender more than it harms the fitness of the other, so it is, on net, selected for.
There is no such thing as an 'evolutionary byproduct.' If the trait is selected for, then it is selected for.
Also- do only homosexuals provide resources to their siblings (in the cases of both animals and humans)? If not, than it's no way of evolutionary favouring homosexuality.
Of course not; in many cases homosexuality is not at all involved (see Florida scrub jays.) Yet in some cases homosexuals are better because they do not ever use resources for their own siblings, and in these cases they are selected for. All that matters is whether individual fitness is maximized by homosexuality. If it is, homosexuality evolves.
Furthermore, it is unwise of you to assume that you can make a claim like 'if this is so, then this is so' without actually gathering field data and running the math. People seem to have it in their heads that this is a political issue rather than a scientific one, and therefore can be addressed with rhetoric.
Another thing is that in the case of humans, the social glue and solving intrasexual conflict are attained by other means than homosexual behavior, such as war or hanging out with your buddies (unless hanging out with your buddies would fit within the definition of homosexual behavior- I'm no expert here).
You are surprisingly wrong. Think about Greece, the Sacred Band, and numerous other examples. Homosexuality is a common 'glue' practice.
I've also never heard of a human case where people practiced reproduction with someone of the same gender only to move on to a heterosexual relationship when they figured everything out.
...there are millions of such cases worldwide.
And last, but not least- which of our ancestors used indirect insamination? And does indirect insamination involve relationships between 2 males, or is it one male using the other as a 'proxy'?
Please read the image you quoted again.
P.S. Lots of animals fight (often to the death) over females, food and territory. Why are so many of us against wars, which are so common in nature? :p[/color]
It doesn't make one bit of difference whether a trait is natural or not any more. We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago. This argument is simply a scientific explanation of how homosexuality evolved. (Politically, it counters the common outcry that homosexuality is 'unnatural' and 'wrong.)
For example, humans are biologically classified as non-monogamous promiscuous maters, on both the social and reproductive levels. Yet most modern societies are socially monogamous (even though historically this has not been true.)
-
We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.
bull, everything we do is natural.
-
Let's say we've transcended purely instinctual behaviour then (although that might not be true in many cases).
Though same could be said of great apes and probably many cetaceans. At any rate the notion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Opposition of war or violence in general has nothing to do with the fact that violence exists naturally everywhere. The difference is the reasons for the violence. Animals fight and kill for defending themselves, their territory or their pack, or to acquire food. Chimpanzees and humans, though, seem to have more complicated reasons for massive organized violence agaisnt other groups. While being natural, that's not a reason to condone and accept starting wars.
Or in more general terms; whether or not something can be classified as "natural" is irrelevant regarding the acceptability of the thing (mostly because "natural" can be considered a tautology just like Bobboau and I consider it to be; everything that happens in nature is by definition natural; everything is in nature, therefore everything is natural) . The criteria that should be used in evaluating things is Kant's categorical imperative (or other ethics if you so choose).
...of course, here we run into comparative ethics and what criteria should be used to classify different things as acceptable and non-acceptable. Mainly, whether you choose deontological or consequential approach... and which branch of those you pick as your poison.
-
We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.
bull, everything we do is natural.
It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.
It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.
-
It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.
It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.
I'm not sure if that was agreement or disagreement...
-
I'm not sure if that was agreement or disagreement...
It was a politician's answer. :drevil:
-
We, as humans, have transcended natural behavior a long time ago.
bull, everything we do is natural.
It's true. But our decisions about what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong and non-acceptable, are no longer solely defined by whether they are 'natural'...whatever that means.
It's true that every action we take is by definition, natural, and that 'unnatural' is sort of a fallacy. But we make the distinction nonetheless, and it often carries moralistic overtones.
Are you saying that our society's technology and culture allows us to do wierd, whacked out things that we couldn't do in nature?
... because I have no idea what you just said. And I just realized that the previous sentence makes no sense, and proves that people from Rochester have an accent.
-
Since we are a species of animal, all our behavior is inherently natural.
We choose to place moral valence on actions using rhetoric like 'natural' and 'unnatural', though, and while inaccurate it still carries weight.
-
Since we are a species of animal, all our behavior is inherently natural.
We choose to place moral valence on actions using rhetoric like 'natural' and 'unnatural', though, and while inaccurate it still carries weight.
Oh.
I like to think that everything we do can be explained in some way by that's how we evolved, and to a degree, that's how we would act regardless of whether or not we had sentience. It just makes sense to me.
-
Well, that last statement is wrong. We would not behave the same way without sentience. Sentience is part of our evolutionary heritage and it changes our behavior.
-
Emphasis on to a degree. I meant most of our behavior such as cliques and hoarding chocolate can be traced to something that we would be doing regardless.
-
Or in more general terms; whether or not something can be classified as "natural" is irrelevant regarding the acceptability of the thing.
Which means that while some animals display homosexual behavior, it doesn't mean that people should accept such behavior among each other.
As such I disagree with the argument that there should be something like gay marriage because animals do it and "it's natural".
-
That argument has not been made.
The argument that has been made is that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation, one that arises in many species.
Instead, gay marriage should be accepted because equality is a fundamental human right. Because gay people are as genetically determined as straight people, they cannot justly be discriminated against.
-
And - yeah, double post - it's important to note that homosexuality has often been tarred as unnatural and therefore worth discriminating against, and it's critical to counter that argument if justice is to be achieved.
-
I can see the strategic reasoning, but I think you should condition your argument with a "if it's unnatural then..." rather than simply accepting the premise.
-
That argument has not been made.
Well it appears often in discussions such as this one.
The argument that has been made is that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation, one that arises in many species.
If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.
The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.
And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.
All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.
In other words, I'm not convinced that the argument that homosexuality is an important evolutionary adaptation is correct.
And - yeah, double post - it's important to note that homosexuality has often been tarred as unnatural and therefore worth discriminating against, and it's critical to counter that argument if justice is to be achieved.
Same thing goes with promoting it.
-
You clearly did not read or understand the papers in question.
Please reread them until you understand the concept of inclusive fitness.
The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.
Yes they do. They get more offspring than they would by being straight.
And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.
No, they get passed down because homosexuality increases their chance of being passed down (in the case of inclusive fitness.)
All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.
No they are not. Because they are 50% shared with siblings, they are passed down by the siblings. In fact, they are passed down better than they would be if the individuals were heterosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would be selected against and vanish.
If homosexuality were not a natural occurrence it would not arise naturally and independently in so many species. Furthermore, there are so many mating systems out there that assuming homosexuality is somehow a 'defect' is absurd. There are far weirder practices in the natural world.
-
If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.
Infertility is treated as a disorder because people who want to have children are unable to have them. When people don’t want children, they often induce artificial infertility by means of birth control or sterilization, suggesting that the crucial difference is whether or not the condition interferes with the person’s life goals.
Bearing that in mind, who are you to tell gay people that there’s something wrong with them when they’re happy the way they are? Who are you to tell them that they cannot live their lives as they choose, on the basis of a characteristic that they have no control over? If you are the one preventing them from living full, satisfying lives (through political opposition to equal rights), then perhaps you are the pathology.
-
You clearly did not read or understand the papers in question.
Please reread them until you understand the concept of inclusive fitness.
The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.
Yes they do. They get more offspring than they would by being straight.
And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.
No, they get passed down because homosexuality increases their chance of being passed down (in the case of inclusive fitness.)
All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.
No they are not. Because they are 50% shared with siblings, they are passed down by the siblings. In fact, they are passed down better than they would be if the individuals were heterosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would be selected against and vanish.
If homosexuality were not a natural occurrence it would not arise naturally and independently in so many species. Furthermore, there are so many mating systems out there that assuming homosexuality is somehow a 'defect' is absurd. There are far weirder practices in the natural world.
I get the point about inlcusive fitness, however it seems that in your theory homosexuals support their siblings' offsprings, while heterosexuals support ONLY their own.
That would in fact give homosexuals an advantage, but I'll have to disagree with the "only", unless heterosexuals never get altruism genes.
It was also stated in this thread that a gene that encodes homosexuality for one gender also increases the other gender's chance of survival. If that's the case, homosexuals will always exist whether or not such a sexual orientation is positive or not. The genes would always be positive for the sex they make more fit, and therefore would always be selected for.
If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.
Infertility is treated as a disorder because people who want to have children are unable to have them. When people don’t want children, they often induce artificial infertility by means of birth control or sterilization, suggesting that the crucial difference is whether or not the condition interferes with the person’s life goals.
Bearing that in mind, who are you to tell gay people that there’s something wrong with them when they’re happy the way they are? Who are you to tell them that they cannot live their lives as they choose, on the basis of a characteristic that they have no control over? If you are the one preventing them from living full, satisfying lives (through political opposition to equal rights), then perhaps you are the pathology.
I wrote that infertility still allows species to evolve via inclusive fitness, which makes it similar to homosexualism in this aspect.
I also wrote that infertility is treated as a disorder or desease.
What I didn't write is that homosexuality is a desease.
I also didn't write that gay people can't be gay.
And I didn't write I have the power to prevent them from being so.
BTW- do you alwayshave to flame everyone who disagrees with something and asks questions?
-
Having your argument torn to shreds isn't being flamed, it's having your argument torn to shreds.
-
Batutta, I think the argument he's trying to make (very poorly) is why would homosexuality be selected for instead of sterility.
That argument has not been made.
Well it appears often in discussions such as this one.
It appears to counter the claim that it is unnatural. Not as a "It's natural so therefore it should be allowed" argument. One of the most common claims against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. This is quite clearly bollocks as it can be proved to exist throughout nature.
Proving that it's natural doesn't give added weight to why it should be allowed except to dismiss the claims of those who are ignorant enough to say that it doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.
-
It was also stated in this thread that a gene that encodes homosexuality for one gender also increases the other gender's chance of survival.
I'd love to see where, since there's very little evidence that homosexuality is actually subject to traditional Mendellian genetic inheritance patterns and/or encoded by a single gene or gene cluster, and I know for a fact that Battuta wouldn't make that rookie mistake since his behavioural genetics education likely now exceeds my own.
All the quotes I've seen in this thread are dealing with evolutionary selection of traits and population genetics, which is a VERY different kettle of fish from what you've written there, Bengal.
That aside, carry on Battuta. You're doing a marvelous job with the biology side; I think I've even learned a thing or two :nod:
-
MP-Ryan is correct. The case of overdominance or gender-antagonistic selection is probably not simply Mendelian. However, an allele that may promote fitness in one sex may contribute to homosexuality in the other (notice I said contribute, not determine!)
You argue that this means homosexuality is a 'byproduct', in which case my response is 'so what'? What's your point? It is a trait that boosts fitness. If homosexuality were a net disadvantageous side effect, it would have been selected against strongly, but it is not.
All this biological argument makes me slightly uncomfortable. The point here is simply to demonstrate that homosexuality is an important evolutionary phenomenon. Scientific explanations do not carry a moral component.
On the broader level, however, I don't think it matters. I would argue that there are absolutely no grounds for restricting the choices that consenting adults make so long as they do not harm each other or others...which these individuals do not.
Kara: good clarification of the point BengalTiger's trying to make. Sterility is indeed often selected for. Eusocial insects have sterile castes. Humans, however, do not have sterile castes. For sterility to be viable, we would need to be eusocial, and we are not. Homosexuals are therefore a better solution for kin selection behavior than sterile individuals, because the traits required to produce sterility would cripple heterosexuals more than they would produce useful kin helpers.
-
Sorry for butting in here, but how come there has been virtually no coverage or info about this trial apart from jury accounts and stuff like that? I mean, there's a website dedicated to re-enacting the trial (marriagetrial.com), what's the deal with the cloud of secrecy surrounding this?
Also, I liked the way the lovely Mr. Cooper just flat out did a "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" kind of thing in his defence! :D
-
The side defending bigotry *****ed and complained that their witnesses would be harassed by the big scary powerful gay community if the trial was televised.
-
Yeah. Gay-bashing is a common thing in the US. I can cite lots of examples of it happening.
*does a double take*
Oh wait. Anti-Gay bashing. Ummmm....
-
Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms. People don't want their hate broadcast out.
-
Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms. People don't want their hate broadcast out.
And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".
-
I might even value some tradition if I had ever come across any tradition to value.
And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".
That's why, when i have a family, I'm gonna have some weird-ass traditions that are gonna be really fun, and i'm gonna stick with them every year. that way, when my kids have families, they'll keep up with 'beat up the pinata that looks like a cylon' tradition that happens on February 3 every year.
My kids are gonna be ****ed up anyways. When other kids are watching Sesame Street, my kids will be watching Cosmos with Carl Sagan and learning the benefits of an objective worldview. They'll either grow up to be the next generation's Captain Picard, or the next generation's Nietzsche.
-
Your kids will hate science, and probably become born-again Christians just to spite you.
Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms. People don't want their hate broadcast out.
That's actually very much it. They didn't want people who were still on the fence to see what the real reasons gay marriage is opposed were. One of the pro-prop8 witnesses that backed out actually got called up as a witness for the plaintiff side. He claimed that gays would try to legalize sex with children after they got gay marriage, blah blah blah. So the defendants had to go through all this trouble to try and show that he wasn't actually connected to protectmarriage.com. It was very silly.
-
I might even value some tradition if I had ever come across any tradition to value.
And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".
That's why, when i have a family, I'm gonna have some weird-ass traditions that are gonna be really fun, and i'm gonna stick with them every year. that way, when my kids have families, they'll keep up with 'beat up the pinata that looks like a cylon' tradition that happens on February 3 every year.
My kids are gonna be ****ed up anyways. When other kids are watching Sesame Street, my kids will be watching Cosmos with Carl Sagan and learning the benefits of an objective worldview. They'll either grow up to be the next generation's Captain Picard, or the next generation's Nietzsche.
They might pay the price of not having friends ya know. When everyone talks about Sesame Street, they won't be interested, and when they'll talk about Cylons, noone will understand them. Then everyone will figure out there's no sense in staying in touch, and you'll end up with lonely, wierd geniuses.
At least until they figure out getting drunk at parties is more fun than science fiction. And then iamzack's words may become a prophecy.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRU4rKNIIOA
For anyone who might be thinking that domestic partnership = marriage. It also does a great job at mocking fundamentalists. ;7
-
Fundamentalists do a great job at mocking everyone within their faith, including themselves.