[barmar]

billw55, on 2015-June-10, 09:51, said:

I suppose that is true, except perhaps in cases where procreation was not voluntary. This is still heard of now, and was probably more common in the past.

Even if it's forced, I'll bet the people who enjoy it will do it more. Unless the sex police are going around, telling everyone exactly how many kids to have, and forcing the gays to have more than their fair share. Which seems extremely weird and unlikely (do they think that forcing them to have hetero sex will somehow knock the gayness out of them?)

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2015-June-10, 09:15, said:

Intuitively, it might seem like homosexuality can't be genetic -- homosexuals don't generally have children, so they can't pass on the "gay genes". But genetics is much more complicated than that. There are many genes that are present throughout the population, but they aren't expressed by everyone who holds them. Think of them like the airbag in a car: every modern car has it, but it only gets used when the car gets into a crash. Similarly, there are genes that only result in the corresponding trait a certain percentage of the time -- when they exist in combination with other genes, or in response to environmental stimulus, or some combination of both. If a number of gays is beneficial to the human species as a whole, the genes will persist, because people who hold the gene but don't actually become gay will pass it on.

Genes operate at the level of populations, not individuals

Consider a hypothetical case in which having a gay brother significantly increased your own chance of reproducing successfully.
Its entirely possible that having genes for being gay would be selected for in the population as a whole, even if this isn't optimal at the individual level

[mike777]

Yes

As for genes please keep in mind the selfish gene's goal is to survive. It's goal need not be survival of the population or the species. Genes can and do move on.

As far as sexuality being innate, present from factors at birth, there are reports of transgenders changing their sexual preferences. This may be due in part to the hormonal treatments. Of course as posters have pointed out the sexual spectrum may be a bit wider than we were taught back in grammar school.


As for childbirths, I am surprised there is not more research discussed in the news regarding artificial wombs, separating a woman's role from reproduction and birth.

As far as the sex police, it sounds a bit unfair to limit sex to only the police but I suppose it would make for a good recruiting tool.

[kenberg]

Certainly a homosexual woman can have a child by use of a sperm donor, I know of it being done. Of course the genetics are the woman's and the unknown donor, not the couple,

I assume it is, at the least, trickier for a male homosexual to arrange for an impregnation with a woman who would carry the child to term and then giveup the child.

Moving on:
I think that the overall thread topoc of having an open mind, or perhaps an open discussion, is very worthwhile. Every age has its orthodoxies and they are worth probing.

[Cyberyeti]

kenberg, on 2015-June-10, 15:49, said:

Certainly a homosexual woman can have a child by use of a sperm donor, I know of it being done. Of course the genetics are the woman's and the unknown donor, not the couple,

I assume it is, at the least, trickier for a male homosexual to arrange for an impregnation with a woman who would carry the child to term and then giveup the child.

There is a fairly well known case in the UK (Mary Portas) of a woman whose wife and brother produced a child. (This produced a tabloid headline that caused a double take of "brother is father of my child")

IIRC Elton John did something like this (not actually sure who the father of his kids is)

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-June-10, 07:53, said:

Strange. I think I captured your views perfectly. You expressly claim that it is 'OK' to hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. You state that you 'can't believe that homosexuality is innate'.

A moment's research,using google, would lead you to learn that the majority of non-religious experts on the subject see compelling evidence that homosexuality has a significant innate component. The only experts who seem to disagree are those with a clear religious bias. As is so often the case, religion obstructs rational thinking.

You are either happy to cling to an unsupported belief without looking into the evidence that would show you your error, or you are allowing your desire that your religious beliefs be correct to cause you to find objective evidence to be unacceptable. In either case, you are exhibiting a way of thinking that is prototypically that of a bigot. I assume that in social interaction you suppress the expression of these beliefs out of some sense of decency.

As for impugning your knowledge.....you do that yourself by your own words. It is ridiculous for you to announce that you 'cannot believe' something for which there is readily available and compelling evidence and then claim that your knowledge or motives are being unfairly described. You want people to applaud your wilful ignorance? Go to a website for people who reject evidence that contradicts their prejudices. That is who you are, by your own admission.

Ask yourself this: why is it that you feel that you 'cannot' believe that homosexuality is innate? You were already challenged to answer that question, and it is telling that you have ducked the question, while whining that you have been unfairly called out for thinking, not acting, like a bigot. Sorry, but the way to avoid being called a bigot is to stop exhibiting bigoted thinking.

Btw, you reveal more of your ignorance when you suggest that we can't prove that ideas such as human rights can be shown logically to be a good thing (I am paraphrasing). This sort of statement is often made by the religious who claim that morality is something that is to be imposed or learned from religion. In fact, a moment's research would lead you to a number of explanations for the existence of morality, including by extension, the notion that humans owe each other ethical obligations known as human rights. The fact that you appear to be unaware of these arguments reflects not on the lack of such arguments but on your knowledge. When someone makes statements of belief without appearing to have any interest in whether his statements are valid, then that person should expect to be called out for his ignorance. You don't like it? Then open your mind to the notion that your beliefs may be invalid.

Keeping your mind firmly closed by rejecting evidence that conflicts with your belief structure or refraining from searching it out when challenged merely reinforces the validity of my description of you. I do find it ironic that someone can make the claim that he rejects a concept because he 'cannot believe' it and simultaneously proclaim that his views are based on evidence

More ad hominem attacks

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2015-June-10, 18:42, said:

More ad hominem attacks

I don't think you grasp the idea that when one expresses one's thoughts, a criticism of those thoughts is not ad hominem.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-June-10, 20:07, said:

I don't think you grasp the idea that when one expresses one's thoughts, a criticism of those thoughts is not ad hominem.

And another

[mikeh]

ok, maybe an example will indicate what I meant.

Imagine nige1 answering a bridge problem and advising that a 4♠ call gets a score of 10 and 4♦ a score of 6. Imagine that I think that 4♦ is far superior.

If nige1 had laid out reasons for his choices, I could address his post in two ways.

I could point out that in a recent thread he stated that he believed that one's ethnic background gave a guide to one's cognitive abilities, That way of thinking arguably reflects a racist attitude if nige1 can point to no generally scientifically accepted evidence to support his thinking. I could point out that without reference to any evidence he has stated that he refuses to believe that sexuality is innate, and has failed to respond to a request that he explain why he believes as he does. That way of thinking arguably reflects homophobia, in that the particular area of sexuality to which he refers is homosexuality.

I could then assert that his attitudes in these areas reveal him to be a nasty human being and I would argue, expressly or by innuendo, that his bridge ideas are unworthy of respect because of who he is.

I don't think I have ever made such a response to anyone on any topic in any part of my life, and if I have, I would be embarrassed.

On the other hand, I could point out bridge reasons for rejecting his bridge thinking.

The former would be ad hominem. The latter would not.

In this thread, nige1 started by offering a provocative statement. I posted that I would defend his right to hold the beliefs he expressed, even tho anyone familiar with my WC posts would know that they were anathema to me. However, by making his post, and further posts in the thread, imo, he invited criticisms of those beliefs, and it is inappropriate for him to duck those criticisms by claiming that the attacks were on him as a person rather than his beliefs as posted by him here.

This is the last post I will make on this now-tedious thread. As I stated earlier, I hope that I am mistaken in drawing the inferences of racism and homophobia that, to me, seemed to arise from the beliefs and attitudes claimed by nige1, and I readily admit that I may well be wrong. What I don't admit is that it is ad hominem to draw those inferences or to call him out on them. Should I or anyone pretend not to see those notions in what he posted, when we do? If I misunderstood him, then better I tell him my thinking and let him correct me through reasoned dialogue than that I or others write him off as a bigot. While, if he is a bigot, then it is only right to call him out. Unfortunately, he has chosen to avoid explaining himself, which makes it difficult to see how I was mistaken.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2015-June-10, 20:12, said:

And another

Nigel, all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the expression ad hominem means.

I know that phrase "ad hominem" has become something of a rallying cry for the stupid who now demand respect.

It actually means something very different. The fact that you are so very confused about this is simply another signal indicating that your opinions should be marginalized.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-June-10, 15:49, said:

Certainly a homosexual woman can have a child by use of a sperm donor, I know of it being done. Of course the genetics are the woman's and the unknown donor, not the couple,

That's a very recent development, only available for about 2 generations. Natural selection involves hundreds of generations.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2015-June-11, 08:53, said:

That's a very recent development, only available for about 2 generations. Natural selection involves hundreds of generations.

Right. I wasn't thinking in terms of how a gay gene might or might not be maintained, I was only thinking of what issues confront a gay couple who wish to have children. Adoption is one answer but there is, for women, this other answer. Looking back I see it is not on topic, as the topic has developed.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2015-June-11, 04:07, said:

Nigel, all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the expression ad hominem means.I know that phrase "ad hominem" has become something of a rallying cry for the stupid who now demand respect. It actually means something very different. The fact that you are so very confused about this is simply another signal indicating that you opinions should be marginalized.

Mikeh's posts about me and this post by Hrothgar are examples of "ad hominem", a phrase that I employ in the dictionary sense.

Wictionary said:

ad hominem

• A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
• A personal attack.

As previously explained in this thread, my view on the claim that Homosexuality is innate is

• On the evidence, of which I'm aware, I can't believe it.
• Convincing evidence and argument would change my mind.

Another example is the proposition that God exists.

• On available evidence, some can't believe it..
• That doesn't imply that they are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, malicious or whatever.
• Convincing new evidence or argument might change their minds.
• Finally, even were they stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and malicious, it wouldn't affect the truth or falsehood of the proposition .

[Trinidad]

?!?

Do I understand that you claim to have evidence that:
- homosexuality is not innate
- God exists

I would like to see that evidence.

I will not get into a God discussion, but the least I can say that homosexuality is certainly not exclusive to humans. If you look at animals, you see homosexuality (and other non-heterosexual behavior) anywhere: cows, dogs, whatever.

Is there anybody who doesn't know that dogs even like "doing it" with humans from time to time? You believe that dogs have somehow learned that behavior? Who taught them that?

If non-heterosexual behavior is all around us in the animal world, which means that at least in these animals it would seem to be innate, what makes you think that it wouldn't be innate in animals of the species Homo Sapiens? You need to have pretty good evidence to claim such an exceptional position for Homo Sapiens. I am curious...

Rik

[Winstonm]

Quote

nige1, you ignorant slut!

That's another.

[hrothgar]

Quote

ad hominem

A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.

A personal attack.

Let us first dispense with the second of these two line items. An ad hominem attack is not a synonym for a "personal" attack.
Not all personal attacks are ad hominem attacks.

More trustworthy sources such as Websters don't include this in their definition.

Quote

appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Let's turn to the first part of the definition you offer. See the word "fallacious"? This is critical to understanding the definition.
An attack is only an ad hominem attack if it focuses on characteristics of the individual that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand or unwarranted.

For example "Bobby Fisher is a vile anti Semite. He knows nothing about the game of chess." is an obvious ad hominem attack.
(Regardless of whether or not Fisher is an anti Semite, this possession of this information has no bearing on his skills at chess)

On the other hand consider the following "Jim Bob never passed second grade math and doesn't believe that fractions exist. He is a poor choice to hire as a math teacher."
This is a personal attack. However, it is not an ad hominem attack because "passing second grade math" and believing in fractions are both related to question "Is Jim Bob qualified to work as a math teacher".

In the posting that I made about you, I stated that you don't understand the meaning of an ad hominem attack and inferred that you are a stupid person.
In this example, there is a direct link between not understanding the phrase ad hominem attack and being stupid.

Therefore, this is another example where the attack is personal, but not ad hominem.

I hope that this has been helpful. Please feel free to follow up if you have any other questions.

[Vampyr]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

[kenberg]

Nige

I don't usually try to hang people on their exact choice of words but in your original post you "confessed" that you cannot believe that homosexuality is innate. That perhaps settles it. You can't believe it.

On to God, for the analogy. I can't believe that God exists. Now do I really mean this? Well, I suppose I can imagine circumstances under which I would change my mind, I have absolutely no reason to expect such circumstances to ever appear. So what I really mean is "If you come to my door and try to convince me that God exists I may or may not listen, I may or may not be polite, but I am extremely confident that when you finally go away, I will still believe that there is no God".

Back to homosexuality. Whatever you have in mind for evidence, it is very unlikely that any regular poster here will change your mind. If you take a year or two off from your job to fully look into it, you might or might not change your mind. But a few casual posts surely won't do it.

For me, the issue of whether homosexuality is or is not innate is not very important. I am not even sure what "innate" means here. Certainly some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and that's innate enough for me.

Now the existence of God could be important, depending on which God and depending on how easygoing He is about my failure to believe in Him. But really, it is a waste of time to try to convert me.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2015-June-11, 10:57, said:

Do I understand that you claim to have evidence that:
- homosexuality is not innate
- God exists
I would like to see that evidence.

I made neither claim. On the contrary, as I've explained before, AFIK:

• There's no convincing evidence for either of the propositions or their negations.
• But there's no harm in believing either way.

Trinidad, on 2015-June-11, 10:57, said:

I will not get into a God discussion, but the least I can say that homosexuality is certainly not exclusive to humans. If you look at animals, you see homosexuality (and other non-heterosexual behavior) anywhere: cows, dogs, whatever.
Is there anybody who doesn't know that dogs even like "doing it" with humans from time to time? You believe that dogs have somehow learned that behavior? Who taught them that?
If non-heterosexual behavior is all around us in the animal world, which means that at least in these animals it would seem to be innate, what makes you think that it wouldn't be innate in animals of the species Homo Sapiens? You need to have pretty good evidence to claim such an exceptional position for Homo Sapiens. I am curious...

Thank you, Trinidad for your evidence-based argument. Animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, when heterosexual satisfaction is difficult. The same applies to humans (for example, in same-sex environments). I agree that there's a spectrum between homosexuality and heterosexuality. What I can't believe (without further evidence) is that a homosexual rather than heterosexual preference can be innate (for the reasons mentioned by Helene_t).

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-11, 12:13, said:

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

I've read similar studies e.g. on
Ethnicity, gender, and academic achievement (see page 4)
but there seem to be few available recent studies.

Vampyr, on 2015-June-11, 12:13, said:

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

Judging from replies so far, yes