quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).

---

The only thing they suffer, and have suffered for decades, is the way people like YOU treat them!



 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Some people deserve only the love of a necrophiliac.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Best wishes with a rusty farm implement.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
There is some evidence that being a stubborn conservative has a genetic component. The question is, are we going to embrace that evidence, or cling to a belief that Russ wilfully chooses to be the way he is?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If (and, it's a very big if) there turns out to be a small number of genes which have a different sequence than the majority of the population that is linked to homosexual orientation then that would actually open up a whole aisle of cans of worms.

1. Would there be people who share that minority version of the genes who consider themselves heterosexual? If so, would that mean that social expectations, upbringing etc could override the genetic bias? Or, does it mean that those people are faking their heterosexuality?

2. Would there be people who do not that minority version of the genes who consider themselves homosexual? If so, would that mean that social expectations, upbringing etc could override the genetic bias? Or, does it mean that those people are faking their homosexuality?

3. Does that mean that homosexuality is a genetic disease? If so, seeking a genetic correction therapy would be understandable. Or, if not then those unfortunate enough to share these unusual genetic variants are to be pitied.

etc.

Most, if not all, of which play into the hands of homophobes. Though, pointing out that in the event of such a genetic marker being found that the homophobes will have a whole load of new ammunition to fire isn't, I believe, in itself homophobic.

Though, I expect that if there are genetic variations that cause homosexual tendancies they will be spread across a very large number of genes, and in each individual case the variations in that gene are well within the normal variability of genes. Which would make homosexuality within the range of normal as well.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
If we suppose that homosexuality is due to a small number of isolated genes that could be altered to give a different result, and we also suppose that red hair is due to a small number of isolated genes that could be altered to give a different result, does that mean that

quote:

---

scientists would try to cure red-headedness (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If someone says they are this way or that, please don't argue. They know themselves better than you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).

---

The only thing they suffer, and have suffered for decades, is the way people like YOU treat them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm guessing you'd accept that we could make much the same arguments for the elimination of men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm guessing you'd accept that we could make much the same arguments for the elimination of men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No one seems to understand that genetics do not determine complex human behaviour, personality etc. Genetics aren't meaningless but it is over-interpreted as to importance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Much of this conversation seems to be premised on an idea that genetics are all-or-nothing. Which is total rubbish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Some people deserve only the love of a necrophiliac.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Some people deserve only the love of a necrophiliac.

---

That's cold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would someone please point me to the thread in question? Thx.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If we suppose that homosexuality is due to a small number of isolated genes that could be altered to give a different result, and we also suppose that red hair is due to a small number of isolated genes that could be altered to give a different result, does that mean that

quote:

---

scientists would try to cure red-headedness (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition)

---

or that Russ is an insufferable arsehat for thinking that homosexuality needs to be 'cured'.

---

quote:

---

scientists would try to cure being an insufferable arsehat (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:


I've kind of figured that only people born with a disorder/"disorder" have the right to decide whether to cure the disorder in themselves, and in new babies with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, now you're really making the case for finding a cure for conservatism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I was talking about autism. I think that's what my post says, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, now you're really making the case for finding a cure for conservatism.

---

You think it's conservative to want to have a conversation with your child?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I was talking about autism. I think that's what my post says, isn't it?

---

The autism was an analogy for the need of a cure and the choice given to the person who has it - in relation to homosexuals.

Do you think homosexuals need or should be offered a cure, if there were such a thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, now you're really making the case for finding a cure for conservatism.

---

You think it's conservative to want to have a conversation with your child?

---

No, I think that if the measure we're using is capacity to cause suffering in others, then narrow-minded conservatism (which, as I said, shows evidence of a genetic component) is an extremely serious condition.

My remark wasn't intended to relate to autism in the slightest, only to the logic that you're employing. Sorry if that was too abstract for you.

---

Wow but my cogs are turning slowly today. Could you fetch me a coffee please.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Let's not kid ourselves about a cure for autism. It's not going to happen. Very often when people talk about curing autism, what they actually mean is genetic testing that would allow parents to abort a foetus so they never have to raise an autistic kid. That's another reason why many ASD people take issue with the "cure" rhetoric. You're not going to find the magic medicine that completely rewires someone's brain and makes them neurotypical. Hell it's not like we can even do that with Down's, and we know what's going on there with genes. Test and abort has become the norm for Down's.

Probably if we ever find a gay gene the test and abort option is the furthest we'll get.

Therapies that help autistic people to cope with the world and to live independent lives are not a cure. They don't make anyone less autistic. I think we'll make a lot of progress in this area and it'll make raising that autistic kid a lot easier, and it'll make life easier for autistic people too. But it's not ever going to be a cure.

Incidentally there's a good bit of crossover here, since I believe ASD women (like me!) have about a 65% occurance of self-identifying as bisexual (like me!). I know, I know, citation needed and all. No time to find it just now.

So if genetic testing becomes available, I predict it's going to fuck with some fundie brains as the opposition to homosexuality does battle with the opposition to abortion.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Erroneous Monk - when will you get it into your thick skull that LGBT people do not require a cure of any kind. They do not have a disorder, they don't harm other people (any more than heterosexuals do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:


So if genetic testing becomes available, I predict it's going to fuck with some fundie brains as the opposition to homosexuality does battle with the opposition to abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Erroneous Monk - when will you get it into your thick skull that LGBT people do not require a cure of any kind. They do not have a disorder, they don't harm other people (any more than heterosexuals do).

---

You have defined sexual preference as accidental, just like hair colour might be, rather than as having a normal function and impairments thereof, just like being normal vs. long / short sighted or even blind might be. Is there any particular reason why you think so? Having very strong feelings about it doesn't really count...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Relating all this to genetics is really a distraction. Then we are talking about genetic variability vs. genetic defects. But the judgement which one it is really comes from the functional level discussed above - a mutation in hair colour would generally be considered as part of the variability, not as a defect. Whereas congenital blindness would generally be considered as a defect, not as variability. What homosexuality should count as is not really "in the genes", even if it should turn out that it depends strongly on genetics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My brother's father in law was a Yorkshire farmer. He was married and had six children before he came out as gay in his 60s. He had a very tough time, as did his wife. Long before he came out, three of his children came out as gay. Three are heterosexual. This is the reason for my strong feelings that there is no choice involved in sexuality and that we need to accept people's sexuality entirely on how they identify. Nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transexual are all variations in human sexuality and we should all have equality under the law. None of us know how or why these variations occur - and it doesn't really matter. I also believe that the Church should have been saying this for years (all of the Church but especially the leaders)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We of course know that not all homosexuality is "inescapable". There are bisexuals, for example, and teenage homosexual experimentation which does not stick is supposedly quite common.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Keira Knightley

---

Known in our household as "Twice" Knightley...

[ 11. August 2015, 14:09: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
While we're on the subject of homophobes,
get thyself to hell John Sentamu:
http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/8609
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's probably worth mentioning at this point that I was discussing Bend It Like Beckham with a work colleague last week. Can't remember exactly why.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm gay because Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes my heart race and my knees go weak

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm gay because Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes my heart race and my knees go weak

---

Nobody, on or off the screen, really makes my heart race or my knees go weak. Am I asexual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
A capitalist, a communist and an anarchist all have different attitudes to the concept of "property", which can lead to very different actions as far as for example "your" land is concerned. Yet while our state is somewhat indifferent to the ideology we might hold, it is decidedly not indifferent to the kind of actions that can follow from these ideologies. The capitalist ideology is normative, and actions that are not in accord with it are frowned upon. And if you deviate too much from this in what you actually do, then the state will not tolerate it.

This hopefully shows that we do not generally declare "all things equal" across the board, for any sort of action. Indeed, we have very specific ideas about what sort of things should be treated "as equal" in spite of clearly being different. There are real issues here. It is simply not obvious that all sexual actions should have the same value to us. (It may be obvious that most of our compatriots think so now, but that's basically a "might makes right" argument.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
.... we have very specific ideas about what sort of things should be treated "as equal" in spite of clearly being different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm gay because Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes my heart race and my knees go weak

---

Nobody, on or off the screen, really makes my heart race or my knees go weak. Am I asexual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We of course know that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We of course know that...

---

It's been my experience on the internet that this phrase is usually followed by an unsubstantiated assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We of course know that...

---

It's been my experience on the internet that this phrase is usually followed by an unsubstantiated assertion.

---

Is there another kind of assertion?

---

Yes, but is now the time to talk about corporate reporting?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm gay because Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes my heart race and my knees go weak

---

Nobody, on or off the screen, really makes my heart race or my knees go weak. Am I asexual?

---

Maybe. I am and no one makes me want to jump them. I try to explain it to people by likening it to them knowing a person is attractive but that person not being the gender they like so there isn't anything sexual there. Granted since I don't really know what sexual attraction is supposed to feel like I am flying a bit blind but I do my best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't begin to think how your brain must work...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).

---

:

---

Hi Boogie,

Good of you to invite me to your place.

Which half of the quote are you objecting to ? The bit which says that if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ? Or the bit which says that I'm not advocating that such a cure be forced on anyone but leave it to them to decide ?

Or is it just the rather stilted English sentence ? Or the over-simplified picture of genetics ?

If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality. In exactly the same way as treatment for his goofy teeth. And for the same reason - to improve the quality of his future life. And get it done in childhood, before adolescence kicks in...

If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would someone please point me to the thread in question? Thx.

---

Boogie provided the link in the opening post.

Or you could just wander over to Dead Horses. You can't miss it, it's where most of the chunks of decaying flesh are being flayed off at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:


Which half of the quote are you objecting to ? The bit which says that if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ? Or the bit which says that I'm not advocating that such a cure be forced on anyone but leave it to them to decide ?

Or is it just the rather stilted English sentence ? Or the over-simplified picture of genetics ?

If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality. In exactly the same way as treatment for his goofy teeth. And for the same reason - to improve the quality of his future life. And get it done in childhood, before adolescence kicks in...

If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.

---

I have highlighted the part I object to, in the strongest possible terms. I very, very rarely swear and almost never in print. But this attitude of yours warranted it in my OP in my view. Your lack of kindness and thought for LGBT people absolutely astounds me. Even now you are flippantly equating one of the deepest, most important aspects of a person with goofy teeth. Words fail me.

I am also irritated when you deliver person shattering comments with 'best wishes'. You do
not wish LGBT well, you wish them abject misery.



 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Boogie, you're a mate of mine - I understand your anger, I respect your views, I really do - this is a battle I have been fighting all my life, even within my own family.

But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT. I really think you're wasting your breath, or your fingers on the keyboard.

These are the people who, not many generations were using The Curse of Ham to justify racism; who were, more recently and still today, using concepts of Male Headship to justify sexism; who centuries ago expelled the Jews from Britain. All very justified & righteous, in their view, Christian actions and viewpoints.

We need to love them and cherish them - but we don't need to listen to them and their barnpot notions or take them too seriously. It really is a waste of energy.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ?

---

Why do you refer to homosexuality as a defect?

Do you consider homosexuals to be defective?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT. I really think you're wasting your breath, or your fingers on the keyboard.

---

Thank you WW Yes, you are right, it's time I left them to it. I feel very deeply for all who suffer this way and the fact that it's Christians causing it does my head in and makes me want to leave the Church to it.

But I am very lucky IRL, I know no people like this, even in my con-evo Methodist Church (unless they save their real thoughts until they are 'privately' online of course, which is always possible)
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

The function of sexual attraction is to create a bond. If you think that the only purpose of that bond is to make babies, then you are a freaking idiot. In a world where homosexuals are sometimes accused of loveless sex, YOU would be reducing human beings to carriers of genes. Not me, you. YOU would be mounting an argument for your wife to divorce you once the kids have grown up and moved out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

The function of sexual attraction is to create a bond. If you think that the only purpose of that bond is to make babies, then you are a freaking idiot. In a world where homosexuals are sometimes accused of loveless sex, YOU would be reducing human beings to carriers of genes. Not me, you. YOU would be mounting an argument for your wife to divorce you once the kids have grown up and moved out.

---

Preach, preach, preach it from the rooftops. Copulation is about procreation; lizards do that. Sex is about pair bonding, and therefore means affection, foreplay, verbal and nonverbal communication are on an equal level of importance in strengthening the pair bond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT.

---

I prefer to think that a bigot is a bigot is a really good foundation for a patio.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are confusing 'what is the function of sexual desire' with 'what is the evolutionary explanation of the existence of sexual desire?'

The second question may have the answer you want, but it's pertinence to the question at hand is limited.
There were no doubt dinosaurs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.

---

• she wants to have a child
• she wants to deepen her emotional bond with her husband
• she's horny and wants sexual release
• she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness
• she wants to do something pleasing for her husband
• any combination of the above, plus a whole bunch of other potential motives I haven't thought of

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
cramped and joyless approach to sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
cramped and joyless approach to sex.

---

Welcome to conservative Christianity!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't. ...

---

quote:

---

And those who are getting hot under the collar might feel a little less so if they focused on the words that I struggle to put together rather than the attitudes that they imagine might lie behind them.

Just a thought...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are confusing 'what is the function of sexual desire' with 'what is the evolutionary explanation of the existence of sexual desire?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?

---

Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world...

Besides, Twilight asked nicely
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Best Fucking Wishes with a red hot poker,

Orfeo

---

Hmmm, wonder where you want to put that...

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?

---

Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Even now you are flippantly equating one of the deepest, most important aspects of a person with goofy teeth. Words fail me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For the record, I don't think you are hate-filled. But it is fairly difficult to conclude other than you are a bigot.

---

quote:

---

bigot
noun
1.
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?

---

Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world...

Besides, Twilight asked nicely

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.

---

I've always been skeptical of this "one true purpose" way of thinking. If a woman has sex with her (cisgendered) husband, she could be doing it because:

• she wants to have a child
• she wants to deepen her emotional bond with her husband
• she's horny and wants sexual release
• she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness
• she wants to do something pleasing for her husband
• any combination of the above, plus a whole bunch of other potential motives I haven't thought of

Under the "one true purpose/function" rubric, there's only valid reason on that list (which one it is varies by who's doing the choosing) and any sexual contact that doesn't involve it is just "making-do", which seems an especially cramped and joyless approach to sex.

---

quote:

---

a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
How am I less tolerant of opposing ideas than those who are arguing the other side of the question ? What makes you think that I am not as open to evidence or soundly-reasoned logical argument as anyone else is ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, the research doesn't support your ideas and you don't seem to have a functional understanding of genetics or behaviour and yet you reference them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.

---

Before my boys reached puberty I told them I was more than happy if they turned out to be gay and - if that were the case - to not be afraid of telling me.

Did I mean it? Of course. But I would have worried about them due to the bigotry and discrimination which is still rife, even among otherwise good, reasonable people
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
One of the biggest predictors of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers. Researchers have postulated that the mechanism there was none of those you've given. One of the other links to later homosexuality is the level of in utero exposure to testosterone. The researchers postulated that something happens in utero to younger sons to reduce the testosterone exposure - that maybe the mother gets better at mopping up any excess testerone in the system, reducing in utero levels.

Both these observations point to a pre-natal mechanism, but no one explanation covers all cases of homosexuality; it looks to be something that can be caused by a number of different routes.

In answer to your question, Russ, cases like David Reimer are enough to make me think we have to be careful. We are very good at assuming a little knowledge leads us to know everything, gender and sexuality are complicated and we don't know enough to be able to tamper with them.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Agreed, "defective gene" is an over-simplification. It's not an explanation I'm committed to. It has the merit that nobody is to blame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
.... If the process involves multiple stages (susceptibility plus trigger), does that not imply more possibility for future medical intervention, rather than less ?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point. The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.

---

quote:

---

Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point.

---

quote:

---

The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the biggest predictors of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers. Researchers have postulated that the mechanism there was none of those you've given. One of the other links to later homosexuality is the level of in utero exposure to testosterone. The researchers postulated that something happens in utero to younger sons to reduce the testosterone exposure - that maybe the mother gets better at mopping up any excess testerone in the system, reducing in utero levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, the research doesn't support your ideas and you don't seem to have a functional understanding of genetics or behaviour and yet you reference them.

---

OK, let's start with the science. Perhaps you could summarise what it is that you think research tells us that I am choosing to ignore ? You helpfully provided a link earlier. It seemed to say that
- scientists have not so far discovered how homosexuality is caused
- the best conjecture at this stage is that it involves some combination of genetic susceptibility and post-natal environmental trigger
- but it's fairly clear that homosexuality is not a choice that people make.

Is that your understanding also ? Is there a key point I've missed ?

Agreed, "defective gene" is an over-simplification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The interesting question ISTM is the philosophical one - if there were either a cure or a preventative, would you want it for your children ? I've said yes. So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.

---

quote:

---

Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point. The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
We are very good at assuming a little knowledge leads us to know everything, gender and sexuality are complicated and we don't know enough to be able to tamper with them.

---

Thanks, Curiosity. That's the most sensible, reasoned response I've heard yet.

I find it quite frightening, sometimes. The potential for the human race to screw up the human race by obtaining the power to mould the next generation according to whatever physical appearance or personality type (or gender) happens to be in fashion this year. Proceeding with extreme caution sounds wise.
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
As it's pertinent to this thread, here's a masterclass in how to respond to the hatred of homophobia.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
We are very good at assuming a little knowledge leads us to know everything, gender and sexuality are complicated and we don't know enough to be able to tamper with them.

---

Thanks, Curiosity. That's the most sensible, reasoned response I've heard yet.

I find it quite frightening, sometimes. The potential for the human race to screw up the human race by obtaining the power to mould the next generation according to whatever physical appearance or personality type (or gender) happens to be in fashion this year. Proceeding with extreme caution sounds wise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I find it quite frightening, sometimes. The potential for the human race to screw up the human race by obtaining the power to mould the next generation according to whatever physical appearance or personality type (or gender) happens to be in fashion this year. Proceeding with extreme caution sounds wise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
As it's pertinent to this thread, here's a masterclass in how to respond to the hatred of homophobia.

---

Wonderful!

 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If you're suggesting that dinosaurs died out because they chose not to learn to fly then maybe it's a waste of time trying to talk science with you. Just maybe keeping warm was the critical factor...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Before my boys reached puberty I told them I was more than happy if they turned out to be gay and - if that were the case - to not be afraid of telling me.

Did I mean it? Of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Three, it is a fallacy to state that both sides of every argument have equal merit.

---

quote:

---

Four, you insist on a particular interpretation of a few bible passages, but totally ignore or discount inconvenient bits.

---

quote:

---

Five, the position of equal marriage has no functional effect on you. Your position has had a very real effect on LGBT people for a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... I find that hard to believe. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ:

If your child was born left-handed, would you have the child undergo treatment to change that?

Being LGB (not sure about T) is like being left-handed, and has been loaded down with the same cultural fears. It's a difference. Sometimes, people are born that way; sometimes, there may be other factors; and, sometimes, people might step outside their usual zone, and find they like it.

I grew up fundamentalist, and I've found the left-handed analogy useful. FWIW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"It's not your fault, you're just defective" is hardly a ringing endorsement is it?

---

quote:

---

If you can grasp that a woman is not a defective man, and that a black person is not a white person with an unfortunate melanin problem, then you ought to be able to bloody grasp that the end result of whatever led me to be homosexual (and there's fair evidence that it was pre-natal, not post-natal) does not have to be portrayed as "oh dear, really you were supposed to be heterosexual but something went terribly wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I find it quite frightening, sometimes. The potential for the human race to screw up the human race by obtaining the power to mould the next generation according to whatever physical appearance or personality type (or gender) happens to be in fashion this year. Proceeding with extreme caution sounds wise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Gosh, Orfeo, that's almost a reasoned argument. If you prefaced it with an explanation of why homosexuality is a thing llike race and gender (despite not being genetic) and concluded that therefore it is appropriate to respond to differences of sexuality in the same way as to differences of race and gender, you might stand some chance of convincing people.

Instead of getting all offended because your Guardian-reading prejudices aren't universally shared.

(Oops! Does that count as an insult ? )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
As it's pertinent to this thread, here's a masterclass in how to respond to the hatred of homophobia.

---

Wonderful!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Your sexual desire for your own gender is one of the less-than-ideal things about you. In terms of the ideals I hold to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
As it's pertinent to this thread, here's a masterclass in how to respond to the hatred of homophobia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I find it quite frightening, sometimes. The potential for the human race to screw up the human race by obtaining the power to mould the next generation according to whatever physical appearance or personality type (or gender) happens to be in fashion this year. Proceeding with extreme caution sounds wise.

---

quote:

---

Your sexual desire for your own gender is one of the less-than-ideal things about you. In terms of the ideals I hold to.

---

quote:

---

Ideals in which buggery has no place.

---

quote:

---

If you prefaced it with an explanation of why homosexuality is a thing like race and gender (despite not being genetic) and concluded that therefore it is appropriate to respond to differences of sexuality in the same way as to differences of race and gender, you might stand some chance of convincing people.

---

• Gender is genetic - at a basic XY / XX chromosomal level,
• race has a very subtle genetic component and is mostly cultural,
• homosexuality is not just cultural as you implicitly assume in this post, there are detectable brain differences, some known genetic components and some intrauterine influences (the testosterone exposure discussed above) - see here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Three, it is a fallacy to state that both sides of every argument have equal merit.

---

Did I state that ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
How am I less tolerant of opposing ideas than those who are arguing the other side of the question ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Four, you insist on a particular interpretation of a few bible passages, but totally ignore or discount inconvenient bits.

---

Have I mentioned a single Bible passage ? I think you're confusing me with somebody else...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
A society where truth is subordinated to political correctness will have an effect on all of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Respect for other people is "political correctness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Before my boys reached puberty I told them I was more than happy if they turned out to be gay and - if that were the case - to not be afraid of telling me.

Did I mean it? Of course.

---

Did you mean it literally ?

Literal "More than happy" is somewhere up with "delighted".
Which is above "happy" or "that's good news"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would never do you the disservice of assuming you identify as straight because it is "fashionable" in your circles. So why would you assume so in my identity or anyone else's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not saying that makes his posts acceptable, but it would, if true, make them different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Gosh, Orfeo, that's almost a reasoned argument. If you prefaced it with an explanation of why homosexuality is a thing llike race and gender (despite not being genetic) and concluded that therefore it is appropriate to respond to differences of sexuality in the same way as to differences of race and gender, you might stand some chance of convincing people.

Instead of getting all offended because your Guardian-reading prejudices aren't universally shared.

(Oops! Does that count as an insult ? )

---

I'm offended because you won't listen. It's appropriate to respond to differences of sexuality in the same way as to differences of race and gender because they're all innate.

And you've no fucking idea how to use the word "prejudice", do you? I'll give you a clue. "Prejudice" doesn't mean disagreeing with you. "Prejudice" means having a closed mind.

To tell a gay evangelical Christian, of all people, that they're prejudiced on this issue is so bad it's hilarious. I know both sides of this argument. I've fucking lived both sides of this argument. You haven't.

And I mostly read the Canberra Times, thanks. The whole world doesn't revolve around you and whatever newspapers you know about, you pathetic excuse for breeding stock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

On the basis of a vague memory of previous posts, plus the even vaguer hints he has given here about people not understanding where he coming from, I thought he wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
To clarify - you are missing the point not because of any fault in you, but because you are not constantly exposed to the doubleplusungood attitude to The Guardian expressed in the UK media. Only on re-reading did I realise the opening sentence could come across as critical. You are ***** lucky to have missed the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does this mean that if I fuck my wife up the arse, high ideals are out of the window?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does this mean that if I fuck my wife up the arse, high ideals are out of the window?

---

Does it buggery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ:

If your child was born left-handed, would you have the child undergo treatment to change that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I mostly read the Canberra Times, thanks. The whole world doesn't revolve around you and whatever newspapers you know about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I see no strong case that right-handed people have more or better opportunities in life or are happier than left-handed people.

---

quote:

---

And I'd want them to be able to make babies of their own with someone they love, to be part of a male-female couple.

---

quote:

---

All on the same basis - their prospects of a full and happy life.

---

quote:

---

Does right-handedness enhance their choices significantly ? IMHO, no.

---

quote:

---

It bothers me a lot, some days, that the philosophy and religion of our society doesn't seem to be equipping us to make such choices wisely and well.

---

quote:

---

Our technological abilities grow apace, but our religion has been taken over by conservatives

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... But under the second criterion I would seek to cure or prevent physical diseases or handicaps. So that the child grows up fit and healthy and able to participate in sport or travel if they so choose.

---

quote:

---

... I would seek to cure or prevent the child from being intellectually sub-normal, so that they can experience the life of the mind, the joy of understanding.

---

quote:

---

If they turned out to be unable to appreciate music, that seems worth correcting, if it be possible.

---

quote:

---

And I'd want them to be able to make babies of their own with someone they love, to be part of a male-female couple.

---

quote:

---

And able to relate to others, to form part of a community in a way that some severely autistic or otherwise mentally damaged people cannot.

---

quote:

---

And if as they grow up they choose not to play sport or music and not to study and not to marry and to go off and be hippies or hermits in the desert then that's their choice to make. Of course you love them whatever they choose. ...

---

Unless, of course, they "choose" to be gay.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've always been skeptical of this "one true purpose" way of thinking. If a woman has sex with her (cisgendered) husband, she could be doing it because:

• she wants to have a child
• she wants to deepen her emotional bond with her husband
• she's horny and wants sexual release
• she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness
• she wants to do something pleasing for her husband
• any combination of the above, plus a whole bunch of other potential motives I haven't thought of

Under the "one true purpose/function" rubric, there's only valid reason on that list (which one it is varies by who's doing the choosing) and any sexual contact that doesn't involve it is just "making-do", which seems an especially cramped and joyless approach to sex.

---

Yes, life's complicated. And disentangling motive, purpose and function is beyond me tonight. (Where's IngoB when you need him ? )

But taking one of your listed motives as an example:

- she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness

Do you condemn this behaviour ?

Do you hold this behaviour - having sex for this reason - up as the ideal of human relationships that we should all strive for ?

I'm hoping your answer would be "No" to both.

Because it seems to me it's healthy to have some space between what you think people shouldn't do and what you think people should do. A tolerance gap.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Arguably the world's greatest percussionist is a deaf woman.

That really says all that needs to be said about Russ' pathetic ideas about fixing people to fit his preconceived ideals.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
And I'd want them to be able to make babies of their own with someone they love, to be part of a male-female couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I mostly read the Canberra Times, thanks. The whole world doesn't revolve around you and whatever newspapers you know about

---

Apologies, I'm not well enough up on Australian culture to translate the reference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

So if genetic testing becomes available, I predict it's going to fuck with some fundie brains as the opposition to homosexuality does battle with the opposition to abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

EUGENICS.

And Russ has never answered this charge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Arguably the world's greatest percussionist is a deaf woman.

That really says all that needs to be said about Russ' pathetic ideas about fixing people to fit his preconceived ideals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The scary thing is, we may be coming to a time when parents can engineer their children to have just the "charms" they (the parents) think are best for children to have. Like Russ here would like to do if he could. THAT IS CREEPY. It's wrong. It's...

EUGENICS.

And Russ has never answered this charge.

---

quote:

---

Dictionary.com suggests that Eugenics is
belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions.

Is that a fair answer ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Did you deliberately compare deafness to homosexuality? Because there is an ongoing debate within the Deaf community about cochlear implants and deaf identity. Many deaf people do not choose to change when given the option. They don't see deafness as a disability or defect, but as a different identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Consent is an important part of modern thinking. But the idea of consent assumes that those involved are "functioning adults". We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Consent is an important part of modern thinking. But the idea of consent assumes that those involved are "functioning adults". We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Consent is an important part of modern thinking. But the idea of consent assumes that those involved are "functioning adults". We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions. ...

---

Are you saying that gays are incapable of giving consent? Are not functioning adults? If not, what in the hell does this have to do with the conversation? Is this just a way of dragging in a gratuitous comparison between gays and pedophiles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Are you trying to be offensive, Russ? Or are you just stupid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I called 'insufferable arsehat' back on page 1.

---

Is that a defect that can be treated?

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I called 'insufferable arsehat' back on page 1.

---

Is that a defect that can be treated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Consent is an important part of modern thinking. But the idea of consent assumes that those involved are "functioning adults". We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions. ...

---

Are you saying that gays are incapable of giving consent? Are not functioning adults? If not, what in the hell does this have to do with the conversation? Is this just a way of dragging in a gratuitous comparison between gays and pedophiles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
He was trying to say babies don't give consent to being "treated" with eugenics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it's like there's an additional Godwin's law for homophobes.

---

Apt comparison. Godwin notwithstanding, it's really useful to be able to trot out cases which everyone agrees involve real wrongdoing, as counter-examples to point up fallacious arguments.

For example if Orfeo were to say "homosexuality is morally neutral because it is innate" and I were to reply "isn't paedophilia innate ?" he might then realise that, whatever example he was thinking of at the time, it's not actually a logically valid argument.

It's useful precisely because everyone agrees that Nazism, paedophilia etc are Bad Things. It's something we can take for granted, and we don't then get sidetracked into questions of whether perhaps Hitler wasn't quite as bad as he's been painted...

READ THE WORDS. If I say "consent is important" I am not drawing a similarity between consensual and non-consensual acts. I'm saying there is a difference, this is the difference, it is a big important difference.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
For example if Orfeo were to say "homosexuality is morally neutral because it is innate" and I were to reply "isn't paedophilia innate ?" he might then realise that, whatever example he was thinking of at the time, it's not actually a logically valid argument.

---

quote:

---

Consent is an important part of modern thinking. But the idea of consent assumes that those involved are "functioning adults". We don't allow paedophiles to invoke consent as the defence for their actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... It's useful precisely because everyone agrees that Nazism, paedophilia etc are Bad Things. It's something we can take for granted, and we don't then get sidetracked into questions of whether perhaps Hitler wasn't quite as bad as he's been painted... ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Why wouldn't we cure Gingers if we could?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, how about left-handedness? That's innate. Within living memory, lefties were thought to be possessed by the devil and they were forced to use their non-dominant right hand.

---

They were actually considered quite sinister...

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Gently throws soft pillow at Pigwidgeon.}
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Why wouldn't we cure Gingers if we could?

---

The question presumes there's something meaningfully wrong with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Why wouldn't we cure Gingers if we could?

---

The question presumes there's something meaningfully wrong with them.

---

You say that like they aren't soulless abominations who feed on the sanity of hapless ensouled beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
They were actually considered quite sinister...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, how about left-handedness? That's innate. Within living memory, lefties were thought to be possessed by the devil and they were forced to use their non-dominant right hand. And guess what: most people now think that's ridiculous. But I guess that analogy won't push the same buttons, will it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If the crew is composed of all homosexuals, even in a 50:50 male-female mix, then their chance to survive the trip and found an interstellar colony is zero.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But IngoB, that is of course your underlying assumptions are that settlement of other planets by humans would be a good thing and continuing reproduction of humankind on Earth is wonderful. Anyone would think that overpopulation wasn't a thing. I guess this comes from Genesis and humankind to rule over all dominions. Lots of science to say that isn't all that great.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is a case unlikely to arise in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Furthermore, it is unclear whether it tells us anything more than the similar case in which the crew are all men. A crew with all women and a large sperm bank would be functional. I don't think that tells us anything much about whether men are dysfunctional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Assume we are sending a generation ship to an earth-like planet a few light years away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Assume we are sending a generation ship to an earth-like planet a few light years away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You are committing a colossal logical fallacy by trying to turn a characteristic of an individual into a characteristic of an entire population, as if one has any implication for the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me finish with a real life example to illustrate just how absurd your reasoning process is: If you eat nothing but rabbit you will die. Seriously. Rabbit lacks an essential nutrient, meaning that you cannot survive on rabbit alone. This is no way means that rabbit is poisonous, or not nutritious. I doubt that it means that rabbit is somehow "biologically speaking" crucially different to beef or pork or chicken or mutton, although just what the hell that phrase means I'm sure I don't know. All it proves is that you need more than rabbit to make a diet. All you've proved is that you need more than homosexuals to make a functioning society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Next pointless analogy, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To briefly use your own analogy to make the same point I've made above:

<snip>

---

 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
At an evolutionary level the whole society has to be considered not individuals, so your logic of extrapolating from the individual falls down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
At a societal level a number of evolutionary benefits of homosexuality have been suggested, giving a variety of reasons for the prevalence throughout history and societies. Homosexuality within society is not a negative the way you depict IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Since we basically all agree that red hair and left-handedness should have no significant impact on social arrangements, equating these to homosexuality attempts to shortcut the discussion of what impact homosexuality should have on social arrangements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a significant biological difference.

---

quote:

---

Also, by the time they arrive anywhere they will have adopted a right-to-left form of writing which will probably upset you terribly and you will declare it unnatural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I can fit an episode of classic Doctor Who in a half hour slot. I can't fit an episode of NuWho in a half hour slot. Oh my God they're significantly different TV shows!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I can fit an episode of classic Doctor Who in a half hour slot. I can't fit an episode of NuWho in a half hour slot. Oh my God they're significantly different TV shows!

---

But now there's a nostalgia TV channel in the UK which is bundling entire serials of classic Who into 80 or 120 minute slots. depending on how many episodes they had. This must mean something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think I shall go and get a cup of coffee so that I can splurt it over my keyboard in response to that post, orfeo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is a case unlikely to arise in practice.

---

As is true for most thought experiments. A thought experiment intentionally heightens and isolates some aspect of reality to allow clear thinking about it, if at the expense of being unlikely, impractical, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Because of the set up of my desk, I will drink it using my left hand, despite being right handed. How deviant is that?

---

quote:

---

dyfrig: Because of the set up of my desk, I will drink it using my left hand, despite being right handed. How deviant is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!![/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!!

---

Seriously, you think being a Hell Host means you can ask such personal questions?

Pervert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Assume we are sending a generation ship to an earth-like planet a few light years away.
...

---

Thanks a lot, IngoB and Russ. Now I'm wondering whether a spaceship crewed entirely by pedophiles can successfully colonize a planet.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's okay, I already know in my heart that I'm on a roll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonahMan:
Ingob's hypothetical gay spaceship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!!

---

More importantly, is it an authorised and approved mug, or some perverted heretical mug?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 


Oh my God.

They're all for left-handers.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Nope, they're ambidextrous. (They have pictures both sides - except for maybe the MW one - but I did just check Heaven, Hell and SoF.)
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


Oh my God.

They're all for left-handers.

---

You have noticed what you should not and you have revealed it to the masses.
Run now or embrace your fate. It was nice knowing you.
Everyone else: avoid the folks in black suits and look away from the red flash of light.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


Oh my God.

They're all for left-handers.

---

You have noticed what you should not and you have revealed it to the masses.
Run now or embrace your fate. It was nice knowing you.
Everyone else: avoid the folks in black suits and look away from the red flash of light.

ETA: curse your crosspost, Ck!
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
lB - I was torn between correcting the mistake and laughing at the conversation. However, there is still a supply of mugs that I am sure Simon would like to sell, so it seemed better to point out that there are pictures on both sides.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, Ck. You must have looked into the light. The mugs have been switched and you think they were always this way.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking

---

Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations.

Totally bleeping obvious. But it seems people don't want to go there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking

---

Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations.

Totally bleeping obvious. But it seems people don't want to go there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a significant biological difference.

---

No, it isn't, italics notwithstanding. You've identified a biological difference. You've completely failed to demonstrate its significance except for its significance to a specific environment, namely, monocultures on spaceships. This is zero proof of its significance in any other environment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.

---

And so, the fuck, what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Since you apparently are "exclusively" homosexual, it follows that your genes will disappear from the gene pool. At best you can hope that part of your genes will be passed on through siblings, but obviously only if they are not homosexual themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.

---

And so, the fuck, what?

---

So if you put forward an ethical theory of sexual orientation which addresses what is morally right, wrong, or neutral about the whole range of minority orientations (or as the traditionalists would call them, perversions) and that theory is convincing, then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.

That would be a reasoned argument.

Without that, it's just special pleading.

The analogy with left-handedness is helpful in getting across what your viewpoint is. But it doesn't convince that it is the right viewpoint. Because there's no intrinsic similarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So if [long rambling excuse], then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
"exclusively" homosexual

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations. ...

---

So, Russ, what are all those other "minority orientations"? Or is that just your code word for anybody and anything "not straight"? And how does that fit in with the observed reality that sex is not binary, gender is a social construct, and orientation is a spectrum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So if you put forward an ethical theory of sexual orientation which addresses what is morally right, wrong, or neutral about the whole range of minority orientations (or as the traditionalists would call them, perversions) and that theory is convincing, then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Without that, it's just special pleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonahMan:
Ingob's hypothetical gay spaceship.

---

I so need to write this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm enjoying this significant difference bit too much.

I can fit an episode of classic Doctor Who in a half hour slot. I can't fit an episode of NuWho in a half hour slot. Oh my God they're significantly different TV shows!

---

Oh, please don't start that argument
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:
So, IngoB, what you're saying is that there is no significant biological difference between bisexuality and red hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Really, Ingo, did you flunk biology SO badly that you think having children guarantees the survival of all your genes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Meanwhile, in context of the rest of the animal kingdom, so-called "minority" sexual orientations are not only commonplace but also recognized as being potentially useful aspects of various survival strategies. (That's right, fuck you too, IngoB.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does this get quote marks, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, I see some chance that this could be the case in an ancient setting for male homosexuality. Basically, if women are having many children, many of whom die, then having an extra male but homosexual provider / guardian may increase the survival rate considerable and lead to a net genetic gain. This does not explain female homosexuality though

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, I see some chance that this could be the case in an ancient setting for male homosexuality. Basically, if women are having many children, many of whom die, then having an extra male but homosexual provider / guardian may increase the survival rate considerable and lead to a net genetic gain. This does not explain female homosexuality though

---

...an extra female provider/guardian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:
...gathering food, tending the fire, caring for the sick, fending off predators, finding new places to camp, cooking, making clothes, making tools, making weapons...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It is not enough that there is some advantage from having extra hands for some activity, for a genetic net gain it is necessary that the advantage is so strong as to compensate for the reduction in genetic overlap. So perhaps this is more about midwifery than about cooking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The very fact that we have to argue at length about the genetic consequences of homosexuality shows this. We do not have to argue likewise about handedness and hair colour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Homosexuals existing for whatever reason has no substantive effect on straight people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Homosexuals existing for whatever reason has no substantive effect on straight people.

---

Not so. A straight guy at work fully embraces the existence of male homosexuality because it reduces his competition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

We didn't really get into the question of whether female homosexuality was a problem because it reduces his opportunity...

---

Ah, this is trickier. Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance.

[ 19. August 2015, 11:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You consistently veer, in your misguided attempts to prove why homosexuality is wrong and bad, towards some kind of moral obligation on each individual to procreate. Which is a source of constant amusement given that your own clergy tell against there being any such moral obligation.

---

quote:

---

What's the evolutionary justification for not being a selfish bastard? Why on earth would anyone ever let reason or compassion direct them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.

---

quote:

---

Because if granted, then it would seem to follow that people who do not care about handedness or hair colour but do care about sexual orientation are being incoherent and/or unreasonable. I happen to be one of these people, and I believe that I am neither.

---

quote:

---

And if you really want to talk about the sexual continence and celibacy of RC priests, then we can do that as well. We would have to start though with acknowledging that the RCC considers this to be the rejection of an important good for even higher purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And why have I insisted on this (basically trivial) point?

---

quote:

---

Because multiple people on this very thread have asserted that these are comparable biological variations. And why have these people made this (basically absurd) claim? Because if granted, then it would seem to follow that people who do not care about handedness or hair colour but do care about sexual orientation are being incoherent and/or unreasonable. I happen to be one of these people, and I believe that I am neither. That's really all that is going on here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It doesn't make the difference significant to morals, which was the actual relevant topic of the thread. Eliab has already dealt with this perfectly earlier today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual topic of this thread is that Boogie is upset with Russ for suggesting that if homosexuality was genetically determined, then scientist would seek a cure for it - which implies that it is a dysfunction or disease. There are of course moral implications to this, but the key concern there is not whether homosexuality is morally licit, but whether it is an infrequent variation of sexual orientation or a defect thereof. A defect is a potential target for a medical cure whether it has any moral implications or not, hence that homosexuality is under moral scrutiny is secondary here.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.

---

Actually, this is slashfic
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you so fucking dense as to not realise that you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.

---

Actually, this is slashfic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you so fucking dense as to not realise that you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this?

---

Well, there certainly is an element of "what people should be talking about" in my description. Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion that avoids the abject tedium of yet another round of sentimental pledges of moral allegiance, shall we?

---

• paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
• adultery - others could be hurt;
• rape - no consent;
• forced sexual relations - again, no consent

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion

---

Mate, we all hope for that. But you just won't do the decent thing and leave.

---

Quotes file!

AG
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.

---

Um, what's all this about older cohorts? You seem to be under a severe misapprehension as to how such a study works.

Me, I've always pretty much assumed you wait until someone's dead before working out what age they died at. You can't work out what age a 3-year-old, 23-year-old or 63-year-old left-hander is going to die at by looking at them.

Your objection makes little sense on any basis. You take the people who were actually left-handed, work out their average age at death, and you compare that to the average age at death of right-handers. If there's a difference, then handedness makes a difference. The fact that some of your right-handers are "true left-handers" doesn't alter this unless you're somehow suggesting that those "true left-handers" actually raised the average age for right-handers, despite the fact that the actual left-handers had a lower average at death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance.

---

They tend to think "If only she had a REAL man, like me, she'd realize women can't really fulfill her desires."

---

quote:

---

Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.

---

You're male, right? How would you know?

Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
There is a thriving industry of male on male romance novels written for women. I have a few.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm not alone! i'm not alone!
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?

---

Well, I've largely skimmed over the parts where people just insult me for the fun of it.

Or present moronic arguments like "homosexuality is morally OK because to think otherwise is offensive to homosexuals"

Which hasn't actually left many posts worth reading...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is a thriving industry of male on male romance novels written for women. I have a few.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?

---

Well, I've largely skimmed over the parts where people just insult me for the fun of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Or present moronic arguments like "homosexuality is morally OK because to think otherwise is offensive to homosexuals"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.

---

Actually, this is slashfic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Those moral guidelines rule out:

• paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
• adultery - others could be hurt;
• rape - no consent;
• forced sexual relations - again, no consent

---

quote:

---

Russ: What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?

---

quote:

---

Russ: What of incest ?

---

quote:

---

Russ: What of sado-masochism ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Russ: What of sado-masochism ?

---

Ok (unless this is an invitation)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Those moral guidelines rule out:

• paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
• adultery - others could be hurt;
• rape - no consent;
• forced sexual relations - again, no consent

---

What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?

What of incest ? What of sado-masochism ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Russ: What of sado-masochism ?

---

Ok (unless this is an invitation)

---

If you're engaging with Russ on this thread I think you might already be doing it.

---

quote:

---

Anglican't: If you're engaging with Russ on this thread I think you might already be doing it.

---

Nice one!
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Of course, only women should be engaged with Russ, and one at a time.

EDIT: No, I am not even going to pretend that is up to the standard of my work a couple of days ago.

[ 20. August 2015, 09:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The fact that Russ is still here and engaging means it is worth talking to him.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Russ: What of sado-masochism ?

---

Ok (unless this is an invitation)


This isn't hard.

---

If it is t hard, you are probably not going to get many invitations.

Bu-dum crash
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Sado-masochism - consenting adults again. Both adults have to consent

---

Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.

And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.

[note to self: don't forget to get raincoat dry-cleaned ]

Now the hard part. [if you'll pardon the expression]

As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.

I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.

But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother. Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.

I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn. Tolerating incest doesn't mean advocating it. People want to read 50 shades as a guilty pleasure ? Fine by me. But if they want it studied in school and held up to children as an ideal, a model for their character formation ?

Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I presume that, in this sequel, 'Let It Go' is the safeword? That could work, I guess.

---

 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I presume that, in this sequel, 'Let It Go' is the safeword? That could work, I guess.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am becoming more tolerant of Russ, as his replies are so confused, that it can't be deliberate, I think. For example, his reference to 'Frozen' with S/M references is cognitively a total stramash. Compassion beckons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Sado-masochism - consenting adults again. Both adults have to consent

---

Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.

---

quote:

---

And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.

---

quote:

---

But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother.

---

quote:

---

Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.

---

quote:

---

I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn.

---

quote:

---

Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
You're male, right? How would you know?

Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe we'll get invaded and not have this problem any more?

NSFW
Gayn*****s from Outer Space

Somehow I didn't feel compelled to censor the word "gay". Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I once read a science fiction book where the aliens' plan to take over the world was to convince all Earth women to become lesbians

---

Would that be the ultimate pacifist invasion?
All the women pleasuring each other, all the men stood around watching. Then just wait 100 yrs or so, all humans have died out and Earth belongs to the aliens. Job done
 

---

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
You're male, right? How would you know?

Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?

---

I am male and have undoubtedly had my internal thinking influenced by patriarchy.
That patriarchy doesn't make me crazy enough to make any claim as to special knowledge re a woman's desires, esp. post 50-shades. Hence the word 'presumably'

I just wondered why both male and female get so heavily involved with exhaustive debates focusing primarily on male homosexuality, while female homosexuality is largely overlooked. Maybe it's because Queen Vic wouldn't have it that such a thing even happened.

---

quote:

---

Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother. Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.

---

quote:

---

And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.

---

quote:

---

As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.

I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.

---

quote:

---

But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother.

---

quote:

---

Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.

---

quote:

---

I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn.

---

quote:

---

Tolerating incest doesn't mean advocating it.

---

quote:

---

People want to read 50 shades as a guilty pleasure ? Fine by me. But if they want it studied in school and held up to children as an ideal, a model for their character formation ?

---

quote:

---

Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Incest... ...remains taboo within families brought up together; usually something called the Westermarck effect prevents siblings or others in the same household from feeling sexual attraction...

...How punitive should we be to a brother-sister couple where they were brought up apart?

---

quote:

---

Children's films do not include sado-masochism. Fifty Shades of Grey is an 18. The film censors try to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material by suggesting appropriate ages to view the material.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.

I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.

---

That's pretty much what everyone is saying here - consensual, not affecting others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But come on, we must be forgiving. Russ is just agin gay sex, and gay sex spreads like a massive fungus all over human culture, films, cartoons, kids' comics, westerns, pop tunes. Any time soon, there will be frothing penises on the cover of 'Teen Now', writhing in splendid orgasms, without a fanny in sight, (UK version).

---

So the American and Canadian versions will have fannys in sight?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not recommending being punitive. Rather I think I'm arguing for an intermediate category between what we punish and what we celebrate, and suggesting that this category is where some sexually-deviant behaviour belongs.

---

quote:

---

Would you be more punitive in a hypothetical case where the Westermarck effect doesn't operate in a pair of consenting individuals for reasons relating to psychology or mental health or genetic defect rather than because of upbringing apart ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Children's films do not include sado-masochism. Fifty Shades of Grey is an 18. The film censors try to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material by suggesting appropriate ages to view the material.

---

Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Elsa being a heterosexual didn't involve graphic material... so why the hell would Elsa being a lesbian involve graphic material?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.
[...]
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect that the things you describe as sexually-deviant behaviour are mostly things I would censure for lack of consent or adversely affecting others...

I have repeatedly said that incest within families brought up together is a taboo because of the power imbalances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Does your philisophy allow for a category of activities that you disapprove but do not seek to punish or prevent ? ... Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting that there are activities that we punish and seek to prevent, because they involve harm to others that the others have not freely consented to. And that free consent can be impossible in some situations (including what you describe as power imbalance).

Does your philisophy allow for a category of activities that you disapprove but do not seek to punish or prevent ?

---

quote:

---

You gave safety and sanity as two examples of your values. Not sure if "sane" means anything (other than "normal").

---

quote:

---

But thinking of safety reminds me of something I heard on the radio about a failed expedition to climb K2. Something like 1 in 3 of those who try this die in the attempt. But still people choose to do it.

Is there perhaps some level of safety at which you would say that people can climb mountains at that risk-level if they want, but you don't support it, and please don't encourage others to think it's a good idea ?

---

quote:

---

Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Elsa being a heterosexual didn't involve graphic material... so why the hell would Elsa being a lesbian involve graphic material?

---

Having spent several weeks with Frozen on in the background, I can tell you there is no evidence that Elsa is heterosexual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
what on earth was the point of all your "what about incest?" and "what about paedophilia?" comments?

If the one thing we are agreed on is that a consensual same-sex relationship is damn all like raping a child

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I am saying that what male homosexuality is is a disorder involving the transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose.

---

quote:

---

This of itself is not a conclusive argument against Boogie's view. To read across from evolutionary purpose to moral purpose is problematic.

So a reasonable way of developing an argument against Boogie's position is to inquire whether she recognises any moral principles beyond the secular ethic.

---

quote:

---

Is she being inconsistent in applying additional principles , criteria of judgment that do reflect a morality involving a positive vision of the good life rather than just an absence of coercion, in the case of other disorders-of-sexual-desire ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Addendum - thinking of exploding genitals in some animals now, wow, way to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I am saying that what male homosexuality is is a disorder involving the transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose.

---

... But the whole thing is bollocks anyway. Will you regard it as "a transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose" if I continue to find my wife attractive in ten to twenty years time? Will that be a "disorder" that I should correct by seeking out a younger bit on the side? ...

---

FTW!
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Addendum - thinking of exploding genitals in some animals now, wow, way to go.

---

You make me laugh quetz.

A rare gift and one that may assist in evolution of this line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Citing evolutionary purpose is a bit of a Pandora's box, I think. Evolution actually shows great versatility - just think that wings (used in flight) are used for swimming in penguins; tails are used variously for flight, swimming, balance, for signalling, and so on. Our ear-bones are descended from the jaws of fish - anyway, everybody knows these amazing journeys which have gone on.

Hence, it seems a bit tricky to cite 'evolutionary purpose' in aid of a particular moral evaluation. After all, sex itself presumably evolved, so I suppose Russ is saying that at a certain point in history, it acquires moral gravitas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
"Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.

---

quote:

---

you've just demonstrated that a secular consent/harm ethic is up to the task of distinguishing paedophilia and incest from homosexuality, and that you knew this when you made the daft comparisons.

---

quote:

---

What do you mean by "positive vision of the good life"? If you mean, use of sexuality in the cause of human love, happiness and fulfilment, I can only suppose you've never read any of Boogie's posts on the subject of sex if you can entertain the idea that she might lack this. But that vision does not exclude homosexuality, so there is no inconsistency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The question remains - do you think the consensual disorders (or whatever term you'd prefer)

---

quote:

---

fall short of your ideal of human life, and if so in what way ?

---

quote:

---

Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
"Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.

---

You get the point. How would you put it ?

---

quote:

---

Paedophiles, like Nazis, are there only as counter-examples to refute fallacious arguments.

---

quote:

---

It is not my intention to morally equate these with anything or anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... Is it my job to have an ideal of human life at all, let alone apply it to other people, whose consensual behavior is none of my fucking business? Why? I believe the word for people like that is "busybodies."

quote:

---

Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ?

---

Yes. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When I asked at the dinner table what a homosexual was, I remember exactly what my mother said, "You know how sometimes men and women are attracted to each other? Well, some men are attracted in the same way to men, and some women are attracted to women. <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
its evolutionary purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I've said that I cannot understand how Boogie can think that having her sons turn out to be gay would increase their chances of having a full and happy life, of fulfilling their potential.

---

Who said anything about increasing it? The onus is on you to explain why it would decrease it.

Let's put aside all the problems that only occur because of people like you shouting "problems will occur!".

The only thing you have left is a suggestion that childlessness is some horrible impairment. Which (1) is damn insensitive to any straight person who can't have children, (2) is damn insulting to any straight person who chooses not to have children, and (3) completely ignores all the different ways in which homosexual people end up having children anyway.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Exactly orfeo.

One is now married and the other has a long term partner. They may or may not have children, it's by no means a 'given' that a heterosexual couple will have children. I won't feel less of them if they don't!

I spent last week with them both (now 25 and 29) and the subject of homophobia came up - both have gay friends. One of them said "Mum, do you remember when you thought we were gay and said it was fine by you?"

Hmmmm - my 'talk' clearly didn't come over as well as I thought
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[QB] One is now married and the other has a long term partner. They may or may not have children, it's by no means a 'given' that a heterosexual couple will have children. I won't feel less of them if they don't!

Confused as it may sound, I both wish that you live long enough to enjoy your grandchildren and support your attitude that it's their choice...
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
There is a similar (very heated) debate going on at the moment about whether autism should be cured - autistic people are stating that they don't want to be cured, that a cure would be eliminating who they are, and that the main suffering they experience is from how society treats them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oscar Wilde was a homosexual and he sad, 'I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses'."

---

quote:

---

Oscar Wilde comes out of prison and checks into a hotel, where he is seen going to his room with one of the hotel's page boys. He is stopped by the hotel manager, who says: "Oh, Mr Wilde - I thought you were going to turn over a new leaf!" "So I am," says Wilde, "but I think I'll just get to the bottom of this page first ..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
the traditional view that autism is a disorder that society should seek to cure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Are those who take the traditional view that autism is a disorder that society should seek to cure (in children - of course adults shouldn't be cured against their will) deemed to fear and hate autism ? Derided as "autophobes" ?

Seems to me that this is about pride.

---

quote:

---

The tendency to polarise, to see only two possible views of homosexuality - unconditional approval or hatred/fear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sado-masochism is a sexual practice. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is simply no current "cure" for autism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Acceptance. How about trying that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Conditions like my own are the only ones that offer a valid comparison with minority sexualities, in that they both represent difference without disability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Acceptance. How about trying that?

---

How does that differ from tolerance ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Are those who take the traditional view that autism is a disorder that society should seek to cure (in children - of course adults shouldn't be cured against their will) deemed to fear and hate autism ? Derided as "autophobes" ?

Seems to me that this is about pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
"Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.

---

You get the point. How would you put it ?...

---

quote:

---

The question remains - do you think the consensual disorders (or whatever term you'd prefer) fall short of your ideal of human life, and if so in what way ? Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ? and if not what moral principle do you invoke for denying these acts the status of your full approval ? Given that they meet the harm test for what should be tolerated...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Mousethief,

Fair enough. If you and others are that upset, we'll end the thread here.

My style of arguing by analogy, similarities and differences, is obviously making no headway. And I'm not getting back the particular sort of reasoned argument that would show me how to put the pieces together in a different way and thus change my mind.

You'll just have to believe me that it's possible for a well-meaning person to come to different conclusions from your own.

I have no wish to insult anybody here, and if that's all that you and others are getting from this then it's better we finish it here.

So long, and thanks for all the brickbats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Fair enough. If you and others are that upset, we'll end the thread here.

---

quote:

---

I'm not getting back the particular sort of reasoned argument that would show me how to put the pieces together in a different way and thus change my mind.

---

quote:

---

You'll just have to believe me that it's possible for a well-meaning person to come to different conclusions from your own.

---

quote:

---

I have no wish to insult anybody here,

---

quote:

---

So long, and thanks for all the brickbats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sado-masochism is a sexual practice. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't.

---

There are sexual acts. There are desires to commit sexual acts. And there are long-term tendencies to desire certain sorts of sexual acts.

We do not choose our desires or our tendencies.

If you think that what you do is any way morally above what sado-masochists do just because gays have become more politically organised, then I disagree.

I suggest that what moral law asks of you regarding your sexual acts is exactly what it demands of sado-masochists (or vanilla heterosexuals, come to that). Something like:

a) concern for the well-being of the other party or parties (which for the avoidance of misunderstanding I fully believe you have - I'm really not accusing you of anything at all in this regard)

b) discretion in not bringing your activities unnecessarily to the attention of those who find them distasteful

c) respect for the innocence of children

I neither fear nor hate you. Contrary to what others may have led you to believe...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

I suggest that what moral law asks of you regarding your sexual acts is exactly what it demands of sado-masochists (or vanilla heterosexuals, come to that). Something like:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is simply no current "cure" for autism

---

That's a fact.

The question is whether it is appropriate to seek one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
There are sexual acts. There are desires to commit sexual acts. And there are long-term tendencies to desire certain sorts of sexual acts.

We do not choose our desires or our tendencies.

If you think that what you do is any way morally above what sado-masochists do just because gays have become more politically organised, then I disagree.

---

quote:

---

I suggest that what moral law asks of you regarding your sexual acts is exactly what it demands of sado-masochists (or vanilla heterosexuals, come to that). Something like:

a) concern for the well-being of the other party or parties (which for the avoidance of misunderstanding I fully believe you have - I'm really not accusing you of anything at all in this regard)

---

quote:

---

b) discretion in not bringing your activities unnecessarily to the attention of those who find them distasteful

---

quote:

---

c) respect for the innocence of children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Are those who take the traditional view that autism is a disorder that society should seek to cure (in children - of course adults shouldn't be cured against their will) deemed to fear and hate autism ? Derided as "autophobes" ?

Seems to me that this is about pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

You'll just have to believe me that it's possible for a well-meaning person to come to different conclusions from your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Can you understand how offensive it is to sit there postulating a cure for ASC when there are so many brilliant minds who are doing incredible things, but struggle with certain functions in human life. I do realise that ASC is a broad spectrum and that some people (adults and children) with autism are severely disabled, but not all are. Are we going to abort all foetuses with autism, not knowing the extent to which they are affected? We would lose people like Daryl Hannah, Tim Burton, Courtney Love, Temple Grandin, Dan Ackroyd, Satoshi Tajiri (the inventor of Pokemon), Susan Boyle and all those people diagnosed in retrospect: Mozart, Einstein and Lewis Carroll

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Mousethief,

Fair enough. If you and others are that upset, we'll end the thread here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
However, on a point of order, what you wrote was this:

quote:

---

Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.

---

The 'presumably' here refers to the reasons why women 'don't seem to be much bothered' - according to you, they are not much interested in man-on-man action because patriarchy. My objection is to your initial assumption that they are not much interested. So you did claim special knowledge of women's desires when you assumed this, qualifying it only slightly by the word 'seem'.

But it's okay: you are trying, so I forgive you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

4. Ask questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

4. Ask questions.

---

I do have a question, actually.

Do you think that the view that you have been putting forward is true ?

I know, bad form to say goodbye and then come back. But not very polite either to leave and not come back when other people are still talking to me. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. (What else would be the case in hell?)

On reflection, best compromise seemed to be to come back to engage with the points of style and process that your most recent post makes, while avoiding making any comment at all on the substantive issue on which we disagree. I'm suggesting we continue on that basis, if that is agreeable to yourself and to those who share your views.

If you catch me slipping into a comment that amounts to reneging on that, do please pull me up on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There are actual organisations funding research into foetal testing so that abortion will be an option, and they are pushing this as a kind of cure. It's not a cure for autism, of course, but it is a cure for parents having to deal with autistic kids. This is not paranoia. This is actually happening, and is probably as close to a cure as will happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What do you think a cure would look like? And how much would it affect other aspects of the ASC person's character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
None of these would necessarily welcome a cure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So with that information, what would a cure look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Generally speaking, if one suffers enough, then one wants a cure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sado-masochism is a sexual practice. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't.

---

There are sexual acts. There are desires to commit sexual acts. And there are long-term tendencies to desire certain sorts of sexual acts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

4. Ask questions.

---

I do have a question, actually.

Do you think that the view that you have been putting forward is true ?

---

No. We're all pretending to disagree with you, just for kicks.

 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I do have a question, actually.

Do you think that the view that you have been putting forward is true ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

On reflection, best compromise seemed to be to come back to engage with the points of style and process that your most recent post makes, while avoiding making any comment at all on the substantive issue on which we disagree.

---

Your style, it seems to me, is mainly passive aggressive. You say you are well meaning and you come over as friendly whilst saying the most appalling, de-humanising things with 'best wishes'.

Just like quite a lot of the Church does
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
When Madame and I are down the coast in summer, we like walking along the beach in the evening, sometimes chatting, sometimes just being together. In our mid-winter break a few weeks ago, we drove through the Central West of the state, again sometimes chatting, and at others just being together. No genital activity, but certainly times of deep sexual attraction to each other.

Russ, Kaplan Corday, Ingo B and all the others limit sexual activity to the genital. The genital is only part of the whole. What Orfeo asks is that we realise that in similar circumstances, his partner will be male, not female. His sexual attraction to men is not simply preferring to go to bed with them, it's in all activities. What on earth is wrong with that? I can't understand it any more than I can understand why I'm attracted to women; what matters is that he is as he is, and I am as I am.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Do you think that the view that you have been putting forward is true ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Russ, Kaplan Corday, Ingo B and all the others limit sexual activity to the genital.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
How to mean well -

1. Listen to people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We do not know, for example, that a "cure" of ASC, which would improve sociability, as a side effect would degrade above average ability. This is "Rain Man" thinking, pretending that there is somehow a finite amount of brain power and that if one wants to ramp up one bit of brain activity above normal, one has to reduce another below normal. But this is certainly not a general rule shown by science, indeed it's highly questionable and full of potential developmental confounds (if you are "special", you get "special" treatment by others, likely pushing you into further difference).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Just an analogy...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... Not everybody can see that yin-yin and yang-yang fail to harmonise with the structure of mankind and even the universe in the way yin-yang does. So instead we are reduced to discussing the design of penises and vaginas... That's OK though, the greater design of the universe can also be found there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

That's what you seemed to me to be doing. I read your cries of "offensive" as an attempt at substituting social pressure for reasoned argument, an attempt to censor a point of view that is contrary to your prejudices (which is to say the things that you feel to be truebutcannot easily argue for in words).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Seems to me that being argued out of a previously-held viewpoint is an honourable position to be in. It shows that one values truth over the satisfaction of being right.

Conversely, being peer-pressured out of a point of view is dishonourable. It's a betrayal of the value of truth for the sake of a quiet life from one's neighbours. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Homosexuality fails to realise the natural / God given complementarity of the sexes, and their unity in intimacy into a greater whole that transcends their sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... Not everybody can see that yin-yin and yang-yang fail to harmonise with the structure of mankind and even the universe in the way yin-yang does. So instead we are reduced to discussing the design of penises and vaginas... That's OK though, the greater design of the universe can also be found there.

---

That's just too fucking silly for words. It's magical thinking, it's Alistair Crowley's "As above, so below". It's adding indigo to the rainbow so the colours match up with the known planets. It's trying to stuff all the wonders of the universe into one of two boxes, innies and outies. Let me guess, you think stars are yang and planets are yin, and that's why they come in sets, right? But how come one star can have more than one planet? Whoa, Nellie, that's not complementarity, that's polygamy.

The universe is not composed of penetrators and penetratees, although, obviously, not all phallo-phascinated penetrators can see that. Quarks complement each other quite nicely, but they are not male or female, they come in several flavours, and they form a variety of particles by joining up in groups of THREE. There's also tetraquarks and pentaquarks. Why not build a Procrustean bed for human relations based on particle physics instead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Russ, Kaplan Corday, Ingo B and all the others limit sexual activity to the genital.

---

Not at all. Homosexuality fails to realise the natural / God given complementarity of the sexes, and their unity in intimacy into a greater whole that transcends their sex.

---