Obama vs. Beantown

[One Brow]

I just find it odd that I have been getting slaughtered by assuming "left leaning" folks for an opinion that parallels one of the most liberal President we have ever had.

What are these supposedly highly liberal things Obama has done? Enact health-care reform very similar to what Republicans had previously proposed? Kept Guantanamo Bay open? Followed Bush's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?

Also Kicky please explain the "crackpot" comment. You dont really believe homosexual relations are equal with heterosexual relations when it comes to biological importance?

I don't believe biological importance has any real relevance to you. Everytime your latest statement of this relevance gets put down, you pop up with a revised version of it.

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.

You can, and certainly denialists like to portray biology as thinking that just-so stories are science. Some authors even present just-so from time to time in the popular literature, as an example of how something could happen (not as how something did happen). Biologists do not take just-so stories seriously, though.

Lemme ax ya what I done axxed Eric, in that other thread, eh?:

Do you agree with the APA's claim that:

He never answered, that I recall. Mebbe you will.

I've answered before that I doubt there is any one cause of homosexuality. If there are different causes, I see no reason to disbelieve that some might be purely biological, even purely genetic, while others might be a combination of biological and environmental, or purely environmental. From what I recall of the research, on a scale graded 0-100, after years therapy to reduce/remove homosexual influences, the range of change was 0-20 points, arguing against it being a choice. From what I recall, if you know one twin is homosexual, that the other will 3 times more likely to be homosexual if the twins are identical than if they are fraternal, arguing a significant biological component for some variations or homosexuality.

Why aren't the liberals mockin Obama 24/7 for bein religious, I wonder?

Because he also says he tries to separate his religious views from his political views.

 

[Hopper]

From what I recall of the research, on a scale graded 0-100, after years therapy to reduce/remove homosexual influences, the range of change was 0-20 points, arguing against it being a choice.

Ya figure the "bitch" Malkovich complained about is makin any kinda "choice," Eric?

Kinda like John Malkovich done said about some guy he didn't take to, eh? "That little bitch isn't even gay! He's bi-sexual, for God's sake!"

 

[moevillini]

aint/hopper and his red herring

(you'd think he'd get tired of lugging it around)

 

[Beantown]

Beantown,

I'll take your utter silence on all of my many well-schooled points on this issue (human neoteny, female genital morphology, reproduction statistics, etc.) as a sign that somewhere in this world you are groveling at my feet.

By the way, I'm paid plenty of money to know what I'm talking about when it comes to human evolution and evolutionary theory. I think you should know that you are dealing with someone who is certifiably an "expert". I'm not saying this to toot my own horn, but maybe to help you realize that you don't know what you are talking about. That is the first step. Please take it.

There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality and its existence. But all the theories out there do not effect these following FACTS about homosexuality. These three are what I base my opinions on.

#1 They cannot reproduce or add to genetic diversity
#2 They cannot engange in sexual intercourse
#3 Heterosexuality can be seen physically in sexual anatomy between male and females, this is not case for homosexuals

So if you have any information that changes these facts then fine. But so far nobody has provided anything. If you have info about homosexual reprodcution or physical changes in sexual anatomy in homosexuals then please do so.

Again I am for protecting and respecting the power of reproduction and the process of sexual intercourse only experienced in heterosexual relations.

 

[Hopper]

aint/hopper and his red herring

(you'd think he'd get tired of lugging it around)

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate and state the "item" which you consider to be a "red herring," and explain why you think said "item" is a red herring, eh, Mo?

Probably not, but feel free, ya know?

 

[Hopper]

There are often fans at a basketball (or football, baseball, whatever) game who cheer loudly and vigorously for one team or another, but who really have very little knowledge about the rules of the game or anything else associated with it. Nuthin wrong with that. They're still fans, who are gunna root for "their team" come hell or high water. They are still free to yell at the ref that he "must be blind," even if they have no clue what a foul is. They might still have some basis for sayin it (they mighta heard the guy next to them say it, for example) but even if they don't, so what? They're cheerleaders, that all. Don't even ask them to drop their pom poms and meaningfully discuss any aspect of the game. That aint what they're there for, ya know?

If a cheerleader tells an opposing fan "Our team is better than your team," no one should try to take that as a critical evaluation of talent or anything else, and it would be a mistake to do so. They are merely stating which side they are emotionally committed to, that's all.

 

[moevillini]

There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality and its existence. But all the theories out there do not effect these following FACTS about homosexuality. These three are what I base my opinions on.

#1 They cannot reproduce or add to genetic diversity
#2 They cannot engange in sexual intercourse
#3 Heterosexuality can be seen physically in sexual anatomy between male and females, this is not case for homosexuals

So if you have any information that changes these facts then fine. But so far nobody has provided anything. If you have info about homosexual reprodcution or physical changes in sexual anatomy in homosexuals then please do so.

Again I am for protecting and respecting the power of reproduction and the process of sexual intercourse only experienced in heterosexual relations.

Bean -

• Homosexual PEOPLE reproduce all the time. Therefore they ARE adding to genetic diversity. Just because the act of homosexual intercourse does not lead to reproduction does not mean that people who engage in those acts aren't also engaging in activities which lead to reproduction. Think about sperm donation and egg donations for instance.
• Heterosexual PEOPLE engage in a wide variety of sexual practices, most of which DO NOT result in reproduction.

Therefore, Bean, because many of us see "marriage" as something that establishes a relationship between PEOPLE and not as a "contract for services" (so to speak) we do not accept your arguments. Does that make sense?

If you'd like to argue that marriage is a "contract for services" or something of that nature, then that is a rather different issue.

 

[Hopper]

By the way, Mo, if you're wondering if that last post was snidely directed at you, the answer is of course "yeah, in a way, at least." But the comments I made would also apply to many others here, and moreso than to you.

I don't even think you lack "knowledge of the game," when it comes to a lot of issues brought up. It's just that you don't care to "discuss" whatever knowledge you have in most cases. While you don't seem reluctant to state your opinions or conclusions about many matters, you do generally seem very reluctant to reveal or explain just how and why you came to reach those conclusions. Fair enough, if that's the way you wanna do it.

But, when the game is "discussion" it does seem to demonstrate either: (1) a lack of understanding about how the game is played, or (2) a total lack of desire to "play the game" and a contentment with just bein a "cheerleader."

 

[Hopper]

Personally, I pay very little attention to any arguments for OR against gay marriage that are purportedly based on biology, evolution, or any other set of supposed "scientific facts." I don't think they're revelvant, and I don't think they are much more than attempts to somehow "rationalize" one's emotional inclinations.

 

[Hopper]

To illustrate what I'm gittin at let me ask this: How do you feel about bestiality?

Honest responses might be along the lines of:

1. I think it's disgusting

2. Never gave it much thought, and have no "feelings" about it, one way or the other.

3. Love it. Try to engage in it every day

Any and all talk about science, biology, evolution, etc., as it relates to the topic is strictly secondary to one's immediate "gut feelings" about bestiality, I figure.

 

[One Brow]

Ya figure the "bitch" Malkovich complained about is makin any kinda "choice," Eric?

You mean, is that particular bisexual choosing to be atrracted to both sexes, as opposed to just one? Maybe. I'm not going to say that no indivudual, ever, could be capable of choosing their sexual orientation, whether homo-, hetero-, or bi-. There's an exception to almost every rule.

As a general rule, I have not heard bisexual saying that they chose to be bisexual, but rather that they are naturally bisexual.

Personally, I pay very little attention to any arguments for OR against gay marriage that are purportedly based on biology, evolution, or any other set of supposed "scientific facts." I don't think they're revelvant, and I don't think they are much more than attempts to somehow "rationalize" one's emotional inclinations.

IAWTP.

 

[Bronco70]

There are often fans at a basketball (or football, baseball, whatever) game who cheer loudly and vigorously for one team or another, but who really have very little knowledge about the rules of the game or anything else associated with it. Nuthin wrong with that. They're still fans, who are gunna root for "their team" come hell or high water. They are still free to yell at the ref that he "must be blind," even if they have no clue what a foul is. They might still have some basis for sayin it (they mighta heard the guy next to them say it, for example) but even if they don't, so what? They're cheerleaders, that all. Don't even ask them to drop their pom poms and meaningfully discuss any aspect of the game. That aint what they're there for, ya know?

If a cheerleader tells an opposing fan "Our team is better than your team," no one should try to take that as a critical evaluation of talent or anything else, and it would be a mistake to do so. They are merely stating which side they are emotionally committed to, that's all.

+1

Hopper, this may be the most well thought out, lucid, insightful statement I've ever seen you produce.