Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I defined what morality is broadly defined to be: sorting out ought/ought-not actions.



    I've answered this. Sex is a genetically coded characteristic. Sex can/does factor into some moral decisions. But a genetically coded reality cannot be the sole basis for a moral decision, because then the decision is not being made about action/context, which is what moral decision-making is about.



    You asked what made them the same - I answered you.



    I have no idea what you are asking.



    At no point did I imply or even suggest anything like this.
    No but if "a genetically coded reality cannot be the sole basis for a moral decision" Then how can you say that being being a heroin addict is wrong? (You ought not to be addicted to heroin) if that person is genetically coded for addiction?

    If someone is genetically predisposed for some behavior, how can you say that they are acting immorally?

    Because it is not the genetics that determines if something is moral or not, it is the action. Being a heroin addict is wrong. Not because being an addict is wrong. You can be an addict and NOT be taking drugs. In recovery. So it is the act that is wrong.

    You are entitled to your opinion, Sparko, but I'm simply not going to keep repeating myself because you haven't read or don't remember or are ignoring my previous answer to the same question. However, you can review the answer here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543482
    Yeah I saw that!

    "Sparko - the ACT in a context is immoral. In this case, the context is disparate age, and it is actually the AGE (or more specifically, the difference in developmental status that age implies) that makes the act of pedophilia immoral. There is no problem with that. "

    You actually admitted that the AGE is what makes the act immoral. You are discriminating on AGE, just like I said. You just admitted to what I was saying in my example. You didn't ANSWER my question.

    WHY IS IT OK TO DISCRIMINATE ON AGE IN THAT CASE? Age is something you should not discriminate on someone with, correct? People can't help their age, so if you discriminate against someone based on a characteristic they can't control it is bigotry.

    I think this is one of those cases where you are pretending to misread what the other person is saying (playing dumb) so you can avoid admitting you are wrong.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      No but if "a genetically coded reality cannot be the sole basis for a moral decision" Then how can you say that being being a heroin addict is wrong? (You ought not to be addicted to heroin) if that person is genetically coded for addiction?

      If someone is genetically predisposed for some behavior, how can you say that they are acting immorally?
      What I have said, several times, is that a moral statement (moral/immoral) cannot be based solely on genetic coding. So "genetic predisposition for addiction" cannot be the sole criteria for saying that a heroin addict is or is not acting morally. That judgment has to be made on a different basis. You're reversing the logic and applying it in a way I am not saying.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Because it is not the genetics that determines if something is moral or not, it is the action. Being a heroin addict is wrong. Not because being an addict is wrong. You can be an addict and NOT be taking drugs. In recovery. So it is the act that is wrong.
      At no point have I said otherwise. I have specifically said, "genetics cannot be the sole determining factor for morality." Put another way (which I have also said before), if Action A is moral for Person P in Context Y, then Action X cannot be immoral for Person Q in Context Y is the only distinction is a difference in genetic make-up. If you think otherwise, then all you need to do is cite a agreed upon example where the same act, in the same context, is moral for one person and immoral for another solely on the basis of their genetics.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Yeah I saw that!

      "Sparko - the ACT in a context is immoral. In this case, the context is disparate age, and it is actually the AGE (or more specifically, the difference in developmental status that age implies) that makes the act of pedophilia immoral. There is no problem with that. "

      You actually admitted that the AGE is what makes the act immoral. You are discriminating on AGE, just like I said. You just admitted to what I was saying in my example. You didn't ANSWER my question.
      You are picking out one part of my answer and ignoring the rest. Read it again.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      WHY IS IT OK TO DISCRIMINATE ON AGE IN THAT CASE? Age is something you should not discriminate on someone with, correct? People can't help their age, so if you discriminate against someone based on a characteristic they can't control it is bigotry.

      I think this is one of those cases where you are pretending to misread what the other person is saying (playing dumb) so you can avoid admitting you are wrong.
      You do know that all caps is considered "shouting" in a written exchange, right? You're leaving the impression of losing it a tad.

      And I have answered your question. That you are being selective about what you read is not my concern. Read my response. The entire thing. The one you just copied. Your answer is there. You even bolded it. I think you can find it if you give it some thought.

      (hint: the parenthetical is important)

      And now I have a question for you. You pretty clearly find discussions with me frustrating and distasteful, and have said as much (so I'm not attempting to read minds). Why on earth do you keep engaging? If you find me to be so disingenuous, slippery, "playing dumb," and all of the other accusations you've levied over the months, why not just put me on ignore and go talk to someone you actually enjoy engaging with? I assure you, my feelings will not be hurt.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-18-2018, 03:31 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Well I don't see justification for wife rape in Scripture.
        As with all scripture, it depends how its interpreted. Biblically speaking, there was no such thing as “marital rape”. In Scripture, the only way rape was understood to exist was if a man forced himself on a woman who is not his property (not his wife, or concubine). And, on this basis, English common law, the source of much traditional law in the U.S had long held that it wasn’t legally possible for a man to rape his wife. Marriage was considered to constitute permanent consent that could not be retracted. This was the case until relatively recently.

        Nonsense, consent is not necessary for a culture to survive. Like we discussed in the past most societies in history lived under some form of totalitarian rule.
        That's got nothing to do with the changing values within society. Spousal consent was once not considered necessary in our society, now it is.
        Last edited by Tassman; 05-19-2018, 02:01 AM.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Yes, it is rare. My point was that you are narrowing your sexual definitions more than is warranted, given the wide array at work in the human population. However, I acknowledge that the vast bulk of the population is genetically wired to be physically male or female, and we'll leave the rest aside for now.



          Fair enough.



          I agree there is a more significant difference between male/female than between races. Since you have not made an argument, and we're just agreeing on facts (and good move, IMO), these are both genetically coded, and sex takes up more of the genome than race.
          great - progress!

          Here we part ways. You are attempting to focus everything about sex to procreation, but none of our experiences speaks to that reality. For humans, sex is both procreative and unitive (not to mention just plain fun). You cannot take the reasoning part of the human person out of the equation. We are not just any animal; we are reasoning animals. We are social animals. Indeed, in practice, sex is more about unity than procreation. Think about it for a moment: a couple with a 30 year marriage (like mine) that makes love once a week (minimally), will make love over 1500 times over 30 years. Families average 1.9 kids per family in the U.S. (yes, most of our population growth is coming from immigration). And love making continues long after procreation is possible.

          Sorry, Jim, but you cannot just narrowly define something to get to your goal. Unity and procreation both play important roles in the human species, and both have evolutionary value. I don't need evolution to be "mindful" to see that in operation.
          I'm just trying to define which facts we can agree on carpe. Your statement isn't a disagreement with the facts, just a concern over how I might use the facts. If we agree on the facts, you can make whatever arguments you want about how I use them when I lay out an argument using them. For now, unless you have a specific objection to the facts I mentioned in the previous statement, I'll take your lack of objection to the data/facts presented in the statement as tacit agreement. However, here is the statement again if you wish to disagree with the data/facts presented:

          Originally posted by Jim in the previous statement
          Sex - biologically - has nothing to do with love. From a purely scientific perspective, looking at it as the result of evolution, sex is about creating more humans. And all the elements around it (love, long term relationships etc etc) are about providing an environment where the species continues. It all developed because that is what made it more likely that our extremely long maturation process (as compared to other species) would complete and new humans would enter the world and the human race would continue. That is the only scientfic/materialistic/evolutionary 'purpose' that can possibly exist around any of this. From that point of view, all these things exist because they make it more likely humanity will survive another generation. Now clearly I believe there is more to it than that. But you can't. Evolution is purposeless, working within natural selection and random variation, and everything that develops exists because it does not interfere with or enhances the survival of the species.


          "Just" 90%? Jim, you appear to be setting up to make an argument on the basis of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Depending on who's numbers you believe, I have not seen homosexuality numbers that have ever exceeded 10%, and most believe the number is closer to 3-4%. So I have no clue how this statistic on your part, which has no association with reality, does anything to frame the argument. Also, I don't know where your math comes from, but we don't go from 7B to 5000 in "a few generations" even with only 10% of the population being heterosexual. That being said, there is no doubt that as the % of homosexuality increases, it would put downward pressure on population growth. If that is what you want to agree on, consider us agreed. The specific numbers involve too many variables to make accurate predictions.
          I said quite clearly I was making a point about same-sex relationships, not trying to establish anything about the actual rate of same sex attraction:

          Originally posted by jim
          It's not something I'm worried about, it's just making the point. same-sex attraction is not where evolution went nor where it is going unless we are destined for extinction.

          Part of the delay is I put together a simulation to test what happens with a sudden shift to 10% of the current birthrate. You can't use the standard formula for population growth in this instance because of the sudden shift in birthrate and the limited mortality of the existing population. The simulation parameters were all derived from current (2018) population stats, including global birth and death rates. Fertility rates where used to simulate changes in birth rate with an aging population and only 10% of the current birthrate replenishing the population (that is, the 90% same-sex ratio is maintained, and the number of births per heterosexual couple per year remains constant). Current population percentages at ages 0 to 100 where used to derive dynamically changing year over year death rates as the population both ages and declines. Simulation granularity was 1 year. The death rate climbs rather quickly before reaching another, higher, equilibrium point after about a 150 years or so, with the the population going below 1000 in about 462 years, If we use 40 years for a generation, that is 12 generations. It goes below my value of 5000 in 419 years, or 10.5 generations, so my seat of the pants estimate of 7 + a few more is actually right on. I validated the simulation predicts the current expected 2050 population within a few percent using the dynamically computed birth and death rates. My simulations extinction point would likely come sooner as there is a higher minimum population required to maintain our civilization - specifically the medical capabilities we have that make the death rate so low.

          And interesting aside: the population declines with global birthrate .7 times what we have now but continues to increase at .8. So the (admittedly simple) simulation would imply the maximum tolerance we have right now for an exclusive same-sex population is somewhere between 20 and 30%.

          All This was just to make sure I wasn't too far off and avoid further arguments on that point.


          But the point, and I'm not sure how you can disagree with it, is that same-sex attraction MUST remain a smaller percentage of the population or the population collapses. same-sex in a biologically heterosexual species can't become predominant or the norm. It is not what evolution would select for. Those are the points.

          Can you agree they are true?


          Understood. So...continuing on...



          As you noted, evolution does not have a "purpose." It is a term for a mindless process that is essentially a statistical reality: anything that provides a species with a survival edge will lead to that species surviving more in its environmental niche. Sex is one mechanism by which a species replicates itself with genetic variation, so species with this capability have an evolutionary edge because they scramble the gene pool continuously. Species that replicate asexually lack that benefit, so they can survive within their niches, but they see significantly less long-term variation.

          In the human species, sex also contributes to the social dynamic, forging unity, creating protective bonds, all of which itself provides a survival edge.
          We agree. Again, I am simply defining facts that we can agree upon. How I will use them is for later.


          You are correct that "why god did it" is a somewhat meaningless conversation for me. I have no problem listening to what you believe about that, but I will not have anything to contribute to that discussion until someone can show me that such a god actually exists.

          As for the rest of your post here, I have no doubt that "love" is a variation on "attraction" that originally emerged in the human person as a dynamic for bringing people together so procreation could happen. Those capable of "love" would be more likely to procreate, so their genes would be more likely to continue. Those capable of "love" would also be more likely to bond with their children, providing a safe environment for their care. But the communal nature of society cannot be ignored. "Love" also plays a role in bonding groups and communities, and there is safety in numbers, which also enhances survival. The same basic capability provides evolutionary advantage in multiple ways. You appear to be attempting to link it to one way: procreation. I do not consider that valid.
          Again - just looking at basic facts and what we can or can't agree on. When I start trying to make an argument one way or the other, we can discuss if the facts I use apply to whatever argument is being made.


          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-19-2018, 02:21 PM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            great - progress!

            I'm just trying to define which facts we can agree on carpe. Your statement isn't a disagreement with the facts, just a concern over how I might use the facts. If we agree on the facts, you can make whatever arguments you want about how I use them when I lay out an argument using them. For now, unless you have a specific objection to the facts I mentioned in the previous statement, I'll take your lack of objection to the data/facts presented in the statement as tacit agreement. However, here is the statement again if you wish to disagree with the data/facts presented:

            I said quite clearly I was making a point about same-sex relationships, not trying to establish anything about the actual rate of same sex attraction:

            Part of the delay is I put together a simulation to test what happens with a sudden shift to 10% of the current birthrate. You can't use the standard formula for population growth in this instance because of the sudden shift in birthrate and the limited mortality of the existing population. The simulation parameters were all derived from current (2018) population stats, including global birth and death rates. Fertility rates where used to simulate changes in birth rate with an aging population and only 10% of the current birthrate replenishing the population (that is, the 90% same-sex ratio is maintained, and the number of births per heterosexual couple per year remains constant). Current population percentages at ages 0 to 100 where used to derive dynamically changing year over year death rates as the population both ages and declines. Simulation granularity was 1 year. The death rate climbs rather quickly before reaching another, higher, equilibrium point after about a 150 years or so, with the the population going below 1000 in about 462 years, If we use 40 years for a generation, that is 12 generations. It goes below my value of 5000 in 419 years, or 10.5 generations, so my seat of the pants estimate of 7 + a few more is actually right on. I validated the simulation predicts the current expected 2050 population within a few percent using the dynamically computed birth and death rates. My simulations extinction point would likely come sooner as there is a higher minimum population required to maintain our civilization - specifically the medical capabilities we have that make the death rate so low.

            And interesting aside: the population declines with global birthrate .7 times what we have now but continues to increase at .8. So the (admittedly simple) simulation would imply the maximum tolerance we have right now for an exclusive same-sex population is somewhere between 20 and 30%.

            All This was just to make sure I wasn't too far off and avoid further arguments on that point.
            You are tossing a lot of numbers around with no mathematical model against which to judge them, and you are making a LOT of assumptions. I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. The best I can tell you is, if the rate of births per couple drops too low, population will decline. That can be affected by a high homo/hetero ratio. Push it high enough and it is possible for the population to collapse. That's as much as I can say with the information provided. Without a mathematical model to work with and assess, I can say nothing about your numbers.

            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            But the point, and I'm not sure how you can disagree with it, is that same-sex attraction MUST remain a smaller percentage of the population or the population collapses. same-sex in a biologically heterosexual species can't become predominant or the norm. It is not what evolution would select for. Those are the points.

            Can you agree they are true?
            No, I cannot. I can say that if the proportion of homosexual/heterosexual couples becomes too high, the population can collapse. I have no numbers to work with to determine what that proportion would be, and there are too many variables to make a reasonable guess.

            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            We agree. Again, I am simply defining facts that we can agree upon. How I will use them is for later.

            Again - just looking at basic facts and what we can or can't agree on. When I start trying to make an argument one way or the other, we can discuss if the facts I use apply to whatever argument is being made.

            Jim
            I keep waiting for a point to be made here. I guess I'll keep waiting...
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              You are tossing a lot of numbers around with no mathematical model against which to judge them, and you are making a LOT of assumptions. I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. The best I can tell you is, if the rate of births per couple drops too low, population will decline. That can be affected by a high homo/hetero ratio. Push it high enough and it is possible for the population to collapse. That's as much as I can say with the information provided. Without a mathematical model to work with and assess, I can say nothing about your numbers.
              Still dancing I see.


              No, I cannot. I can say that if the proportion of homosexual/heterosexual couples becomes too high, the population can collapse. I have no numbers to work with to determine what that proportion would be, and there are too many variables to make a reasonable guess.
              Nope, changing the question is not acceptable. same-sex relationships can't produce children. Hetero-sexual relationships can and do. So if there are 'too many' same-sex relationships that are exclusively same-sex, it will eventually result in a population collapse.

              This is not debatable. It's a simple fact. The fact there are other factors that could also create a problem is irrelevant to the fact itself. For a population to be sustained, there must be as many members created over a given time as die in that same time (on average). When fewer members are created than die, the population shrinks. If that happens for too long, the population goes extinct. So evolution does not select for 'too many' same-sex members. "Too many" same-sex members is destructive to the species survival. The species' survival depends on there being a sufficient quantity of heterosexual members. Overpopulation due to 'too many' heterosexual members is, however, self-correcting. Not enough resources, members die, population goes back to a sustainable level. A sustained quirk that produces "too many' same-sex members is however a death sentence for the species. There is no equivalence here.

              I chose 90% because any reasonable person would have to admit that is 'too many'. But you can't. So my conclusion from your protracted dance around this issue is that you simply can't reason objectively about this problem.


              I keep waiting for a point to be made here. I guess I'll keep waiting...
              The point has been made Carpe - although it was not my intended path for the discussion nor my intended point. My intended path was to lay out some basics facts and see if we could agree on them. But in this case what has happened is that the process of trying to establish basic facts has brought out into stark relief just how unable you are to admit a potentially negative truth about same-sex relationships. Being able to face and admit basic truths is fundamental to a reasoned discussion.

              So there is no possibility of a reasoned discussion here on this topic with you. We should move on now.



              Jim
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • I never saw this post of your carpe:


                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                So let me be clear: same-sex relationships do not (yet) produce children. At the current state of our technology, if there were too many same-sex couples, population growth would cease and population contraction would begin. The level at which it would stabilize would depend entirely on the distribution of same-sex/opposite-sex couples and the birthrate of opposite-sex couples. At the extreme, with 100% same-sex, the human population would end within a century.

                Does that help clarify?
                It does. So it does seem you can acknowledge the obvious. Sorry I missed this post.


                Your numbers are fuzzy, Jim, and make huge assumptions about variables not included. Your 10% is percentage of couples that are opposite sex one moment, and population production the next. Your numbers completely omit simple things like average births per couple, etc. So when you make explicit claims like "collapse to 5,000 people in a few generations," you just cannot come to those conclusions on the basis of the information you're using.
                I really should learn that when people are looking for an argument, they can't accept that you are just trying to make a very simple point. There is nothing fuzzy carpe. I mentioned the only variable I was changing - number of same-sex people. The assumption was everything as it is right now (in terms of percent heterosexual couples making children, death rates etc etc etc), just change the percent same sex from whatever it is now to 90%. I think an simple reading of my posts without reading anything else into them would reveal that is all I was saying and all I ever said or implied.

                So why don't we just stay with a simple fact: with today's technology, same-sex couples do not produce children and too high a level of same-sex couples can lead to population collapse. No problem acknowledging that whatsoever.
                How about that. Again sorry I missed this post - that is all I was looking for Carpe. It seemed so simple and I just couldn't figure out why it was becoming such a big deal. I still have no clue why it took you so long to say that.


                If you make specific claims without adequate backing, my science/mathematics/philosophical background kicks in and I'll refute them as unsubstantiated. However, it appears my statement (above) may have met your requirement here.
                It really was supposed to be just a very simple hypothetical carpe. I don't know why in the world you got all wrapped around over it. I guess if I had said 100% maybe you'd wouldn't have been looking for a trap somewhere and could have just given a straight up answer. I have no idea though how in the world I could have known that you'd go all crazy over the whole thing.

                If you make statements that are adequately backed up, then we will move forward. I WILL challenge statements I perceive as not adequately supported in the course of making an argument. If that is unacceptable, then you are right that there is no room for meaningful discussion and we should just put a fork in it. As for the rest here, you appear to be going back to the mind-reading and personal accusations. You are certainly free to do that, but they don't do much to advance your argument. They're pretty much a waste of time. You waste time writing them, and I waste time reading them, making me less inclined to want to read and more inclined to move on to the next discussion. So...up to you...

                Meanwhile, if you have a point, perhaps you'd consider making it so we can see what it's strengths and weaknesses are?
                It was adequately backed up. It was trivially simple, and obvious what the conclusion would be. You just didn't seem to understand that the only variable I was changing was the percent same-sex. And I have no idea why you did not get that. But in the end the answer you gave above was all I was looking for. Too many same-sex population members and the population collapses.

                As for making a point. Honestly, I'm just not up to the verbal dancing required to do that with you.


                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-20-2018, 08:13 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Still dancing I see.

                  Nope, changing the question is not acceptable. same-sex relationships can't produce children. Hetero-sexual relationships can and do. So if there are 'too many' same-sex relationships that are exclusively same-sex, it will eventually result in a population collapse.

                  This is not debatable. It's a simple fact. The fact there are other factors that could also create a problem is irrelevant to the fact itself. For a population to be sustained, there must be as many members created over a given time as die in that same time (on average). When fewer members are created than die, the population shrinks. If that happens for too long, the population goes extinct. So evolution does not select for 'too many' same-sex members. "Too many" same-sex members is destructive to the species survival. The species' survival depends on there being a sufficient quantity of heterosexual members. Overpopulation due to 'too many' heterosexual members is, however, self-correcting. Not enough resources, members die, population goes back to a sustainable level. A sustained quirk that produces "too many' same-sex members is however a death sentence for the species. There is no equivalence here.

                  I chose 90% because any reasonable person would have to admit that is 'too many'. But you can't. So my conclusion from your protracted dance around this issue is that you simply can't reason objectively about this problem.

                  The point has been made Carpe - although it was not my intended path for the discussion nor my intended point. My intended path was to lay out some basics facts and see if we could agree on them. But in this case what has happened is that the process of trying to establish basic facts has brought out into stark relief just how unable you are to admit a potentially negative truth about same-sex relationships. Being able to face and admit basic truths is fundamental to a reasoned discussion.

                  So there is no possibility of a reasoned discussion here on this topic with you. We should move on now.

                  Jim
                  As you wish, Jim.

                  That was a LOT of posting for not really getting much of anywhere...
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    I never saw this post of your carpe:




                    It does. So it does seem you can acknowledge the obvious. Sorry I missed this post.




                    I really should learn that when people are looking for an argument, they can't accept that you are just trying to make a very simple point. There is nothing fuzzy carpe. I mentioned the only variable I was changing - number of same-sex people. The assumption was everything as it is right now (in terms of percent heterosexual couples making children, death rates etc etc etc), just change the percent same sex from whatever it is now to 90%. I think an simple reading of my posts without reading anything else into them would reveal that is all I was saying and all I ever said or implied.



                    How about that. Again sorry I missed this post - that is all I was looking for Carpe. It seemed so simple and I just couldn't figure out why it was becoming such a big deal. I still have no clue why it took you so long to say that.




                    It really was supposed to be just a very simple hypothetical carpe. I don't know why in the world you got all wrapped around over it. I guess if I had said 100% maybe you'd wouldn't have been looking for a trap somewhere and could have just given a straight up answer. I have no idea though how in the world I could have known that you'd go all crazy over the whole thing.



                    It was adequately backed up. It was trivially simple, and obvious what the conclusion would be. You just didn't seem to understand that the only variable I was changing was the percent same-sex. And I have no idea why you did not get that. But in the end the answer you gave above was all I was looking for. Too many same-sex population members and the population collapses.

                    As for making a point. Honestly, I'm just not up to the verbal dancing required to do that with you.


                    Jim
                    Your numbers are thrown around without support - so the best I can do is acknowledge the obvious: gay couples do not (yet) produce children. At what point populations become unstable is un-established by you- but the point does exist, which I now have acknowledged numerous times. If you need me to affirm your numbers, you'll have to show the models on which they are based. Otherwise...

                    If being unwilling to buy into unsubstantiated numerical claims means I'm "dancing," so be it. And I have to admit that I too am getting somewhat weary of your incessant whining about my postings not being to your satisfaction. When/if you decide to engage in an adult conversation, please do let me know. You know where to find me.

                    Michel
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Your numbers are thrown around without support - so the best I can do is acknowledge the obvious: gay couples do not (yet) produce children.
                      A gay couple and a lesbian couple teaming up to have kids together is a reasonably common thing. So there's no inherent limit to the number of kids homosexual couples can have, just as with heterosexual couples. The number they choose to have is purely a function of culture, finances, and desire.

                      If the birth rate at the present time for same-sex couples on average happens to be lower than the birth rate for opposite-sex couples on average, so what? That might change, it might not, who knows?


                      The whole idea of accurately modelling population dynamics any significant distance into the future largely has to be treated as a joke. Cultural, technological, financial, political and medical changes have hugely shaped population growth rates in the past and present, and presumably they will continue to do so. Obviously medical advances may make it possible for same-sex couples to have children. Obviously if lack of population growth becomes a problem, governments will step in to incentivize having children with increasingly lucrative offers of financial support. If the coming wave of robots ever gets to the point where robots start replacing humans in jobs, our society will probably scale down the number of hours in a human work-week and people will have more time at home for leisure, relaxation, and raising children, and we could see the birth rates significantly increase. Any idea that our population would gradually die off if we have some same-sex families is such a huge joke it's just absurd.


                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      But the point, and I'm not sure how you can disagree with it, is that same-sex attraction MUST remain a smaller percentage of the population or the population collapses. same-sex in a biologically heterosexual species can't become predominant or the norm.
                      That claim doesn't make any sense. If you're assuming that same-sex couples can't have children by scientific interventions, nor by partnering with other same-sex couples of the opposite sex to conceive shared children, and thus are assuming that same-sex couples have no children... Even then your point doesn't work, because if the heterosexual couples are extremely fertile they can still make up for the same-sex couples lack of reproduction. That's pretty easy in animals that have large litters like cats or dogs, though it's somewhat harder in humans who are probably biologically limited to about 15 children in the lifetime of any fertile female. So in humans you probably can't have more than about 6/7ths of the population being homosexual, given the improbable assumptions that homosexuals can't have children and that the heterosexual couple is catholic and hasn't heard of contraception.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        As you wish, Jim.

                        That was a LOT of posting for not really getting much of anywhere...
                        That was all you.

                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          A gay couple and a lesbian couple teaming up to have kids together is a reasonably common thing. So there's no inherent limit to the number of kids homosexual couples can have, just as with heterosexual couples. The number they choose to have is purely a function of culture, finances, and desire.

                          If the birth rate at the present time for same-sex couples on average happens to be lower than the birth rate for opposite-sex couples on average, so what? That might change, it might not, who knows?

                          The whole idea of accurately modelling population dynamics any significant distance into the future largely has to be treated as a joke. Cultural, technological, financial, political and medical changes have hugely shaped population growth rates in the past and present, and presumably they will continue to do so. Obviously medical advances may make it possible for same-sex couples to have children. Obviously if lack of population growth becomes a problem, governments will step in to incentivize having children with increasingly lucrative offers of financial support. If the coming wave of robots ever gets to the point where robots start replacing humans in jobs, our society will probably scale down the number of hours in a human work-week and people will have more time at home for leisure, relaxation, and raising children, and we could see the birth rates significantly increase. Any idea that our population would gradually die off if we have some same-sex families is such a huge joke it's just absurd.


                          That claim doesn't make any sense. If you're assuming that same-sex couples can't have children by scientific interventions, nor by partnering with other same-sex couples of the opposite sex to conceive shared children, and thus are assuming that same-sex couples have no children... Even then your point doesn't work, because if the heterosexual couples are extremely fertile they can still make up for the same-sex couples lack of reproduction. That's pretty easy in animals that have large litters like cats or dogs, though it's somewhat harder in humans who are probably biologically limited to about 15 children in the lifetime of any fertile female. So in humans you probably can't have more than about 6/7ths of the population being homosexual, given the improbable assumptions that homosexuals can't have children and that the heterosexual couple is catholic and hasn't heard of contraception.
                          For whatever reason, Jim appears locked into this 90% number and, if I don't agree, I'm "dancing." He provides a long list of numbers, but no mathematical model for arriving at them. Variables he does NOT consider, but appears to believe are "fixed" include the reproductive rate of heterosexual couples, medical advances that lengthen both the fertility span and life span of heterosexual couples and, as you note, the entire industry of sperm banks and egg donations that female homosexual couples can (and do) access to get pregnant, and the world of adoption from both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

                          So I allowed him his "homosexual couples cannot produce children" to see where his argument was going, but it apparently wasn't going anywhere. We did manage to get a few more complaints about my "dancing" and "avoidance" and all of the rest that gets pointed my way when some folks here seem to have run out of responses.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            A gay couple and a lesbian couple...
                            ...walk into a bar....



                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              ...walk into a bar....



                              You'd think one of them would have ducked.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                For whatever reason, Jim appears locked into this 90% number and, if I don't agree, I'm "dancing." He provides a long list of numbers, but no mathematical model for arriving at them. Variables he does NOT consider, but appears to believe are "fixed" include the reproductive rate of heterosexual couples, medical advances that lengthen both the fertility span and life span of heterosexual couples and, as you note, the entire industry of sperm banks and egg donations that female homosexual couples can (and do) access to get pregnant, and the world of adoption from both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

                                So I allowed him his "homosexual couples cannot produce children" to see where his argument was going, but it apparently wasn't going anywhere. We did manage to get a few more complaints about my "dancing" and "avoidance" and all of the rest that gets pointed my way when some folks here seem to have run out of responses.
                                Please don't make stuff up.

                                I already explained the choice of 90%. I already explained I wrote my simulation for myself and have no intention of debating it in any form. It's would a ridiculous rabbit trail and of zero consequence relative to the point made.

                                Anyone anywhere with half a brain should be able to figure out a 90% reduction in human birthrate will lead to a population implosion. I just wanted to know if my time estimates for the implosion were in bounds with reality. There is no 'long list of numbers though I did share some of the insights my simulation gave into the dynamics of the process. But I'm not asking anyone anywhere to form any opinions based on its results. As I said, anyone anywhere with half a brain knows a permanent 90% reduction in human birthrate and the population implodes. To try to debate that is idiocy.


                                And I also posted I'd missed the post where you 'allowed that homosexual couples cannot produce children' and told you I took that as a final acceptance of my point.


                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X