Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

At this point Carp, your "answer" is too little, too late. And it is basically just another attempt by you to weasel out of what you said previously. You said it was because of AGE that pedophilia was wrong. When I took that and turned it against you by pointing out that you were doing exactly the same thing as you accused us of doing with homosexuality, at first you refused to acknowledge it, then you pretended not to understand, then you refused to answer me and kept saying that you already did. NOW you are equivocating and trying to come up with additional reasons why pedophilia is wrong. But it still boils down to "age" - "capacity" "developmental status" etc, all that is a product of AGE. If the boy was older, then there would be no objection. AGE.

No - my answer has pretty much been the same from the get-go. The problem is inability to consent. In the case of pedophilia, as my post indicated, this inability is caused by the young age of the person in question. It can be caused by other things. You will find that it my posts from the outset of this question, if you look.

So no, I am not going to accept your answer and I still think you are dishonest and a horrible debater who refuses to just admit when he is wrong, or to even admit his opponent has a point. You dragged poor Oxmix on for pages and pages about a simple point that if Homosexuality was the norm that the population would greatly decline. Pages. All because you suspected that if you admitted that one point, Ox was going to somehow "trick" you. So you hemmed and hawed, picking apart the analogies and examples to the point of ridiculousness, wasting his time and your own, just to avoid saying "Yes, I agree, you are correct"

No - I disagreed with his assumptions and is conclusions and his use of language. He made specific conclusions (5,000 people) that were not justified. He also kept shifting what his percentages represented (birth rate, heterosexual couple %). I pointed all of those out and told him what I could agree to. But he appears to have caught your "Carpe is dishonest" and "Carpe dodges" bug, and has even added "Carpe Dances" to the mix. Such is life...

And if you think I am the only one who has come to this conclusion about your debate tactics, think again. Ask around but it is pretty much everyone here's opinion of you.

I have no need to ask around. Folks don't appear to be shy about making their positions known. And you are all entitled to your opinions. As I said, what others think doesn't change who I am or why I post. As long as I remember not to post when I'm in a slightly more vulnerable space and the skin has thinned out a bit, I should be fine. I'll leave the rest to you. If your subsequent posts have content about the subject at hand, I'll respond. Otherwise, feel free to make whatever comments you wish about my person. I'll read, but won't be responding further on this theme. There is not a lot of point to it.

[Sparko]

No - my answer has pretty much been the same from the get-go. The problem is inability to consent. In the case of pedophilia, as my post indicated, this inability is caused by the young age of the person in question. It can be caused by other things. You will find that it my posts from the outset of this question, if you look.



No - I disagreed with his assumptions and is conclusions and his use of language. He made specific conclusions (5,000 people) that were not justified. He also kept shifting what his percentages represented (birth rate, heterosexual couple %). I pointed all of those out and told him what I could agree to. But he appears to have caught your "Carpe is dishonest" and "Carpe dodges" bug, and has even added "Carpe Dances" to the mix. Such is life...

Yeah, at this point I didn't expect you to admit you were wrong. Same ol' Same ol'

His term "Dancing" is pretty accurate. I used dodging but I think I like dancing more. Maybe I will start using that instead.

I have no need to ask around. Folks don't appear to be shy about making their positions known. And you are all entitled to your opinions. As I said, what others think doesn't change who I am or why I post. As long as I remember not to post when I'm in a slightly more vulnerable space and the skin has thinned out a bit, I should be fine. I'll leave the rest to you. If your subsequent posts have content about the subject at hand, I'll respond. Otherwise, feel free to make whatever comments you wish about my person. I'll read, but won't be responding further on this theme. There is not a lot of point to it.

You keep saying you won't post any more, or the other person can have the last word, but you can't help yourself, can you?

I am sure this is the very, very, very last time though right?

although, it is your thread. You can just ask me to leave.

[Cow Poke]

No - I disagreed with his assumptions and is conclusions and his use of language. He made specific conclusions (5,000 people) that were not justified. He also kept shifting what his percentages represented (birth rate, heterosexual couple %). I pointed all of those out and told him what I could agree to. But he appears to have caught your "Carpe is dishonest" and "Carpe dodges" bug, and has even added "Carpe Dances" to the mix. Such is life...

But when he's wrong, he admits it very clearly and without excuse...

How about that. Ok - I wasn't aware of that.

So, that being the case, then I will have to admit 90% same-sex doesn't necessarily equate to a 90% reduction in birthrate.

That's a quality of a serious debater.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, at this point I didn't expect you to admit you were wrong. Same ol' Same ol'

His term "Dancing" is pretty accurate. I used dodging but I think I like dancing more. Maybe I will start using that instead.

You keep saying you won't post any more, or the other person can have the last word, but you can't help yourself, can you?

Sometimes. But if you read just a bit more carefully, you'd note that I said I would be responding to posts about the subject matter. Just not the personal observations. And I do tend to respond if someone asks me a direct question (like this one).

I am sure this is the very, very, very last time though right?

although, it is your thread. You can just ask me to leave.

I don't usually do that. I just ask people to adhere to the policies of the thread. In this thread, however, those policies have long since been abandoned, so I don't see it as appropriate to suddenly (and somewhat arbitrarily) start enforcing them.

[Sparko]

Sometimes. But if you read just a bit more carefully, you'd note that I said I would be responding to posts about the subject matter. Just not the personal observations. And I do tend to respond if someone asks me a direct question (like this one).

uh no. That was rhetorical.

Funny how all of a sudden you are eager to answer questions. sigh.

I don't usually do that. I just ask people to adhere to the policies of the thread. In this thread, however, those policies have long since been abandoned, so I don't see it as appropriate to suddenly (and somewhat arbitrarily) start enforcing them.

It's your thread.

[EvoUK]

I have no need to ask around. Folks don't appear to be shy about making their positions known.

For what it's worth, I read most of your posts- at least in civics- and I find your posts not only well thought out and persuasive, but also pretty easy to understand.

So I don't get the accusation that you shift & dance about at all- it's usually just clarifying what I found to be obvious to begin with- the age of consent above being a prime example. The only reason for this I can think of is obtuseness (though not necessarily deliberate)

Just saying, as you rarely get the positive reviews

[carpedm9587]

For what it's worth, I read most of your posts- at least in civics- and I find your posts not only well thought out and persuasive, but also pretty easy to understand.

So I don't get the accusation that you shift & dance about at all- it's usually just clarifying what I found to be obvious to begin with- the age of consent above being a prime example. The only reason for this I can think of is obtuseness (though not necessarily deliberate)

Just saying, as you rarely get the positive reviews

Thanks, Evouk. I have to admit, after a while, I find myself second-guessing myself. And, as CP has justifiably noted, I do get a bit verbose more often than not. Apparently, my habit of inserting my responses immediately after the relevant segments of the post I am responding to is also an irritant for some. I find it to be a clearer way to respond, but I have been told it comes across as "hacking up other people's posts."

[EvoUK]

Thanks, Evouk. I have to admit, after a while, I find myself second-guessing myself. And, as CP has justifiably noted, I do get a bit verbose more often than not. Apparently, my habit of inserting my responses immediately after the relevant segments of the post I am responding to is also an irritant for some. I find it to be a clearer way to respond, but I have been told it comes across as "hacking up other people's posts."

Yeah, it depends. If you can split up a post without losing the overall meaning of each paragraph then it's easier to follow when discussing certain segments individually. Though they're right, splitting it up too much can happen and many are guilty of it.

[Littlejoe]

Thanks, Evouk. I have to admit, after a while, I find myself second-guessing myself. And, as CP has justifiably noted, I do get a bit verbose more often than not. Apparently, my habit of inserting my responses immediately after the relevant segments of the post I am responding to is also an irritant for some. I find it to be a clearer way to respond, but I have been told it comes across as "hacking up other people's posts."

Some people don't like it...I've never understood why. I agree it makes it easier and avoids confusion on multiple and/or complex talking points. The way I see is, if they don't like it, they can find someone else to converse with.

[carpedm9587]

Some people don't like it...I've never understood why. I agree it makes it easier and avoids confusion on multiple and/or complex talking points. The way I see is, if they don't like it, they can find someone else to converse with.

That has been more or less my position. I have to admit I do not understand railing against how someone else posts. If you're not enjoying the experience of engaging/exchanging, simply go talk to someone else. That's what I do. I don't spend a lot of time with Demi or Darth or MM because I have found them to largely be interested in trolling (well, I have to admit I do enjoy tugging on MM's chain now and then - I guess that means I'm trolling too ) and not really interested in exploring ideas. Others (Jim, Pluto, Element, and you) I find interesting to "cross swords" with. Makes me think...

[Starlight]

*keeping in mind that as I am using it here, to select for a trait means evolution prefers it (it confers a survival advantage), and it will eventually (barring some catastrophe early in its development) become a dominant trait.

Are you aware that it's quite common for evolution to select for a trait until it reaches a certain percentage of the population and then limit it beyond that?

Any time some particular trait becomes fully dominant in a population group (let's say, for example, the tendency to be kind and generous and altruistic toward all), there will be strategies that exploit that trait for minority gain (e.g. being a selfish jerk and hording all the group's resources). So evolution will start selecting for the new exploitative strategy as soon as it appears as it has superior survival value over the existing dominant strategy. But once such new minority strategies reach a decent minority percentage of the population (e.g. 10%), they become less and less effective, because the majority becomes aware they exist and starts countering them (e.g. the altruistic people learn to be on the lookout for those stealing the group's resources for themselves, because they've seen it happen before). So the society reaches an equilibrium state where the system is stable with a number of different traits that evolution has selected for up to certain points all at different percentages within the group.

Some have theorized, for example, that this is why a minority of people are left-handed: Because if a small percentage of the population is different handed to the majority, in any one-on-one physical combat they will have the element of surprise from being able to strike with a hand different to what the other person is expecting, and hence win the fight (and not die in it / win the rights to breed with the females etc). But once too many people become left-handed, the right-handers know to be on the lookout for the possibility, so it stops being a survival advantage over being right-handed and thus evolution ceases selecting for it and the percentage of people who are left-handed thus doesn't grow beyond 10% of the population.

I would tend to assume that homosexuality is one of those traits that evolution favors up to a certain percentage of the population. From the study on birds I cited in my earlier post, it appears that the percentage of homosexual males that evolution favors in a population is proportional to the polygamy within the population, and the percentage of homosexual females it favors is inversely proportional to the polygamy.

Anyway, the point is, that evolution can select for something due to its survival advantage without it eventually becoming a dominant trait within the species, because the trait's survival value decreases if there is too much of it within the population and so evolution ceases selecting for it at that point and a stable equilibrium is reached with different traits being present within the population at different levels. This is something that happens fairly regularly. (Again, this is why nothing about evolution is really 3rd grader stuff)

[carpedm9587]

Are you aware that it's quite common for evolution to select for a trait until it reaches a certain percentage of the population and then limit it beyond that?

Any time some particular trait becomes fully dominant in a population group (let's say, for example, the tendency to be kind and generous and altruistic toward all), there will be strategies that exploit that trait for minority gain (e.g. being a selfish jerk and hording all the group's resources). So evolution will start selecting for the new exploitative strategy as soon as it appears as it has superior survival value over the existing dominant strategy. But once such new minority strategies reach a decent minority percentage of the population (e.g. 10%), they become less and less effective, because the majority becomes aware they exist and starts countering them (e.g. the altruistic people learn to be on the lookout for those stealing the group's resources for themselves, because they've seen it happen before). So the society reaches an equilibrium state where the system is stable with a number of different traits that evolution has selected for up to certain points all at different percentages within the group.

Some have theorized, for example, that this is why a minority of people are left-handed: Because if a small percentage of the population is different handed to the majority, in any one-on-one physical combat they will have the element of surprise from being able to strike with a hand different to what the other person is expecting, and hence win the fight (and not die in it / win the rights to breed with the females etc). But once too many people become left-handed, the right-handers know to be on the lookout for the possibility, so it stops being a survival advantage over being right-handed and thus evolution ceases selecting for it and the percentage of people who are left-handed thus doesn't grow beyond 10% of the population.

I would tend to assume that homosexuality is one of those traits that evolution favors up to a certain percentage of the population. From the study on birds I cited in my earlier post, it appears that the percentage of homosexual males that evolution favors in a population is proportional to the polygamy within the population, and the percentage of homosexual females it favors is inversely proportional to the polygamy.

Anyway, the point is, that evolution can select for something due to its survival advantage without it eventually becoming a dominant trait within the species, because the trait's survival value decreases if there is too much of it within the population and so evolution ceases selecting for it at that point and a stable equilibrium is reached with different traits being present within the population at different levels. This is something that happens fairly regularly. (Again, this is why nothing about evolution is really 3rd grader stuff)

This is another reason why people need to stop thinking of evolution as "survival of the fittest." That model is simply too simplistic. If a survival trait provides short-term advantage, but long-term disadvantage, it will be selected for in the short term, and rejected in the long term. This is what I meant by the evolutionary jury being out on "sentience" and "self-awareness. It may well be that sentience provides a short-term advantage, causing it to explode the population. In the long term, the tendency of such beings to become self-involved and narcissistic may prove to be a long-term disadvantage, and result in selection against the species.

[seer]

If a survival trait provides short-term advantage, but long-term disadvantage, it will be selected for in the short term, and rejected in the long term.

How does homosexuality have any short or long term advantage?

[Starlight]

This is another reason why people need to stop thinking of evolution as "survival of the fittest." That model is simply too simplistic.

I don't have a problem with that phrase, but I think a lot of people are far too narrow in their understanding of "fittest". Because survival and interpersonal interactions are complicated, what makes for 'fittest' is not always a single species-wide generality but often a within-species clash of competing strategies that may each have their pros and cons.

I think one of the most interesting developments we've seen recently in evolutionary theory is a retraction of the scientific rejection of Lamarckian evolution. Lamarck had thought evolution happened by animals trying to do something during their lifetimes (e.g. giraffes stretching their necks to reach higher branches and thus achieving slightly longer necks) and that they would pass these changes to their offspring. Whereas Darwinian evolution (in its DNA based form) says that an animal's genes are fixed, and so what gets passed down to the offspring is fixed, and what affects it is only survival, so no amount of giraffes stretching their necks during their lives will change their offspring, but rather the giraffes who have short necks and can't reach the food will die and not have offspring and hence not pass down their short-necked DNA. So it was thought for a long time that Lamarck was totally wrong and Darwin was totally right. But, actually, the entirely new field of epigenetics has been discovered, because it turns out that DNA is adaptive and self-updating not fixed, and the DNA turns different pieces of itself off and on in response to needs from the environment. So if an animal needs to do something like stretch its neck constantly to reach higher food, then the DNA in its body will start tuning on genes to help it do that, and the child will be born with those genes turned on.

However, one of the most common manifestations of this inherited environmental response is actually really problematic for our society today: Stress. Humans seem to have a 'high stress mode' for want of a better term, built into our DNA, that was evolutionarily developed for times when our people were living in dangerous tiger & snake territory, and which turned off when our society moved into safe areas. So if a person is under stress a lot, the DNA will flip all the switches and turn on high stress mode, which sacrifices long term health for short turn survival: It turns up alertness, vigilance against incoming threats etc, which provides better short-term survival against danger, but it does so by sacrificing other biological processes that provide for longevity. So the person will likely no longer live to 80 because they'll likely die of a heart attack at 50 instead, but they're less likely to get bitten by the snake or eaten by the tiger because they're on constant alert, so are more likely to survive to reproduce. Their children are also born with high stress mode turned on. Eventually, over the generations once their society has moved to a different area, and isn't being constantly threatened, the DNA will spot this, and flip all the switches off, and the people will start living longer lives again in a less-heightened state of alertness.

But this has devastating effects in our modern societies where we don't suffer from physical threats to our lives on a constant basis. Because anyone suffering chronic stress is in danger of their DNA flipping to high stress mode and that flip is inherited by their children. The groups particularly at risk of this are stigmatized minority groups who suffer minority stress. At this stage there's no known treatment to deactivate the high stress mode in them or their children once its turned on. But presumably this is a major contributor to poor health outcomes and shorter life expectancy in minority groups.

If a survival trait provides short-term advantage, but long-term disadvantage, it will be selected for in the short term, and rejected in the long term.

True, but that's a bit different to what I was talking about, which is where it's common for a population to become full of different traits because those traits are each good when competing against each other. Whereas you are talking about general traits for the entire species and how they can fluctuate over time.

This is what I meant by the evolutionary jury being out on "sentience" and "self-awareness. It may well be that sentience provides a short-term advantage, causing it to explode the population. In the long term, the tendency of such beings to become self-involved and narcissistic may prove to be a long-term disadvantage, and result in selection against the species.

Yep. I am puzzled as to what to make of consciousness in general in terms of evolution. It is unclear to me what survival advantage it is providing.

[Starlight]

How does homosexuality have any short or long term advantage?

Well in the study on black swans they found that chicks raised by two male swans had a higher survival rate than chicks raised by heterosexual couples, because the two males were stronger and able to feed from / defend more territory and hence feed the offspring better. So evolution seems to have selected as a result for a pretty high rate of male-male couples (25%) among black swans.

In humans? The answer is a bit less clear. However, it's worth noting that in any polygamous society (and much of human history seems to be polygamous) you have spare males. Those males have to do something with their time. It seems likely a general advantage to the society that they be content with enjoying each others company rather than killing each other or constantly challenging the dominant male (who has the harem of females) for dominance.