@Ogion

i completely agree with all of that... which confuses me since Bo said that human genetic diversity affirms Naziism. I mean, I understand that Naziism can only exist given that humans have different genetics...

but that doesn't mean that Naziism has ANY truth BECAUSE of genetic diversity.

My point I'm trying to make is that homosexuality is a deviation from what you'd expect from an organism, although because of how humans have developed it does make more sense why it would arise. Furthermore, genetic diversity is important for a population, EVEN us

*moral question
Morality is the acquiescence or joyful acceptance to God's law.
Ethics is the the acquiescence or joyful acceptance to human law.
You cannot say something is moral if it violates God's law. Homosexual behavior violates moral law. If it its acceptable as human law that would be an ethical judgment.
Ethical rules are changeable. Morality is not.

Ogion, God's law dictates that we are to love everyone. That doesn't mean i have to like you. But i am prohibited from hating you. I may not like or agree with your thoughts or actions but i am commanded by God to love you. My feelings on the matter on loving you do not concern God, i am to comply. i may not like being told what to do but i have no choice if i am to love God. That is an example of a moral law.

"My point I'm trying to make is that homosexuality is a deviation from what you'd expect from an organism"

So what?

"The most pernicious of all forms of bigotry is self-rightousness."

Which will conveniently be redefined as "insistence on community norms I don't like."

@James … yeah, you’re clearly missing something. Genetic diversity lends itself to stronger and weaker genomes. If you have people who believe they have stronger and better genes than the rest of the world, you get Nazis. That’s my point. The fact that we have basically zero genetic diversity discredits Nazis. As if you needed any more to discredit Nazis.

As for reproduction - no shit we have to have a few babies. My point is that there are a ridiculous number of human beings. Even if a remarkably large proportion of us *did not* reproduce for many, many generations on end, our population would still be vastly above the historical norm.

I get what you refer to when you say that not reproducing isn’t “normal,” but as I said, humans aren’t normal. We are capable of thinking in ways that do not line up with our evolutionary interest. A lot of beings are capable of this as well. We are only in the very beginning stages of learning the psychology of humans, let alone other species.

You understand what was wildly baseless about your argument, so that is that as far as I’m concerned. I’m not writing an academic paper on evolutionary biology for you explaining what I wrote.

@Brad … if you had read what I said instead of twisting what I said into your own pseudo-religious … thing … then you would understand that I am speaking biologically when I say that humans are not normal. Genetically speaking, we are something like 98.5% dog. We’re similar to a lot of things that you wouldn’t think we are similar to. However, the few things that differentiate humans from dogs are fairly substantial on a practical (not evolutionary) level. Even the differences between us and our primate counterparts are rather substantial on a practical level.

As for whether or not I’m a self-hating person, I don’t know why you care and I don’t know why you have the gall to ask me that kind of question on a public forum. Kindly fuck off.

oh yeah the idea that everyone would turn gay isn't going to happen until the CIA perfect their Gay Bombs. Just ask Alex Jones, he's been a hero of reporting on their experiments on frogs.

(that was a joke)

@lethologica

um... that's literally it. just making that point

How do these conversations even happen?

webDip is a strange place

well this was my first post

---
Zultar: "b) that anyone who doesn't agree with their political view points must be racist or bigoted and that allows them to attack them personally. Neither of these things are acceptable"

Ogion: "since racism and sexism are undeniably a foundational part of conservativism as it is practiced in the US"

...?????????????
---

"@lethologica

um... that's literally it. just making that point"

But that is not a criticism of homosexuality. I thought you were trying to offer a criticism of homosexuality, possibly one satisfying additional criteria like 'non-bigoted'. Was I wrong?

"@James … yeah, you’re clearly missing something. Genetic diversity lends itself to stronger and weaker genomes. If you have people who believe they have stronger and better genes than the rest of the world, you get Nazis. That’s my point. The fact that we have basically zero genetic diversity discredits Nazis. As if you needed any more to discredit Nazis."

While humans do have relatively low genetic diversity compared to species in general, an assumption of greater genetic diversity does not lead to a validation of the Nazis' position (which I will summarize for convenience as "our population has good genes, their population has bad genes, they should die and we should rule").

First, different populations might have different strengths. Second, in that situation, the maintenance of diversity at the population level might still be a positive or even necessary good. Third, Nazis were shit at evaluating which genes were 'good' and which genes were 'bad' (not to mention which traits were genetic). And fourth, even if you eventually get all the way to validating some practical form of eugenics, the Nazis chose an incredibly shitty method of eugenicizing the population.

This is a non-comprehensive list, but I feel it's sufficient to make the point.

bo_sox's statement from a few posts ago: "... Kindly fuck off"

So considering that bo is (unfortunately) a mod, is this an example of the site owner's stated goal of making webdip forums a more friendly and welcoming place?

@Lethologica

OOHHHH ok I gotcha. yeah it's in no way a negative nowadays, but for an individual organism it's not advantageous, since you won't have your own kids. This in no way is me advocating for anti-gay policy, stopping adoptions, etc.

When I was talking about potential problems, the only 2 i listed were the hypothetical all-gay means no babies and the religiously biased view, neither of which I think are practical.

"So considering that bo is (unfortunately) a mod, is this an example of the site owner's stated goal of making webdip forums a more friendly and welcoming place?"

It was in response to an overly personal question about bo's mental state. It's akin to celebrities batting away the paparazzi for invading their privacy.

Fieps, if you're gonna bait a mod, try ghug. He bites.

No i apologize to Bo for publicly inferring a lack of sincerity in his posting. i take no offense in his expletive and ask for his forgiveness.

@james Yanik
1) kin selection
2) balancing selection

Look them up

#loveghug

#****bo

@ogion

yeah, i know about each of them i've taken some entry level anthropology classes... but what is it specifically you're referring to?

Mechanisms by which having a certain percentage of gay individuals may be evolutionarily advantageous at the population level. *shrug*

What is with this desire to make things difficult ? Ghugs post & countless posts from Omnipotent Zultar make it, imho, quite clear.
This is my interpretation
I can say, I think that fundamentalist Christians preach hatred of homosexuality..... I am expressing an opinion
I cannot not say.. Christians preach hatred of homosexuality... That's trying to make a statement of fact, which is offensive to many members, and as statements of facts go, contestable, and clearly not a proven fact.
I cannot say... Player x is a hate filled fundamentalist Christian who preaches hatred of homosexuality. That is abuse of another player.
I can say, I think that the statement " blah blah " made by player x is a racist or sexist comment ..I am expressing an opinion about a comment, not the person who made the comment.
I cannot say..that statement " blah blah" is a racist or sexist statement ....I'm trying to present an opinion as a statement of fact.
I cannot say player x who said " blah blah " is a racist or sexist.
That is abuse of player x
Now I may not have my interpretation exactly correct. But I cannot see why all this is being made unnecessarily complicated and difficult.
As a guide, err on the side of caution with interpretations.

I think leth and mm have it right. More evolutionary bio after coffee

Ok, the kin selection is hypothesis is pretty simple: gay siblings lead to more offspring, especially when competition is strong and resources limited (pretty much always the case for critters like humans)
balancing selection hypothesis is a little more complicated. First, the observation that the biggest determinants of fitness in hominids appear to have been social rather than physical for some time. By the way, this means neither the traits nor the environment fossilize which means that anyone making specific claims about human selection is probably making up fairy stories. Yes, I'm talking about you oh "evolutionary psychologists.") However, if you take a look at the fox domestication experiments, it appears that in mammals there are a series of physiological and hormonal changes that go along with reduced aggression and greater social intelligence. Indeed, it looks like humans have been self-domesticating for some time, with reduced dentition, greater cranial capacity and a few other things. What this suggests is that human selection has been selecting for a greater ability to win and hold allies and empathy and the like (who knew, Diplomacy players are the pinnacle of human evolution!). Now, the hypothesis is that there's a developmental correlation between those traits and sexual orientation through some common developmental pathway, particularly among males. Sure, you can pump out maximum testosterone and be super hetero, but at a cost of being piss poor at crafting the alliances that are needed for greater reproduction. So, hypermasculinity is selected against. On the other hand, if emotional intelligence is part of a complex of traits that includes some of the biological foundations of homosexual sexual orientation, then you'll have an instance where maximum male fitness comes from being "a little bit gay" That comes at a cost of some offspring with reduced fitness, but that's offset by greater fitness from the others. Be too hypermasculine and fail. This is somewhat analogous to the mechanism that keeps sickle cell anemia around at low levels. Heterozygotes are immune to malaria, and so have greater fitness. However, if they become too common in a population, more of your offspring are homozygotes and die quickly. So, there's a frequency dependent selection there to keep the trait around, but not too common.

Anyway, the point is that evolution is really bloody complex, and probably more complex than hominid brains can really understand. Its not some simplistic thing like physics. That in turn means that everyone ought to be really damned careful about making evolutionary claims. Otherwise you end up looking like an idiot like the "sex is for reproduction" religious guys who clearly understand precisely zero about humans. You don't want to be end up a laughingstock like those guys.

@Ogion

ok... i already talked about how sexual orientation isn't always for reproduction. in fact for modern humans it rarely ever takes into consideration female fertility

@ogion..some of what you write about evolution in us advanced "apes" selecting for intelligence and social skills as well as strength etc reminded me of a Sir David Attenborough programme about huge packs of "ground dwelling" apes?.. these large packs of baboons and another similar critturs that ranged across mountains (_Atlas ?) in Nth Africa.... So they've given up living in the trees for protection against ground based predators, but use other tactics..the herd... But there's a real advantage in having social skills, forming alliances etc.. Like one simple thing, a new male, trying to join a smaller group within the larger herd, & unsure of his status & safety, will often grab an infant and carry it, groom it, because it means he is far less likely to be attacked by other rival males, it earns him brownie points with the females.
So yes, I think you make some interesting points, Ogion. Evolution through natural selection is complex and interesting.
As a high order mammal, humans are thought to evolve slowly..But what about the increasing rapidity of change in the environment in which humans live.. Our urban/ city environment has been around from its start with settled farming, but look at how rapidly it's changed in the last 300 years.. Will that change drive change in us, increase the value of intelligence and social skills ahead of strength, basic health/fitness... As our medical technologies improve, is there less need to be able to survive disease, be able to eat "dodgy" food and not get sick etc..we can fix those problems and more of those "less physically robust" individuals get to breeding age and breed..and the ones with the best social skills are more advantageous the breeding caper.
Especially the succesful philanderers... men who make cuckolds of other men by planting their offspring in other couples families.
I think it was in Manchester where they did a survey of what proportion of children who were thought be sired by the husband/partner of the mother, but who actually had a different sire, and the results were a bit of a surprise all round...seems there was a lot more infidelity going on than what had been originally thought.
If you think about it, wouldn't natural selection in humans favour the successful male seducer of other men's partners, especially the seducers who are so adept at social skills, manipulating others, that they aren't even suspected of being what they are ?
Sorry gang, but there's an evolutionary imperative driving my philandering, so it's clearly "not my fault"

One of the key differences between humans and other mammals concerns ovulation. In most mammals the male's can easily tell when a female is ovulating, often by smelling, tasting the urine of the female, other physical signs... But in humans there is very little that signals when females ovulate. Which is interesting, ..that for some reasons natural selection favoured this outcome in humans..one theory is that if several males think they might have sired the offspring, then the offspring have multiple male protectors ? Proof that us men are just pawns when compared to the Ladies of our species ?

So you're saying that if bo_sox were to make a regular practice of tasting women's urine, that would be a sign of him being a non-human mammal?

Indeed, MM has it right. Humans have both hidden estrus and menopause, both of which are rare as hell among mammals and pretty much proof positive that sex in humans is about one hell of a lot more than reproduction. Of course, people who don't understand biology totally miss this point, and then look like idiots when they get holy with their pronouncements. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson on the whole "The earth is the center of the universe" business, but you'd be wrong. Hell, St. Augustine understood that it was dumb as hell for religious leaders to try to pontificate on scientific issues, but that lesson didn't stick.

I think that difference between humans and other mammals is of great significance, plus the biological "pleasure reward" of Orgasm's in humans is interesting as well. I'm speculating but the difference related to ovulation might go way back in our evolution.
It's such a singular difference, why ? That's the really interesting question.. There are lots of other mammals that live in communal groups. Natural selection always (?) favours outcomes that give an advantage.. So there had to be compelling reasons / advantages for humans that applied to virtually no other mammals, and those reasons / advantages have to be there for our earliest "social structures". It's also likely that early human societies eg Europe before the Aryan " invasion" had not linked coition to pregnancy.. Eg the fertility rites, wind spirits thought to cause pregnancy in animals and humans.. The earliest "official" recognition of the connection that we know if is a Hittite myth of the simple minded Appu, and the Hellenic invasion of Central greece circa early second millennium BC first brings a male military aristocracy that understand "paternity", they worship the Aryan Trinity of Indra Mitra & Varuna, and value patrilinear succession. So this evolutionary difference between humans and other mammals is unlikely to be driven by " conscious decision making" by humans themselves, I think it's way back there when our ancestors left the jungle canopy, and started to range across the grasslands of Africa..when our language skills are rudimentary at best ? I agree with Ogion, sex in humans is about a lot of other things than simply procreation, indeed, procreation is probably last on the list of probable reasons why we evolved with such a singular difference to virtually all other mammals