quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
I think that's just playing semantic games. Aside from "well, one could say that X is Y so from that point of view . . ." do you really think that anyone in that discussion was "preaching hatred"?
Um... yes. I guess you had to be there, but yes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may well be that the only genetic imperative is to get one's rocks off regardless of the target and that evolution has selected for those species that primarily choose a heterosexual method for acheiving this.
It may be that homosexuality is purely a social product. What difference does it make, really, if it is? So is medicine and spaceflight. I have no vested interest in homosexuality being a purely (or even strongly) genetic phenomenon. It doesn't matter to me whether I was "born this way" or whether social conditioning made me this way, or whether it is a mix of the two (which I suspect). While the answer may be of scientific interest, it has little political interest for me. I am more than the sum of my genes and deserve to be treated with respect and to enjoy the same rights as everyone else regardless. I'm not a victim of evolution or social conditioning any more than anyone else in the world is. I celebrate whatever causes have let to the creation of me. Call it conceit if you must, but I'm far from being one of nature or societies failures.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
There aren't any. What is it with people thinking that Darwinism is a moral theory? It is a purely descriptive theory of what actually happens in nature; you cannot reason from "This happens" to "That ought to happen" or "We should do this". You might as well ask for purely general-relativistic reasons for humans to exist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the genetics, just think about how 2 brown eyed people might have a blond child. Or why sickle cell is still in the population at such high amounts. Of course, few things are that simple, but conceptually it should explain why the gene would be in the population. Also, a gay man might still have a child with a straight woman due to societal pressure. As far as evidence, in human genetics, you can pretty much rip apart any experiment done (sample size, inadequate controls, not enough generations, highly complex system, environmental pressures cannot be eliminated, etc). However, there is reason to believe that their is a genetic link.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Take the last 20 posts about Homosexuality and replace that word with Organized Religion. Resume debate.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
There aren't any. What is it with people thinking that Darwinism is a moral theory? It is a purely descriptive theory of what actually happens in nature; you cannot reason from "This happens" to "That ought to happen" or "We should do this". You might as well ask for purely general-relativistic reasons for humans to exist.
Just wanted to make sure there aren't any. I generally try to ask questions about subjects I'm not certain about, rather than making bold assertations that turn out to be wrong.
I didn't think there were any reasons. That's why I couldn't really find fault with the first thing Johivian said. If you view the human species from a evolutionary perspective, then those who do not reproduce, which homosexuals in monogamous relationships would be a subset of, do not contribute to the human species.
I don't really find this a compelling argument, but from the standpoint he professes to hold, it is consistant.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the standpoint itself rests on fallacious is-ought reasoning! Consistency is irrelevant if your axioms are clearly wrong.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The axiom that the only purpose to life is reproducing life is silly and sad.
Why? Personally, I agree-there is much more to life than reproduction. I don't really think the idea is silly, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Honestly, do any of us really think that once a person's child bearing and raising years are past that there is no purpose to their existance? Or that people who don't reproduce have no purpose at all?
I said his axiom was silly and sad. I did not claim (as he did by implication) that there was no reason for him to exist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, but the standpoint itself rests on fallacious is-ought reasoning! Consistency is irrelevant if your axioms are clearly wrong.
If you're talking about where he goes after his opening statement then I agree with you. From my limited knowledge of the subject, I believe naturalistic moral arguments are almost a universally agreed upon fallacy. However, his opening premise brought to mind to Dawkins' works on the subjects of evolution and the meaning of life. Being a theist, I didn't necessary find Dawkin's arguments convincing either, however they do have substance to them. Of course, it may have just been the thread title that brought Dawkins to mind. Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recognizing that it's only been a few minutes, you haven't actually answered my question. You've replied with another question, which itself is pretty simply answered also.
Someone who believed that the primary (or even only) purpose to life was reproduction could well state that after their own children are born and raised and on their own, another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard this "homosexuals have no biological purpose" argument quite a bit. I wanted to run this by you all and see what you thought. It's more a hypothesis than anything else.
Evolutionarily and biologically speaking we might consider survival of the population to be more important than the survival of our own genes. In times of overpopulation (and I do consider the world to be overpopulated), one might expect to see a rise in the number of homosexuals as a population control. I don't how I'd prove this one, but it makes a lot of sense to me on a macro level.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say we outlaw dried up old rockers. Anything that gets rid of Mick Jagger can't be bad, right?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what woul dhe being doing wasting time on the internet. Shouldn't he be out spreading his seed somewhere? Shouldn't you? Why would any of us waste time with art, philosophy, this discussion? If none of this has a purpose (unless of course, we are all here trying to hook up) what are we doing?
And, BTW,
quote: another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
homosexual people can do these things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
Thus, those that choose not to have children or are incapable of having children can still contribute to the human species thereby invalidating the statement, "If you view the human species from a evolutionary perspective, then those who do not reproduce, which homosexuals in monogamous relationships would be a subset of, do not contribute to the human species."
Edit: or what kmb said much more concisely with only six words.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The children are born. It's done, whoever passed on their genes did it. Contribution over, from a genetic, evolutionary standpoint. Perhaps you could detail how it refutes this. My understanding of the theory of evolution is nowhere near complete.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, theoretically you are only "done" once those children are able to pass on their genes. Once they have kids, you're done.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Makes sense, thank you However, genetically it doesn't matter who raises the kid, so long as it reaches mating age, right? A sterile stranger could raise the kid through puberty, but still add zero of his own genes to the pool.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, could not the same function, given to the Grand ParentS--that of helping the community raise the children.
Having a sub-set of permanent bachelors that produce equal amounts of community work, but have fewer drains on the resources since they have no children, should result in an increase in the chances of the communities survival.
To say that homosexuals have no evolutionary place since they can not reproduce is like saying that worker bee's in a hive have no evolutionary place.
In fact, a community that contains productive but not reproductive homosexuals would out-survive a community that does not. So anti-homosexual behavior is more unnatural, and evolutionarilly dangerous and prone to be naturally deselected.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But then, according to Johivin, we shouldn't be wasting resources (food,etc.) on parents once they are done popping out babies (or for men, once their last offspring is conceived as long as there was someone to raise the child.
So let's see what, according to Johivin, are people who have some justification for existance:
1)Fertile people who are actively procreating.
2) People who have children to raise up to the point where those children can join group number one.
3) Children who will join group number one.
Nope. I still shouldn't exist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming a child had a constant supply of food/water can it be demonstrated that that child would grow up and be sufficiently able to pass on their genes?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me neither, since I am childless at 26 years old. I think he's dead wrong though and that there's a heck of a lot more to life. I just jumped in because from the naturalistic/evolutionary standpoint he claims to hold, his statement did more validity than it was given credit for, even if his argument wasn't sound.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolutionarily and biologically speaking we might consider survival of the population to be more important than the survival of our own genes.
Are you sure?
That some might? Absolutely.
I'd argue that people have an instinct to preserve their own genes and a competing instinct to preserve their population. These two instincts sometimes work towards the same purpose, but the examples otherwise are obvious. That's why people are willing to join the army and go off and fight a war, neh?
This has strayed more into the psychological than I would have liked. I kind of assumed it would be taken as a given that, at times, there are people willing to sacrifice their own contribution to the gene pool in exchange for some benefit to the population. The how and why that leads to that behavior isn't so important to my hypothesis, merely the fact of the behavior.
*I was going to expand more on what I wrote, but I just noticed that Dan has already explicitly and implicitly touched on the points I would have made. Kudos, Mr. Raven.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, that kind of helps me see where you were coming from before. Sorry if I'm coming off as adversarial I think I'm just talking to keep me sane while writing my yearly self-evaluation.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More in line with where Elton is coming from...
On NPR a few years ago they did an article on Gay Muslims. One of the more odd proofs that are used to prove the superiority of Islam by some supporters with limited insight is, "There are no gay Muslims." (NPR went on to interview and research the homosexual underculture in parts of the Muslim world. Its not that there are no Gay muslims, there just are not any living gay muslims who admit it.)
This thread made come up with the ultimate answer to that comment.
"There aren't any gay suicide bombers either."
.
.
(forigve me--I can't help it)
.
And not just because the explosive belts would clash with thier purses either.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An uncle sacrificing himself for his nephew is an evolutionarily sound system (because the surviving genes are till closely related to the uncle). A study exists that claims sisters of gay men have higher fertility than the rest of the population. So, perhaps a gay man's evolutionary role is to insure his sister's genes survive (or his parent's grandchildren).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does having a gay uncle increase the likelyhood of surviving long enough for your children to have children? If so, then I've got to see that study Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Does having a gay uncle increase the likelyhood of surviving long enough for your children to have children? If so, then I've got to see that study
It does if Uncle Elton is looking out for them. With the fashion sense he will instill within your children's minds, they will have trouble NOT propagating their genes.
To say nothing of the sweet ride Elton as a car collector could hook your kids up with.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by BaoQingTian: Thanks, that kind of helps me see where you were coming from before. Sorry if I'm coming off as adversarial I think I'm just talking to keep me sane while writing my yearly self-evaluation.
Not at all. I thought your question was a fair one, and I didn't think you came off as adversarial. Good luck with your evaluation. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Congratulations! Beautiful child. We have no further use for you.
(kidding of course, except about the beautiful part)
Well we could always liquify her and feed her to the young, a la Matrix.
Juxapose,
Thanks, I was hoping I wasn't being a jerk. Thanks for the well-wishing as I play the corporate game. If my next raise wasn't based on it, it would be tempting in light of this thread to do it based on my genetic strengths and 'development needs.' However, the accomplishment section would pretty much be blank since I haven't genetically contributed to any children this year, nor am I anyone's gay uncle.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: ... However, the accomplishment section would pretty much be blank since I haven't genetically contributed to any children this year, nor am I anyone's gay uncle.
posted
Consider the following statement and then answer this question, “Who is more likely to make such a statement Atheists or Organized Religion? Here is the statement:
“People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh man, I hear that from the folks at church enough. You've been married 3 YEARS and don't have any children yet?! (Insert their horrified gaze and my eyes rolling) Oh well, I guess I'm now an evolutionary as well as religious slacker.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know any atheists on this board that would say that, Sam. Atheism is not equal to amoral. I know you're not saying that, but just thought it needed to be said.
Edit: In response to your question, I admit I can't think of a scenario where a theist would say this, but I have heard some atheists in other places say similar things.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Oh man, I hear that from the folks at church enough. You've been married 3 YEARS and don't have any children yet?! (Insert their horrified gaze and my eyes rolling) Oh well, I guess I'm now an evolutionary as well as religious slacker.
Just tell them you are trying, even if you are not
They can't really get mad at you for God's will now can they? Too bad you don't live down in my section of Provo Bao, I'd sit next to you at church and field your questions for you.
Best of luck on your evaluation!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: “People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
"People who do not reproduce are not following God's Will and will probably go to Hell."
I heard that every Sunday at my old church.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, genetically it doesn't matter who raises the kid, so long as it reaches mating age, right? A sterile stranger could raise the kid through puberty, but still add zero of his own genes to the pool.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
