What's new
By:

Obama vs. Beantown

Hopper said:
Well, Chem, I think you might be overlookin one of the most attractive aspects of neo-darwinian (modern synthetic) evolutionary theory, eh? This here, I mean:

Ya can just haul off and make up any kinda "just so" story that suits your fancy, and aint nobuddy never gunna prove you're wrong.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I would be inclined to think that the bulk of evolutionary theory is simply a "best guess" scenario. What it boils down to is the supporting information, logic, and scientific method that can (or cannot, in some cases) back it up. Because I'm not an expert in biology (obviously...just look at my username) I have to rely on the merits of those I cite. All things considered, there is an extensive network of information out there that generated my stance: that homosexuality is a product of evolution. I didn't pick that opinion haphazardly (and i'm not saying Bean did either), and I would hope that those I cited didn't either.

I mean homosexuality quit being considered a "disease" back in the 70s or thereabouts when the DSM was updated, which implies over 30 years of scientific thought have gone into homosexuality being more "natural" than "nurtural."
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to hear your definition of "biological importance." PRETTY PLEASE?!?!
Click to expand...

Biological importance would be the impact on the population of a species. In this example were talking about genetic diversity and reproduction. Neither of which homosexual relations can partake in. In fact the "relations" seem to have to biological influence at all. As humans they do, but their relations add nothing of biological importance.
 
chemdude1232 said:
. All things considered, there is an extensive network of information out there that generated my stance: that homosexuality is a product of evolution. I didn't pick that opinion haphazardly (and i'm not saying Bean did either), and I would hope that those I cited didn't either.

I mean homosexuality quit being considered a "disease" back in the 70s or thereabouts when the DSM was updated, which implies over 30 years of scientific thought have gone into homosexuality being more "natural" than "nurtural."
Click to expand...


Well, Chem, you have proven yourself to be a reasonable guy, in my book. But a lot of times, what is presented as the "evidence" (or "proof") is done on a very selective basis, ya know? Lemme ax ya what I done axxed Eric, in that other thread, eh?:


Do you agree with the APA's claim that:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

https://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx (go to page 4)

He never answered, that I recall. Mebbe you will.
 
Darwin has been most convincingly updated in the area of 'sexual selection.' Most theoretical biologists working across the field -- in laboratories and in the field -- believe that homosexuality is, as chemdude says, "a product of evolution." Just pick up a bloody book, start cross-referencing, and you'll see the evidence is very conclusive: across cultures and across species. If you think male = man and female = woman, and that there can only be two different genders, then not only are you ignoring the last quarter century (at least) of biological advances in knowledge, but you are also completely ignoring the sociocultural elements of human nature which are, BLOODY INSANELY IMPORTANT.

There is even a theory -- widely supported -- that says that human female genital morphology is the result of the sociocultural importance of female-to-female sexual contact. That's right.
 
Beantown said:
Biological importance would be the impact on the population of a species. In this example were talking about genetic diversity and reproduction. Neither of which homosexual relations can partake in. In fact the "relations" seem to have to biological influence at all. As humans they do, but their relations add nothing of biological importance.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of all the statistics on this issue. What you write here is purely a formal truth. The statistics show pretty clearly that most homosexual people actually participate themselves in reproduction during their lifetime. You are wrong again. I get the sense that the worst thing about you is that you don't realize when you don't know something. That is an awful trait.

The strong reading of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is now totally out of fashion in theoretical biology. In fact, once you historicize Darwin's legacy you can see that this emphasis was overblown by the changing landscape of the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd suggest you educate yourself before you run roughshod over these things. Or, maybe you can just acknowledge what you don't know and focus on things that make you happier. I, for one, wouldn't mind if you stayed inside more, watching your television, and forgot to vote.
 
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
You are ignorant of all the statistics on this issue. What you write here is purely a formal truth. The statistics show pretty clearly that most homosexual people actually participate themselves in reproduction during their lifetime. You are wrong again. I get the sense that the worst thing about you is that you don't realize when you don't know something. That is an awful trait.

The strong reading of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is now totally out of fashion in theoretical biology. In fact, once you historicize Darwin's legacy you can see that this emphasis was overblown by the changing landscape of the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd suggest you educate yourself before you run roughshod over these things. Or, maybe you can just acknowledge what you don't know and focus on things that make you happier. I, for one, wouldn't mind if you stayed inside more, watching your television, and forgot to vote.
Click to expand...

"Survival of the fittest" is a Social-Darwinian term that has never really been used in evolutionary theory. The phrase suggests concepts and direction that does not fit evolution.
 
Hopper said:
Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....
Click to expand...

Wow! you don't say! You mean this issue is more complex than Beaner wants to make it?!?!?

Here is a little nugget for y'all:
The human brain, once it starts developing in the uterus, develops at an astonishing rate that continues UNABATED for TWO FULL YEARS AFTER BIRTH. The human baby is the most neotenous of all creatures on earth. It is not a stretch to say that developments AS CRUCIAL as those that happen in the womb happen during this time (and afterward). The important thing for our discussion here is that this developmental period is INTENSELY SOCIAL. Therefore, if you stop talking, even for a second, about social or cultural determining factors, then you are missing the point (confer with Beaner if you need an example).

EDIT:
In other words, being social is a part of our evolution. So even if you were to say that homosexuality is strictly the result of "nurture" (which can't be supported), then you still aren't outside the complexity of the human condition because we literally NEED social in-filling in order to become fully human. All gender orientations are the result of this back-filling.

Seriously, is anybody going to respond to my female genital morphology comment?
 
Hopper said:
Well, Chem, you have proven yourself to be a reasonable guy, in my book. But a lot of times, what is presented as the "evidence" (or "proof") is done on a very selective basis, ya know? Lemme ax ya what I done axxed Eric, in that other thread, eh?:


Do you agree with the APA's claim that:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

https://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx (go to page 4)

He never answered, that I recall. Mebbe you will.
Click to expand...

As with many things, I am sure homosexuality's emergence into humanity is multivariate. Honestly I don't know that I am in a position to agree/disagree with the APA's claim, however what I have read would make me think that homosexuality is due more to nature than nurture. I would be curious to know what the APA defines as "nurture" though. Studies have been conducted - extensive ones too - that show that children adopted into homosexual relationships are not necessarily more likely to engage in homosexual relationships themselves.
 
It's not enough to just have a reason, the reason actually has to make sense.
 
i think obama is not bobby kennedy and has done less in support of gay rights, immigrant rights and the environment than john mccain (and thats before you start grading on a curve).

but since liberals vote on 'coolness' rather than actual issues it wasnt even close.

Obama doesnt care about gay people...he only cares about being elected so that can be narcissistic and increase regulation.

so having him agree with you on the topic of gay marriage just means taht theres two people who are just WRONG on this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top