Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 240 (405871)
06-15-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Wounded King
06-15-2007 10:33 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
quote:
I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.
With modern reproductive science this is less true than it ever has been, and it never has been all that true unless you consider a heterosexual orientation to be a prerequisite for heterosexual sex.
That you are such an ardent supporter of the ToE, which could be extended further to unguided naturalism in its purest form, coupled with the fact that you support, in essence, test tube babies or homosexuals defying their "natural" sexual proclivitites, reeks of the unnatural.
So why do offer naturalism as the blanket answer for everything, only to turn it around on itself when it comes to an agenda you support?
so all you seem to be pulverising is the obvious strawman that seems to be constantly pulled out in so many discussions of homosexuality in an evolutionary context, that homosexual men can't have heterosexual sex for the purposes of reproduction.
Natural selection is usually the ad hoc explanation for anything that appears teleological for an evolutionist. If it seems to have some sort of purpose or order to it, the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things. What you have just described is the most inefficient, unnatural way of doing things. Can you explain why you are going against the grain?
Tell me what percentage of the population has been born of one parent who was a heterosexual, and the other a homosexual, for me to even entertain the notion. You say that me pointing out the obvious, that heterosexuality produces offspring, while homosexuality does not, is somehow a strawman, yet, you offer the world's largest scarecrow in your retort.
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? What advantageous quality would it be to give a creature the desire to copulate with members of its own sex, but still allow for it to go against its own nature to produce offspring?

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2007 10:33 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 11:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 06-15-2007 12:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 133 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2007 12:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 240 (405873)
06-15-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by molbiogirl
06-15-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Impartial advice
Nator asked this earlier, but was ignored.
How is homosexuality just like bestiality?
I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality.
I could say, however, that both are instances of sexual immorality, but, if you are a non-believer, saying that will be largely ineffectual.
I could say that both are aberrant. But first I would need to know what your beliefs are concerning nature.

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 11:03 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 06-15-2007 11:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 125 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 11:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 142 by Jaderis, posted 06-15-2007 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2632 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 123 of 240 (405875)
06-15-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:24 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what?
Not if, darling. When.
For 10 years Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species.
Link
And this in not an exhaustive list. It's mostly mammals and birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:01 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 240 (405879)
06-15-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:31 AM


Re: Impartial advice
I could say, however, that both are instances of sexual immorality, but, if you are a non-believer, saying that will be largely ineffectual.
As a Christian believer I also find your assertion ineffectual and ridiculous.
I could say that both are aberrant. But first I would need to know what your beliefs are concerning nature.
You can say most anything you want.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2632 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 125 of 240 (405880)
06-15-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:31 AM


Re: Impartial advice
ab·er·rant
1. Deviating from the proper or expected course. 2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Researchers have long known that same-sex erotic contact is common among apes. But de Waal's bonobo research as well as that recently presented by other authors suggest a more provocative conclusion: that homosexuality is consonant with the survival of the species. "Humans have created the myth that sexuality can be justified only by reproduction, which by definition limits it to hetero sex," says Michael Bronski, author of The Pleasure Principle: Culture, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom. "But here is an animal society that uses homosexuality to improve its social life."
Bonobos, in fact, who live in the equatorial rain forests of Zaire, have a sex life that would exhaust even the randiest humans, engaging in sexual activity, on average, every 1 1/2 hours, day and night. Females rub their genitalia together in a ritual graphically described as "GG-rubbing"; adolescent males swing from trees to practice what de Waal calls "penis fencing" and "rump-rump rubbing." Masturbation, French-kissing, and oral sex, all generally thought to be the province of humans, are the norm.
Link
The norm, darling. The norm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 240 (405881)
06-15-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by molbiogirl
06-15-2007 11:35 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
quote:
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what?
Not if, darling. When.
That doesn't answer the question.
For 10 years Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species.
I'm not in the habit of reading bare links. Not only is it a bad idea while using government computers, but its also frowned upon at EvC because deferring one's position soley to "expert testimony," is a weak argument. Actually, its not even an argument.
But I know what the gist is and I'd like to address that. You are essentially saying that homosexual unions have been seen in nature, and therefore, it must be natural.
Well, I have seen dogs that hump other male dogs. This might be fascinating if it weren't for the fact that I've also seen them humping a pair of shoes.
Likewise, I had three male cats. When one of the cats, (incidently, the only one of them who still had a pair of testicles), would attempt to copulate with other male cats. Consequently, that was his only option. Kind of like looking at the sexual sociology of inmates, who, if they weren't incarcerated, refer to themselves as heterosexuals. So, does that prove that the cat was a homosexual, or does it prove that he was sexual?
Lastly, in all of this research, what kind of comparisons or parallels can be drawn from animal sexuality and human sexuality? I only ask because the same people that get upset at drawing parallels between beastiality and homosexuality are often the same people that have no qualms drawing parallels between animal sexuality and human sexuality.

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 11:35 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 06-15-2007 12:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 129 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 12:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 132 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 06-15-2007 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 127 of 240 (405882)
06-15-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 9:59 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
nj writes:
Its one thing to accept homosexuality. Its another thing altogether to renounce heterosexuality in the process.
I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.
Hahahahaha
So, it's not enough that you don't want gay people to be happy? Now you want to take my right to take the cure away from me?


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 9:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:29 PM Taz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 240 (405884)
06-15-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 12:01 PM


Re: The mysteries of life
I only ask because the same people that get upset at drawing parallels between beastiality and homosexuality are often the same people that have no qualms drawing parallels between animal sexuality and human sexuality.
There is a great difference between bestiality and homosexuality, but that is also irrelevant. The only problem with bestiality is that under our laws, beasts cannot show informed consent.
But it is one of the arguments trotted out by the Christian Communion of Bobble-heads as though it had any validity.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:39 PM jar has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2632 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 129 of 240 (405885)
06-15-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 12:01 PM


Re: The mysteries of life
Likewise, I had three male cats. When one of the cats, (incidently, the only one of them who still had a pair of testicles), would attempt to copulate with other male cats. Consequently, that was his only option. Kind of like looking at the sexual sociology of inmates, who, if they weren't incarcerated, refer to themselves as heterosexuals. So, does that prove that the cat was a homosexual, or does it prove that he was sexual?
470+ species (including gray whales, antelopes, penguins, bison, walrus, dolphins, giraffes, swans, sheep) engage in homosexual behavior, oftentimes exclusively homosexual (up to 10% of population, much like us).
Are you somehow suggesting that an animal that engages exclusively in homosexual behavior is "just sexual"? That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't answer the question.
See my bonobos post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 240 (405886)
06-15-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:24 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
If it seems to have some sort of purpose or order to it, the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things.
Actually, evolutionists argue quite different. Not the most efficient way, often an inefficient way. Nature finds evolutionarily stable strategies - if increasing efficiency means temporarily decreasing fitness then it is likely to not happen unless the fitness landscape changes and then maybe it can.
What you have just described is the most inefficient, unnatural way of doing things.
Welcome to evolution. It produces inefficiency since it only needs to produce organisms that just get by. Hence our eye layout is inefficient, as is our circulatory system. And nature is abound with things as 'unnatural' as homosexuals who occasionally have reproductive sex.
If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? What advantageous quality would it be to give a creature the desire to copulate with members of its own sex, but still allow for it to go against its own nature to produce offspring?
See Homosexuality and Natural Selection..
One theory is that male homosexuality is a side effect of increased female sibling fecundity. That is to say, if a mother or father has a certain genetic makeup, they might be inclined towards having gay boys or highly reproductive girls. This could well balance out, but gay males can also help in rearing their nephews/cousins etc which would also be selected for.
There are many strategies out there, and this homosexual/fecundity connection might be one of them. This strategy can be built upon. A slightly better strategy might be to increase the reproductive drive of the gay males so that they are more inclined to have children to counterbalance there lack of desire for females. I don't know whether this has been looked into: perhaps normal human desire to have children is already strong enough for enough homosexual men for it to suffice (not the most efficient way, but that's evolution for you - sometimes getting more efficient comes at an unbearable cost).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 06-15-2007 12:41 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 136 by molbiogirl, posted 06-15-2007 12:46 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 240 (405887)
06-15-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taz
06-15-2007 12:14 PM


Re: The mysteries of life
quote:
Its one thing to accept homosexuality. Its another thing altogether to renounce heterosexuality in the process.
I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.
Hahahahaha
So, it's not enough that you don't want gay people to be happy?
You have it backwards. I want all people to be happy. Do you know what another word is for happy?.... No, I don't mean gay. I mean, blessed
When Jesus gave His sermon on the mount, He gave a discourse commonly referred to as, the Beatitudes, where He said blessed is this, blessed is that, blessed are those, blessed are they... The point is that those blessings are conditional, as are most things. He is saying, in essence, "if you want to be happy, do this."
I want all people to be happy. I suspect that you know that, but that you find it easier to disagree with someone when you detest them. But what kind of person would I be if I were to acquiesce from something simply to appease them? That doesn't help, that hinders.
Now you want to take my right to take the cure away from me?
Clarify your position for me, please. You believe heterosexuality is a disease, of which you are currently afflicted?

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taz, posted 06-15-2007 12:14 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 06-15-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2632 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 132 of 240 (405888)
06-15-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 12:01 PM


Re: The mysteries of life
That doesn't answer the question.
It took 5 minutes of googling to find several theories:
Hutchinson's 1959 theory of balanced superior heterozygotic fitness
MacIntyre and Estep's 1993 sperm competition theory
Getz's 1993 density-dependent polymorphism theory
McKnight's 1997 frequency-dependent sexual selection theory
Should you wish to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to start a new thread re: "Is Homosexuality Natural?".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 133 of 240 (405890)
06-15-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2007 11:24 AM


Re: The mysteries of life
So why do offer naturalism as the blanket answer for everything, only to turn it around on itself when it comes to an agenda you support?
NJ, this isn't an evolution of homosexuality thread, there have been plenty of those and any number of those have provided several plausible evolutionary pathways which might maintain or even promote a level of homosexuality.
Are you really so completely loopy as to think that the promotion of methodological naturalism in science is the same as some sort of animal skin wearing back to nature approach to life? The opposite of the naturalism I espouse is not what you consider 'unnatural', but the supernatural.
the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things.
Not 'the most efficient', merely sufficiently efficient.
But my argument wasn't evolutionary in nature it was common sense. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them incapable of having children nor does it mean they may not wish to have children. Simply claiming that if everyone was gay there would be no children is plainly ludicrous. It is only obvious if you have a simplistic absolutist stereotype of what it means to be gay in your head.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2007 1:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 240 (405891)
06-15-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jar
06-15-2007 12:19 PM


Parallels
There is a great difference between bestiality and homosexuality, but that is also irrelevant.
Which is why I was wondering somebody had mentioned it.
The only problem with bestiality is that under our laws, beasts cannot show informed consent.
Its not an arbitrary law, Jar. But, I digress since we've been over this before.
But it is one of the arguments trotted out by the Christian Communion of Bobble-heads as though it had any validity.
Ah, you have an unending supply of invectives Jar.

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 06-15-2007 12:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Phat, posted 06-15-2007 12:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 138 by jar, posted 06-15-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 135 of 240 (405892)
06-15-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
06-15-2007 12:28 PM


what homosexuals can do
There is a lot of crap talk about homosexuality, but the facts are that there really isn't anything homosexuals can't do that heterosexuals can.
Homosexual folk hold down jobs, earn money, care for children, can even have children. This has been true since the beginning. They are creative, productive, and pretty much indistinguishable from heterosexuals.
In older societies the homosexual men could hunt, could farm, could fish, could forage. They could build shelters, dig ditches, tell stories around the campfire.
The homosexual women could cook, could weave, could make clothing, pottery, help raise children, teach children.
The social advantage in more primitive societies would be reduced competition for mates and so a society with a higher percentage of homosexual members might have an advantage over a similar society with fewer homosexuals.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 06-15-2007 12:28 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024