John Cuthber Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I suppose so, but why on earth try to hit the ball with a narrow round stick? It seems unnatural. Isn't it obvious that the narrowness means there's little enough chance of actually contacting the ball. And even if you do manage to make contact, the roundness makes the ball fly off at an unpredictable angle. So there's very litte possibility of steering the ball in any judged direction. All the baseball batter can do, is take a big almighty heave-ho swing, and hope for the best. Liitle skill involved. Not like in cricket, where we sensibly use a broad flat-bladed bat. This provides directional control - enabling a skilled batsman to use delicate tickles and deflections to despatch the ball where he chooses. And still the option of a big, full-bladed, square-on , "thwack" sending the ball sailing high over the boundary for a six! Glorious stuff.... No wonder the narrow baseball stick only finds favour in America, and due to post-WWII cultural influence, in Japan. Anyway, this is all a digression - let's get back to the gay subject - far more interesting! Oh come off it. Admit you experimented with rounders at some stage- we all did, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. If homosexuallity were wrong in any meaningful sense, it would have died out. In reality it's fairly common, not just inn our species, but in many others. Homophobia, on the other hand, only seems to be found in one species and it's not common even there. So, which one is "unnatural" or "wrong"?
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Why do I keep thinking about a football bat?
Delta1212 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Oh come off it. Admit you experimented with rounders at some stage- we all did, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. If homosexuallity were wrong in any meaningful sense, it would have died out. In reality it's fairly common, not just inn our species, but in many others. Homophobia, on the other hand, only seems to be found in one species and it's not common even there. So, which one is "unnatural" or "wrong"? The response to which is "It's what separates us from the animals." If someone is thoroughly convinced of the truth of something, everything is evidence supporting it.
chadn737 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I have no idea what this thread is even about, so unfocused is it.
iNow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 ^It's about how surprisingly common ignorance continues to be in our modern 2014 world.
chadn737 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I can't even tell if its ignorant....I really have no idea what the claim is.
Phi for All Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I have no idea what this thread is even about, so unfocused is it. It was sort of doomed from the start. The title is pretty bad. Putting homosexuality and lesbians in parentheses is like saying you want to talk about "Hardware Stores and Home Depot"; the latter is a subset of the former. The word "wrong" is inappropriate when talking about homosexuality, and trying to make it seem like science agrees is completely inaccurate. On the whole, lots of misinformed judgement going on.
Arete Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 On the whole, lots of misinformed judgement going on. Standard "I've tortured logic and misrepresented biology in an attempt to justify my religiously motivated bigotry toward homosexuals" thread. 2
Eider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Thus in regards to " scientific evolution" and the prolonging of people on earth, IE, Only men and women give birth to children naturally, would the above discrimination on gays and lesbians, including those from religion be valid? It would be valid only if we as a society saw prolonging our species as our primary objective, which we don't. People are generally allowed to do all sorts of things that endanger our lives and hinder our ability to reproduce. Using "evolution" as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals wouldn't make a lot of sense without discriminating against everyone else who is endangering our species including a lot of sick and disabled people who we generally have a lot of sympathy for. So is the intent to further the species a good reason to discriminate against homosexuals? Only if you think extreme cherry-picking is reasonable...
StringJunky Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 It would be valid only if we as a society saw prolonging our species as our primary objective, which we don't. So is the intent to further the species a good reason to discriminate against homosexuals? Only if you think extreme cherry-picking is reasonable... This is a false premise ...homosexuality is likely beneficial to the survival of a species, as a whole, because it increases the potential available assistance for any other offspring thus increasing their chances of survival i.e the ratio of carers/providers/protectors to offspring is increased.
chadn737 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 This is a false premise ...homosexuality is likely beneficial to the survival of a species, as a whole, because it increases the potential available assistance for any other offspring thus increasing their chances of survival i.e the ratio of carers/providers/protectors to offspring is increased. That is entirely speculative and also unnecessary. There seems to be no lack of providers and it is a difficult explanation from a genetic perspective. I would reject this explanation out of hand. 1
Eider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 This is a false premise ...homosexuality is likely beneficial to the survival of a species, as a whole, because it increases the potential available assistance for any other offspring thus increasing their chances of survival i.e the ratio of carers/providers/protectors to offspring is increased. Well I will defend myself by saying that I wasn't even trying to get into what influence homosexuality has over the species as a whole. I was trying to point out that "evolution" or even "protection of the species" isn't really a valid reason for discriminating against people.
Phi for All Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Using "evolution" as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals wouldn't make a lot of sense without discriminating against everyone else who is endangering our species including a lot of sick and disabled people who we generally have a lot of sympathy for. Yeah, those sick and disabled people never pull their own weight. Stephen Hawking hardly lifts a finger. 2
CharonY Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 That is entirely speculative and also unnecessary. There seems to be no lack of providers and it is a difficult explanation from a genetic perspective. I would reject this explanation out of hand. I would not object it offhand, though I would agree that the reasoning is too specific relative to available data. However, the fact that homosexuality does occur implies in numerous taxa implies that it is not strongly selected against, which could have many reasons, of course (unless that was precisely your point, in which case I would agree). There are a few studies suggesting that female fecundity may be linked to increased in male homosexuality suggesting either co-selection or that genes affecting fecundity are also increasing likelihood of homosexuality. 1
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 I would not object it offhand, though I would agree that the reasoning is too specific relative to available data. However, the fact that homosexuality does occur implies in numerous taxa implies that it is not strongly selected against, which could have many reasons, of course (unless that was precisely your point, in which case I would agree). There are a few studies suggesting that female fecundity may be linked to increased in male homosexuality suggesting either co-selection or that genes affecting fecundity are also increasing likelihood of homosexuality. My objection is that homosexuality itself would not be something selected for. The wording becomes quite tricky. Homosexuality in and of itself would be strongly selected against as homosexuals would be far less likely to reproduce. However, such traits can persist if there is a heterozygote advantage, the classic example of this being sickle cell anemia in malaria prevalent areas. In such a situation, the advantage of the heterozygote state would be advantageous enough to counter the loss of fertility from the homozygous state. In such a situation, the advantage then is rests in the heterosexuals who are heterozygous for the alleles contributing to homosexuality...for instance, as you mention, the fact it may have something to do with female fecundity. If females heterozygous for these alleles had much higher rates of reproduction, it would offset any loss incurred in the homozygous state. However, homosexuality is a going to be a complex quantitative trait...rather than a single allele, but the situation of heterozygote advantage still applies. That's really my point, that the advantage would not lie in homosexuality itself, but rather its effect on heterosexuals. Examples of homosexuality in other species also needs to be taken with caution. For instance, homosexual behavior in bonobos, one of our closest relatives, is common, but if I remember correctly, its also rare for it to be exclusive. The bonobos instead engaging in it as part of their social order and bonding. Homosexuality in birds is actually probably a better model of human homosexuality. Of course none of this says anything about the morality of it, a subject I find rather boring. I am more interested in the genetics and evolutionary implications. Furthermore, I strongly believe that we should not infer morals from what is "natural", that is the fallacy of appeal to nature. Nor can we infer it from scientific fact alone, lest we commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and confuse is-ought. I am more libertarian in such matters, thinking that we should have no say in the sexuality of consenting adults, as long as it does not cause harm (like incest).
iNow Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 My objection is that homosexuality itself would not be something selected for.You seem to forget that traits benefiting the genes of the group often are selected more strongly than traits benefiting the genes of the individual. See also: grandmother hypothesis.
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) You seem to forget that traits benefiting the genes of the group often are selected more strongly than traits benefiting the genes of the individual. See also: grandmother hypothesis. Really? What is the evidence for that? Group selection has largely fallen by the wayside because it simply doesn't add up. It is not propagation of the group that matters, but propagation of the individual genes. This was the brilliant insight of Hamilton and others which eventually spelled the downfall of group selection. Edited February 4, 2014 by chadn737 1
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) This seems to be a persistant problem with you. The questions are only simple if you outline them properly before people make an attempt at answering you. You ask one thing and then go and change the question in the next post or come up with absurd straw men, claiming that the people who have already responded to your first question are wrong and that it's really very simple. Keeping up with your ever-shifting goal posts and straw men is not simple. It's frustrating at best and dishonest at worst and you should probably try and avoid it. As I have already stated, you cannot narrow the quesiton to the ability to conceive children or not. If you are not willing to accept that, then please clearly state why you think it is an incorrect way of viewing things. Waving my post off by stating that it is too analytical is not an acceptable response to a valid counter-point. Clearly not everyone or even a majority of people in the world are homosexual, so your hypothetical situation has no relevance to the argument because it has no fathomable basis in reality. Most people are not homosexual, so as far as continuation of the species is concerned on the larger scale, it really shouldn't and doesn't matter if some people are; the human population will still continue to climb. Furthermore and since you continue to ignore this point, infertile people also have no children. Neither do most elderly females. Are they also wrong / unnatural? Is a fertile man engaging in relations with an infertile woman unnatural because their union cannot possibly result in children? Why cant we just look at " healthy humans" that are able to re-produce, why do we need to complex things more than what they are? Yes I am aware of the elderly,menopause and etc... I was hoping that my OP would be direct enough and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier.. Yes I am aware that I have an " original thinking mind" But you said it yourself, humans are complex due to their cognitive mentally remember? So, then I look at it this way.. If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong" as per what religion states and as per scientific fact. Again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they still cannot reproduce..Unless of course one of them ends up like THE VIRGIN MARRY, GET IT<------? Another thing bowls down though, religion and science don't obviously agree, but would they agree on the whole of my OP? Having in mind what I just mentioned? Here it is again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce.. Edited February 4, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -2
Arete Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Really? What is the evidence for that? Group selection has largely fallen by the wayside because it simply doesn't add up. It is not propagation of the group that matters, but propagation of the individual genes. This was the brilliant insight of Hamilton and others which eventually spelled the downfall of group selection. I would disagree, the debate is ongoing - see a paper in support from Nature in 2013 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130628/ncomms3048/full/ncomms3048.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20130703 and a paper against from J. Theoretical Biology http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000472 The problem with your "heterozygote" concept is it's over-simplistic. Homosexuality appears to be a highly multigenic trait involving lots of small effect alleles and a strong environmental component. Therefore, a simplistic, Mendelian mode of inheritance is of little utility. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513813000020 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12067/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347213001966 Selection for the trait is going to operate on the pool of alleles circulating in the population, and not on the individual level. As such, any genetic component to homosexuality in humans is going to be selected for/against on multiple fronts. Given the low prevalence of homosexuality, and the incomplete nature of the trait (i.e. people identifying as homosexual are still capable of being in heterosexual relationships and having children) it is unlikely that selection would have a strong effect on the particular (assumedly large) pool of alleles which potentially lead to homosexual tendencies given the right environmental factors. 1
Moontanman Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Why cant we just look at " healthy humans" that are able to re-produce, why do we need to complex things more than what they are? Yes I am aware of the elderly,menopause and etc... I was hoping that my OP would be direct enough and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier.. Yes I am aware that I have an " original thinking mind" But you said it yourself, humans are complex due to their cognitive mentally remember? So, then I look at it this way.. If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong." Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce.. Another thing bowls down though, religion and science dont obviously agree, but do they agree on the whole of my OP? Having in mind what I just mentioned? Here is is again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce.. How can you say homosexuals cannot reproduce? Do you really think a homosexual woman cannot have sex with a man or a homosexual man cannot have sex with a woman? Surely you realize this is a totally false idea? Edited February 4, 2014 by Moontanman
Arete Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Another thing bowls down though, religion and science don't obviously agree, but would they agree on the whole of my OP? No. Are you not reading the replies to the thread? a) Plenty of animals exhibit homosexual behavior b) Many animals cannot reproduce (e.g. social insects) c) There is no "wrong" in nature. So no, your original post is comprehensively wrong.
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Why cant we just look at " healthy humans" that are able to re-produce, why do we need to complex things more than what they are? Yes I am aware of the elderly,menopause and etc... I was hoping that my OP would be direct enough and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier.. Yes I am aware that I have an " original thinking mind" But you said it yourself, humans are complex due to their cognitive mentally remember? So, then I look at it this way.. If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong" as per what religion states and as per scientific fact. Again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they still cannot reproduce..Unless of course one of them ends up like THE VIRGIN MARRY, GET IT<------? Another thing bowls down though, religion and science don't obviously agree, but would they agree on the whole of my OP? Having in mind what I just mentioned? Here it is again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce.. You are committing the fallacy of appeal to nature and then somehow also both the moralistic and naturalistic fallacies. The ability to reproduce is not what makes an action moral, if that were the case, incest would also be moral.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Why cant we just look at " healthy humans" that are able to re-produce, why do we need to complex things more than what they are? Yes I am aware of the elderly,menopause and etc... I was hoping that my OP would be direct enough and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier.. Yes I am aware that I have an " original thinking mind" But you said it yourself, humans are complex due to their cognitive mentally remember? So, then I look at it this way.. If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong" as per what religion states and as per scientific fact. Again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they still cannot reproduce..Unless of course one of them ends up like THE VIRGIN MARRY, GET IT<------? Another thing bowls down though, religion and science don't obviously agree, but would they agree on the whole of my OP? Having in mind what I just mentioned? Here it is again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they cannot reproduce.. I would like to point out that I never once said you have an, 'original thinking mind.' Those words weren't even a part of my post. What I said was this: This seems to be a persistent problem with you. The questions are only simple if you outline them properly before people make an attempt at answering you. You ask one thing and then go and change the question in the next post or come up with absurd straw men, claiming that the people who have already responded to your first question are wrong and that it's really very simple. Keeping up with your ever-shifting goal posts and straw men is not simple. It's frustrating at best and dishonest at worst and you should probably try and avoid it. You'd also do well not to take my statements out of their intended context. Secondly, you cannot keep insisting on your absurd preposition that homosexuals are wrong as per science when this point has been refuted over and over again in this thread. Unless you are willing and able to go through and detail why this is (and why science should have anything to say on the matter at all) without committing further logical fallacy or going off on completely unrelated tangents, then you cannot keep stating it as fact. Finally, though I cannot moderate here, I would like to unofficially point out to you that you are crossing the line by calling the people who are homosexuals wrong, as per rule one of this forum. I have already mentioned to you that 'wrong' is not the argument you appear to be making and it is not scientific. 1
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Posted February 4, 2014 What does science have to do with this determination exactly? Whether something is right or wrong is a value judgement. Science tells you how things work, not whether they are good or bad. You can scientifically determine what the impact of homosexuality on population growth is, but you can't scientifically determine whether that impact is a good thing or a bad thing. The only way something can be wrong "as per science" is if it is empirically counter-factual. Since homosexuality is not demonstrably untrue, it is not wrong "as per science." So I'm going to have to go with "no" as the answer to your question. Your words: Science tells you how things work That is exactly my point, 2 penises don't give birth to a child, a vagina and a penis do. Again, Unless you end up like the virgin marry,I hope you get the "the point here" Re. "Homosexuality and Lesbians" are they wrong as per science?" No. And you might want to check what the rules say about badmouthing groups of people. there has not yet been any bad mouthing on groups here, plus I have already stated my point of views about this in my OP, I suggest you " re-read it" Wrong by science is not what you mean. I think you mean something more like "hard to understand using science" or something closer to that. In this sense you maybe right, but I don't know what psychologists, anthropologists and so on think about this. My only caution here is the word "wrong" in the context of science. I agree with you ajb, I should have mentioned something like this.. -2
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Your words: Science tells you how things work That is exactly my point, 2 penises don't give birth to a child, a vagina and a penis do. Again, Unless you end up like the virgin marry,I hope you get the "the point here" The point that Delta is making here - one that you do not seem to get, despite having been told it in numerous threads - is that science is not some massive conglomerate that decides whether something is right or wrong. It is a tool that is used to describe the world around us and how things are. Commenting on whether a phenomenon that clearly exists in nature is right or wrong is completely outside the purview of science.
Recommended Posts