|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2002 : 20:31:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh lighten the hell up 'Dreamer. Or is a quick one liner just below your intellectual elitism?
Intellectual elitism?! Politically correct?! Me?! 
You have an amazing ability to generalize and insult entire groups of people, and it's me who has the problem?
quote:
Buffoon? A very witty critism I might add.
Thank you.  Seriously though, it wasn't meant so much as an insult as it was just telling you my opinion that people who make such vulgar and crude "one liners" as you do often have their arguments and opinions ignored.
quote:
I (unlike you) have a sense of humor, as must the guys in the tutus.
So you're allowed to be offended by my "lack of a sense of humor", but it's not ok for me to be offended by your crude "one liners"?
quote:
I was making light (of someone else making light) of what was obviously (to us no-elitist types only, I guess) meant as a spoof.
No, you were saying you believed that all homosexuals are homosexual by choice, because you "feel" that is the case. Then you made a derogotory statement about all homosexuals. If you meant it as innocent humor caricaturing a sub group of the group you were referring, it certainly isn't my fault or me being oversensitive that is responsible for the misunderstanding.
quote:
Hey how about a thread on the increasing rudeness and snottyness of todays society
Er, Pot, meet Mr. Kettle...
quote:
I doubt you'd be in such a name calling mood face to face with me.
Ah yes, the implied threat of physical violence. I'm sure your a big tough guy who could beat me to a pulp. Feel better?
quote:
So just lighten up.
I will if you will.
quote:
Quit trying to out-PC everyone by looking for things to be OH-So-Offended by.
You've definitely got the wrong guy...
quote:
I posed an honest opinion (which everyone else seemed to focus on but you)
I have contributed much more to the thread topic than to you in this thread...
quote:
Fuck you if you want to get emotional over it.
Hm, yes, emotional. I must remember not to get emotional over posts on the internet. Thanks for the advice.
So, anyway, you never answered my question, the one about why we should assume it's a choice instead of assuming it's not?
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
 |
|
|
Dr Shari
Skeptic Friend
135 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 23:57:17 [Permalink]
|
How many Homosexuals does anyone answering this topic know? I work with several and have a neice, cousins and 2 very good freinds who are openly homosexual. I have patients with long time monogamous companions and some who are admittedly promiscuous. I admit to having been physically attracted to a woman though I never acted on it. I do not remember making a conscience choice to find her sexually appealing. I just was. So bi-sexuality must be part of the equation also.
I believe that sexually we have a scale of 1-10 in are sexual preferance. Most of us fall closer to hetero then homo sexuality. The most important thing in all this to me and most of the homosexuals I know is to find LOVE. Long term committed partnerships. Someone to share their lives with. We can never have enough love in the world.
The fact that we feel the need to discuss or worry about homosexuality in society shows to me at least that we must still be worried about our own sexuality for other peoples sexuality to be of interest at all.
Death: The High Cost of Living
It is easier to get forgiveness then to get permission! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 08:47:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The SollyLama wrote:
I'd like to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
I'm not sure what you would count as 'conclusive', but, perhaps, the Studies on Monozygotic Twins might be considered 'suggestive, if not 'compelling'. One review of the Bailey & Pillard study asserts: quote:
These data are consistent with the model of moderate inheritance of sexual orientation: the heritability calculated from these numbers lies within the range 0.31- 0.74, which is consistent with a moderate to a high genetic determination of the trait (that whether an male becomes gay or heterosexual depends moderately to substantially on his genes).
- see Biological Correlates of being Gay
Conversely, SollyLama, do you have conclusive evidence that homosexuality is solely a choice?
There is a book (which I have yet to read) titled "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl. He has a Website where various aspects of his book are discussed. In the section on The Perversion of Scientific Discourse I was both amused and appalled to read: quote:
The prize, though, surely has to go to W.J. Tennent, who in 1987 published an article entitled, "A Note on the Apparent Lowering of Moral Standards in the Lepidoptera." In this unintentionally revealing report, the author describes the homosexual mating of Mazarine Blue butterflies in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. The entomologist's behavioral observations, however, are prefaced with a lament: "It is a sad sign of our times that the National newspapers are all too often packed with the lurid details of declining moral standards and of horrific sexual offences committed by our fellow Homo sapiens ; perhaps it is also a sign of the times that the entomological literature appears of late to be heading in a similar direction." Declining moral standards -- in butterflies?! Remembers, these are descriptions by scientists in respected scholarly publications of phenomena occurring in nature!
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to speak of butterflies exercising a life-style choice?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 09:00:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How many Homosexuals does anyone answering this topic know?
Lots, this is San Francisco after all. I fail to see what is upsetting about Solly's joke "pink tutus, hey if the tiara fits" about the Pride Day. The marchers who are wearing tutu's and little pink fairy wings are the more demure and repressed ones. The "over the top" marchers in the SF Gay Pride Parade wear glitter and sneakers-but they are never arrested which shows so much tolerance that the laws are suspended for them.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 09:17:00 [Permalink]
|
His original statement didn't make all that clear. Seemed as though he was making an anti-gay remark.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 09:20:46 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure why we care whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 10:05:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I fail to see what is upsetting about Solly's joke "pink tutus, hey if the tiara fits" about the Pride Day.
But he never mentioned that he was referring to the Gay Pride parade in SF. He said he thought homosexuality was a choice, then implied that all homosexuals were "pink tutu" wearing fairies.
And, well, it's really not that big a deal. He could have just said "I was just joking." and that would have been the end of it. Instead he said I could "go whine to the dudes in the tutus if I don't like it". I merely stated that in my opinion it reflects poorly upon him and his arguments much more than it offends my sensibilities, and he launches into a tirade about my intellectual elitism and political correctness, and how he'd beat me up if I ever said that to his face. Hey, I'm just trying to help the guy out!
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 10:10:16 [Permalink]
|
okay, I wrote directly to Tokyodreamer to not waste space on SFN. I think anyone offended is being way too sensitive. Alot of people are more PC than they care to admit. If I had cracked a joke about sports fans being loud drunk guys in goofy outfits, no one would have cared. Least of all sports fans. Gay folks don't seem to mind dudes in tutus. PC strait folks have a big problem if anyone else comments on it.
Obviously the gay community isn't offended by it, they have much more outrageous people in thier parades. Nor have any gay people complained about the post.
I don't really give a shit. Remove the post if it's just so terrible.
On to the actual topic.
I say it's a choice because if there is no biological reason, then it pretty much must be a choice. By choice I don't mean the flip of a coin. Environmental and psychological factors, experiences etc all add up. So maybe the word 'choice' isn't the best one. What I'm referring to is a lack of biological explanaition for homosexuality.
Again- I don't attach morality to it. I don't even really care, I usually stick to my area of expertise- the military. I just wanted to see if there was any proof for a biological aspect. If not, then it becomes a matter of choice. Even if the 'choice' is merely the sum of all the factors that could be responsible, excluding the biological imperative for procreating a species. Man is an animal and subject to the evolutionary process. So what purpose does homosexuality serve to that end?
As for it's purpose in cultural evolution, well that's a different matter. The Spartens were some of the most feared warriors in history and they engaged in widespread homosexuality. The benefits were extremely tight bonds within their ranks. So the cultural aspects haven't escaped me. But I was looking for a root cause that may run deeper (biological) than any given culture.
My last point: I do make some pretty wide-sweeping generalizations. However, it's simply disengenuous to pretend somehow that's wrong. Sorry, but not everyone gets to be a singular example when referring to an entire group. I've ranted on about women in the military. I make very broad generalizations because it's in reference to a policy that affects the entire DoD. I made a remark about minorities and smokers as well. When talking about a group you have to be generalized. That's sort of the point. I also don't believe in blaming statistics if they are not favorable to any group. If a large percentage of a group does indeed wear overtly 'gay' costumes (watch any gay pride parade and count suits to tutus) then don't whine about it if everyone gets tossed in the count for a joke. The point of a joke is to make an obvious exaggeration of an otherwise mundane point. Obvious to some at least.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 10:39:34 [Permalink]
|
Ok, one more point, and a friendly suggestion, and then you'll hear no more about it from me:
quote:
I think anyone offended is being way too sensitive.
IMO, your response to my criticism of your "joke" is orders of magnitude more "oversensitive" than my simple disapproval of your choice of humor. I certainly don't expect you to care that I don't appreciate it none to much (as Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction says). I would expect you to care that that kind of humor is usually the basis for having anything you have to say about a subject ignored, but you can do and say and argue however you want (within reason, of course), and we certainly don't delete peoples' posts around here (that I know of).
If you don't think or care how off-color jokes affects peoples' opinions of you and your argument, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.
quote:
The point of a joke is to make an obvious exaggeration of an otherwise mundane point. Obvious to some at least.
And now the suggestion: You may want to consider using the emoticons, as misunderstandings of meaning occur very often on the Web. We don't have the benefit of your tone of voice or body language to interperet what's a joke and what isn't. You wouldn't have heard a peep from me had you typed:
quote:
Just put on your fairy wings and tutu and deal with it being a choice you made for yourself. 
If you choose not to use them, be prepared for a lot of misunderstanding when you try to express your sense of humor.
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 10:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The SollyLama wrote:
On to the actual topic. I say it's a choice because if there is no biological reason, then it pretty much must be a choice. By choice I don't mean the flip of a coin. Environmental and psychological factors, experiences etc all add up. So maybe the word 'choice' isn't the best one. What I'm referring to is a lack of biological explanaition for homosexuality.
But isn't this an example of 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance)? That something has not been found/proven does not, in and of itself, render it non-existent or false. Doesn't the study of twins referenced above at least suggest a biological influence awaiting discovery?
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 11:07:04 [Permalink]
|
It's quite possibly true that my line of reasoning about how I came to the term "choice" (which is obviously not the best expression for my thoughts) is flawed from the start. I won't argue that.
My position is from the instinctual, most base level at which we operate. If the biological point of sex is procreation- then anything that doesn't serve that end would be an evolutionary dead end. So I would be interested in seeing undisputed (by reasonable scientists, not people basing a decision on cultural factors) evidence that nature wired up this arrangement.
As I have never seen (nor have I really looked) that biological evidence, I'm left with having to draw the conclusion that it stems from non-biological factors.
My label for that is "Choice". It may not be the most accurate, however the culture of a society is a choice. Whether by consensus or by oberdictum, the society 'chooses' the values, environment, and social acceptance for it's culture. Beyond that, even given a 'social norm' individuals can choose to ignore the rules.
So basically what I'm saying is that in one way or another a purely biological imperitive is hardwired only one way. Any reason to ignore that rule is a choice, even if not made directly by the individual.
Maybe that's a flawed thought process in a scientific context, but I'm not a scientist.
I'm just a buffoon, remember.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 11:39:10 [Permalink]
|
If the biological point of sex is procreation- then anything that doesn't serve that end would be an evolutionary dead end
This is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Probably why there is so little research done.
That bit about Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute is a case in point. The implication was that there was something different about homosexuals brains. Since, as you stated it's an evolutionary dead end that should mean that it would be bred out of humanity by it's very Darwinian nature. But it isn't-and that would make it an illness. Not unlike the OCD people who are compelled to actions that have no actual purpose.
So it isn't PC to say it's biological.
The political stance has been the one you are holding, that it is a choice. Of course that would imply that they could change their minds if they wanted. A position the Xian right holds when they claim it is a sin and they coud stop being sinners. It would also mean that "gay" affectations of speech and manner, like those of James Judy and the "pride" marchers, were only affectations.
So it isn't PC to say it's a choice.
Best to just walk away from the topic. It's a land mine.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 11:42:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The SollyLama:
Maybe that's a flawed thought process in a scientific context, but I'm not a scientist. I'm just a buffoon, remember.
No, I don't rememeber ever suggesting that you are/were a buffoon. Let me give some thought to your point about the biological point of sex being procreation. In the meantime, did you have a chance to look at the stuff relating to monozygotic twins or the Biological Exuberance book?
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 11:52:33 [Permalink]
|
I won't be so "PC" as to disagree, but only out of fear of being "PC."
quote:
I'm just a buffoon, remember.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 12:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The SollyLama wrote:
If the biological point of sex is procreation- then anything that doesn't serve that end would be an evolutionary dead end.
I doubt that it's so simple. Homosexuality may be one of a family of genetically based propensities, as noted in the rather long quote below. But whether or not the answer turns out to be tied to the evolution and maintenance of dominance hierarchies and structural constraints, the point remains that there appears to be sufficient reason to suspect the existence of a biological explanation for homosexuality. If this seems to contradict a simplistic or "atomistic" view of evolution, then the evidence is 'simply' driving us towards a less simplistic view.
quote:
The basic problem for genetic explanations of homosexuality is to account for how a gene that does not lead to offspring could survive the pressures of natural selection. ...
The main question for the heterozygous argument is to imagine a possible advantage of homosexual genes when combined with heterosexual genes. Kirsch and Rodman (cited in Sommer 1990) suggest that this advantage may have something to do with dominance hierarchies. The maintainence of these hierarchies presumably helps animals, including humans, live peacefully together, and this peaceful living provides advantages to the group, and to the individuals in the group. The key to the argument is the disadvantage of an animal that had only dominance genes. While an animal that "fights and runs away, lives to fight another day," an animal that never gives in often dies young. In this light, consider Chagnon's (1988) discovery that Yanomamo men who had killed more enemies had more offspring than milder men. Chagnon used this correlation to argue that aggressivity really does enhance reproductive success. But Chagnon's study suffers from a sampling problem, because it included only living males. I'd wager that the more aggressive males also had a greater probability of dying before ever being able to reproduce at all! Thus, on average, milder men may have as many or more offspring than aggressive men.
The heterozygous argument suggests that homosexuality results from genes for submissive behavior. An animal possessing only submissive genes would fail to reproduce for lack of trying. But an animal possessing only genes for dominance would also fail to reproduce because it would get killed for taking too many risks. It is the "heterozygous" males, who would most likely pass on their genes. By the genetic laws of probability, this would leave every generation with a certain percentage of individuals at the extremes. For example, if each of a pair of chromosomes had only one "homosexual" locus with only two possible alleles (one for dominance and one for submissiveness) this would leave a heterozygous couple with 25% of their offspring homozygous for submissiveness, 50% heterozygous, and 25% homozygous for dominance. If, however, homosexuality were the result of the interaction of 5 gene loci, possibly spread across different chromosomes, then only 3.125% (1/22222) of births would be homozygous for submissiveness. As Wilson (1994) points out, some genetic diversity is valuable to individuals in that it permits them to adapt to different niches within the group, so different degrees of submissiveness may permit occupation of different niches.
The heterozygous argument still needs to be tested. It predicts, for example, that the relatives of exclusive homosexuals should have less dominant personalities than the general population, in addition to predicting that homosexuals themselves would be more likely than heterosexuals to avoid fights (at least physical ones), for which there is already abundant evidence (Whitam and Mathey 1986).
Biological Structures and Male Homosexuality
Many evolutionists (Gould 1977b; Rieppel 1992; Reichholf 1992; Antinucci 1990) have complained about the emphasis placed by sociobiologists on natural selection to the detriment of questions of biological structure. According to these authors, sociobiologists have an overly "atomistic" approach to evolution, acting as if specific biological traits can evolve all by themselves, without regard to structural constraints on design or to the possibility that given structural changes may or may not be possible in phylogenetic history. Tracing structural variations is important because natural selection does not operate like an architect, drawing up a blueprint for a house, and then putting it together from scratch in the most efficient way possible. Rather, natural selection operates more like a "tinkerer" taking advantage of materials already available to produce new forms that "work" at the moment.
- see On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
