Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
672 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 669 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,902 Year: 21,938/19,786 Month: 501/1,834 Week: 1/500 Day: 1/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the causes of sexual orientation
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 91 of 108 (475500)
07-16-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by FliesOnly
07-16-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Bald assertions
FO writes:

I have a friend...he's gay...he's been gay for as long as he can remember (which is to say, as soon as he started having "those feelings", they have always been in response to, and/or directed towards, other males). Oddly, he was once married to a female and they had a daughter (a very attractive young lady, I might add).


Which proves that gay men have the balls needed to produce viable sperm. Has anyone ever claimed that gay men can't father beautiful women? Maybe he was naturally predisposed to procreate in such a way. Too bad he's wasting his sperm now on other men.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by FliesOnly, posted 07-16-2008 8:53 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 07-16-2008 2:17 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 92 of 108 (475520)
07-16-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Fosdick
07-16-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Bald assertions
Hoot Mon writes:

Has anyone ever claimed that gay men can't father beautiful women?

Yeah...well except that your argument was that gay men don't reproduce, since they are not attracted to females. And that sexual orientation has everything to do with it. As a matter of fact..that was your exact quote.
Hoot Mon from message 11 writes:

I don't believe homosexuals care to be oriented in the said same way. Orientation has everything to do with it.

You're spouting so much BS, you can't even keep your own arguments straight (no pun intended).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Fosdick, posted 07-16-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 93 of 108 (475575)
07-16-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Deftil
07-15-2008 10:18 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:

If the existence of homosexuality has actually been beneficial to humanity, as the theory claims, then would it be accurate to describe it as an "abberation"?
Would chemotherapy even change male homosexuality if it has a large genetic component?


Well, "aberration" is perhaps too strong a word to describe such a deviation from the norm. And if it can be proven that homosexuality plays a beneficial role in the human population, then I'm open to treating it like a favorable deviation from the norm. But I'm not yet convinced that it is. The only thing that persuades me otherwise is that NS can't get at it and weed it out of the human population. This may be the strongest evidence we have that homosexuality is not an aberration. (But it still seems a little queer to me.)

Do you subscribe to eugenics?

Certainly not the Nazi kind. But if breeding humans is done to bring out favorable characteristics, then what do you call it? Don't parents naturally care about what attributes they pass on to their children? Does that make them eugenicists? Was Archie Manning a eugenicist?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Deftil, posted 07-15-2008 10:18 PM Deftil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 1:46 AM Fosdick has responded
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 07-17-2008 4:23 AM Fosdick has responded

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 94 of 108 (475614)
07-17-2008 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Fosdick
07-16-2008 7:38 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Certainly not the Nazi kind. But if breeding humans is done to bring out favorable characteristics, then what do you call it?

You could call it eugenics. I don't think eugenics necessarily has to be an unethical thing, but it certainly can be as it was with the Nazis.

Don't parents naturally care about what attributes they pass on to their children? Does that make them eugenicists?

Probably, and no, unless they intervene in the reproductive process somehow to specifically control what traits they pass on.

Was Archie Manning a eugenicist?

If he was, then I support eugenics beacuse we won the Super Bowl this year.

Anyway, there are serious ethical issues to consider when you get into human genetic engineering.

I also hope you aren't suggesting trying to "cure" homosexuals who have no desire to be "cured".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 07-16-2008 7:38 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 12:07 PM Deftil has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2432 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 95 of 108 (475625)
07-17-2008 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Fosdick
07-16-2008 7:38 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
And if it can be proven that homosexuality plays a beneficial role in the human population, then I'm open to treating it like a favorable deviation from the norm. But I'm not yet convinced that it is. The only thing that persuades me otherwise is that NS can't get at it and weed it out of the human population.

In the 'sexual antagonism' theory homosexuality per se is not beneficial, it is a side effect of the beneficial trait which increases female fecundity. It may be that if it were a distinct trait on its own it would have been weeded out and we would only see environmental causes of homosexuality.

What I don't understand is your ridiculous belief that something being maintained by natural selection somehow means it ought to be acceptable. There is a line of thought that says that rape is an evolved sexual strategy, if that were true would it mean you would suddenly condone rape because NS favoured it?

If you don't like homosexuality because it gives you the squicks then fine. I don't think its a very good reason, and certainly not one to base restrictive legislation on, but it is one people understand. To argue that homosexuality is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint is not only torturing the science but it is making a completely vacuous argument. The evolutionary success or otherwise of homosexuality should have nothing to do with the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I think it is a mistake to look to nature for some sort of moral guidance.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 07-16-2008 7:38 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 11:41 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 96 of 108 (475670)
07-17-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Wounded King
07-17-2008 4:23 AM


Re: More recent info on the topic
WK writes:

In the 'sexual antagonism' theory homosexuality per se is not beneficial, it is a side effect of the beneficial trait which increases female fecundity. It may be that if it were a distinct trait on its own it would have been weeded out and we would only see environmental causes of homosexuality.


"Beneficial" is my term, and it may be inappropriately applied. Now I'm backing away from it, because, to me, it suggests that increasing female fecundity my benefit NS more than an extant population. Just how is increasing female fecundity beneficial to a stable population? It would seem to me to be more beneficial to the unequal distribution of reproductive success amongst individuals of a population, which is the precise definition of NS.

As such, homosexuality could threaten the dynamic equilibrium of a standing population by making some females more fecund. No?

What I don't understand is your ridiculous belief that something being maintained by natural selection somehow means it ought to be acceptable. There is a line of thought that says that rape is an evolved sexual strategy, if that were true would it mean you would suddenly condone rape because NS favoured it?

Good point. But is it too anthropomorphic to say that "rape" is what happens when a male baboon forces sex on another baboon? Your using "rape" as an anthropogenically loaded term that does not really apply to baboons, only humans. Therefore, perhaps it is you who is espousing a ridiculous belief.

To argue that homosexuality is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint is not only torturing the science but it is making a completely vacuous argument. The evolutionary success or otherwise of homosexuality should have nothing to do with the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I think it is a mistake to look to nature for some sort of moral guidance.

OK, so you say it's a mistake. Can you give me a better reason to be tolerant of some queer bozo who wants to take a road trip up my Hershey Highway? Please give me some moral guidance on that one.

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 07-17-2008 4:23 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 07-17-2008 12:03 PM Fosdick has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 97 of 108 (475675)
07-17-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Fosdick
07-17-2008 11:41 AM


off topic but ...
OK, so you say it's a mistake. Can you give me a better reason to be tolerant of some queer bozo who wants to take a road trip up my Hershey Highway? Please give me some moral guidance on that one.

We are, in this thread, discussion biological and other causes of sexual orientations so your wierding out about it is off topic here but...

It is obvious your reasons for arguing are just your ickyness on the idea of some kinds of sex. Sex practiced by heterosexual couples by the way.

Since there are, probably, a number of perfectly straight women who would be seriously ickied by the idea of sex of any kind with you then I assume that heterosexuality is also wrong in some way.

In fact, I know that many lesbian women are not to keen on the thought of heterosexual sex even when they aren't engaging in it. That, apparently, means you think they have the right to take legal actions against it.

In addition, today anything which reduces the overall fecundity of hmans might be the only thing which saves us and the planet. We are probably in the 5 to 10 times carrying capacity range already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 11:41 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 1:07 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 98 of 108 (475676)
07-17-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Deftil
07-17-2008 1:46 AM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:

I also hope you aren't suggesting trying to "cure" homosexuals who have no desire to be "cured".


If I were a homosexual I'd want to cured. Why is my compassion for them a bad thing. I only want for them what would I want for myself. I think they're really missing out on the finer things offered by heterosexuality, like sex the normal way with all its naturally evolved accommodations.

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 1:46 AM Deftil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 12:30 PM Fosdick has responded

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 99 of 108 (475679)
07-17-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Fosdick
07-17-2008 12:07 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
If I were a homosexual I'd want to cured. Why is my compassion for them a bad thing. I only want for them what would I want for myself. I think they're really missing out on the finer things offered by heterosexuality, like sex the normal way with all its naturally evolved accommodations.
—HM

That's not the question, Hoot.

Are you for trying to make gay people straight, even if they are perfectly happy being gay?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 12:07 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 1:21 PM Deftil has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 100 of 108 (475681)
07-17-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
07-17-2008 12:03 PM


Re: off topic but ...
NoseyNed writes:

It is obvious your reasons for arguing are just your ickyness on the idea of some kinds of sex. Sex practiced by heterosexual couples by the way.

Since there are, probably, a number of perfectly straight women who would be seriously ickied by the idea of sex of any kind with you then I assume that heterosexuality is also wrong in some way.


Nosy, the literary value of ickiness is too much for me to avoid. But I do run off with it a bit too much. I don't care a twit about what gay people do behind closed doors, anymore than I care about what straight people do behind closed. I only give a twit when gay people try to make straight people out to be bigots for insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman. Now all that ickiness you speak of comes out from behind closed doors and into the laws. Thus a twit is given by me.

Who's sexual orientation should be honored over another?

In addition, today anything which reduces the overall fecundity of hmans might be the only thing which saves us and the planet. We are probably in the 5 to 10 times carrying capacity range already.

1. The way homosexuality theoretically affects the "overall fecundity of humans" is to make some women more fecund than others, which I see as a potential agency of NS.

2. While saving humans from extinction may be a valid concern of yours, let me assure you that the planet will be around for a few more billions of years, no matter what happens to us.

3. You might be right about carrying capacity.

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 07-17-2008 12:03 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jaderis, posted 07-18-2008 4:58 AM Fosdick has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 101 of 108 (475685)
07-17-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Deftil
07-17-2008 12:30 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:

Are you for trying to make gay people straight, even if they are perfectly happy being gay?


No, I'm only trying to offer them a choice. I would want that choice if I were gay.

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 12:30 PM Deftil has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 3:47 AM Fosdick has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2432 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 102 of 108 (475755)
07-18-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Fosdick
07-17-2008 1:21 PM


Weapon (so to speak) of choice
Would you support offering people the opposite choice? To change their orientation from straight to gay?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 1:21 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Fosdick, posted 07-18-2008 10:42 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 103 of 108 (475759)
07-18-2008 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Fosdick
07-17-2008 1:07 PM


Re: off topic but ...
Nosy, the literary value of ickiness is too much for me to avoid. But I do run off with it a bit too much. I don't care a twit about what gay people do behind closed doors, anymore than I care about what straight people do behind closed.

Obviously you do or else you wouldn't have been talking about saving us from ourselves in your very last post (among many others).

I don't need your back-handed compassion. I know the joys of my own sexuality and I would thank you to butt the fuck out.

I only give a twit when gay people try to make straight people out to be bigots for insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman. Now all that ickiness you speak of comes out from behind closed doors and into the laws. Thus a twit is given by me.

This is OT here, but can be carried over into your other thread. This is what the definition of bigotry is. Not just disagreeing with something or thinking it icky, but actively opposing it when it comes out from "behind closed doors." See, bigots aren't bigots just for feeling icky about something. They are bigots for wanting to avoid feeling icky by keeping something hidden, suppressed, illegal, etc.

Who's sexual orientation should be honored over another?

Who said anything about honoring one over the other? Apparently you think just like the Christian Nationalists who believe that even recognizing other beliefs (or the lack thereof) puts their own belief on the back burner.

What is it about equal rights do you not understand? Why do you feel so threatened?

1. The way homosexuality theoretically affects the "overall fecundity of humans" is to make some women more fecund than others, which I see as a potential agency of NS.

OK...I've gotten this vibe from you in quite a few posts before this, but I haven't said anything until now.

What is your deal with NS? You speak of it as if it is some major threat and something to be fought against. Is natural selection of the human species a bad thing to you?

I obviously fail to understand your rationale for thinking so, if that is indeed the case.

That said, while we as a species are seemingly beyond many of the environmental factors which would normally be selecting for or against us due to our technological and neurological development, we are not that far removed from the time when an increase in female fecundity would be considered an imperative. Our genes still act accordingly and there may come a time when natural selection acts upon us as a species more strongly than it does now, so I wouldn't be so quick to be rid of this "aberration."


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 1:07 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Fosdick, posted 07-18-2008 11:17 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 104 of 108 (475793)
07-18-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
07-18-2008 3:47 AM


Re: Weapon (so to speak) of choice
WK writes:

Would you support offering people the opposite choice? To change their orientation from straight to gay?


Sure. If that's what they want. How many straight people do you know of who want to be gay?

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 3:47 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 11:23 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 105 of 108 (475798)
07-18-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jaderis
07-18-2008 4:58 AM


Re: off topic but ...
Jaderis writes:

Obviously you do or else you wouldn't have been talking about saving us from ourselves in your very last post (among many others).

I don't need your back-handed compassion. I know the joys of my own sexuality and I would thank you to butt the fuck out.


I'm all for joy. And I don't need to know what kind of joy you have behind closed doors. The only the kind of joy that bothers me is the kind that claims to need special legal protection, like the joy of screwing your pooch or your best buddy. Pooch and buddy screwing are not the least bit of a bother to me until they arise to legislative endorsement. Then they fall right into my lap and I have to be part of it.

Who said anything about honoring one over the other? Apparently you think just like the Christian Nationalists who believe that even recognizing other beliefs (or the lack thereof) puts their own belief on the back burner.

What is it about equal rights do you not understand? Why do you feel so threatened?


I'm all for equal rights. You are being silly here, of course, because gays have every right I have to get married heterosexually.

What is your deal with NS? You speak of it as if it is some major threat and something to be fought against. Is natural selection of the human species a bad thing to you?

Well, yes, if it means our eventual extinction. Too bad there are no longer any Neanderthals around to ask what that think about NS.

Our genes still act accordingly and there may come a time when natural selection acts upon us as a species more strongly than it does now, so I wouldn't be so quick to be rid of this "aberration."

You mean to say that maybe homosexuality will save our species?

—HM

Edited by Hoot Mon, : spelling of "Jaderis"


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jaderis, posted 07-18-2008 4:58 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2008 9:44 PM Fosdick has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019