Gay marriage in Australia

[Angra Mainyu]

Quick question for you Angra (maybe this should be a separate thread though)

I suggest you start the separate thread for this question, but I'm even more interested in a thread in which you explain better and defend your semantic argument. I've been trying to get you to explain it, but to no avail. You just keep repeating the same assertions, regardless of counterarguments.

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 couples applying for adoption rights. One of the couples was a heterosexual couple. The other couple was a male homosexual couple. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each couple.

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

I think there are other tests that can be used to measure which couple is more suitable, other than criminal checks and career backgrounds, like background raising children, for example. Usually, that would be enough to make a distinction.
If all other tests yield exactly the same result, I'm inclined (lacking data suggesting otherwise) towards the same answer as the answer to the following question:

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 single persons applying for adoption rights. One of the persons was a man. The other person was a woman. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person.

Do you think preference should be given to the woman?

There are a number of factors.
On one hand, women are statistically less likely to engage in unjust violence than men. On the other hand, women are more likely to kill their babies than men, though that probably does not apply to adoptions. Also, if the tests are equally good in both cases, the statistic may not have much of an impact. It may well be that men who pass those tests are not more likely to hurt their children than women who do. And laws should avoid sex-based discrimination unless there is a very clear and strong reason.


So, my answer would be:

First, lawmakers should base their choice on the evidence available, and see whether women are overall better parents than men, even after passing the tests. I'm not an expert, but as far as I know, there is no such evidence.
Second, the sexual orientation of the men in question - or, for that matter, the women - shouldn't matter, unless there is good evidence linking it to violence against children or poorer parenting. Again, as far as I know, there is no such link.

So, based on the evidence I'm familiar with, the conclusion is negative. But if I see evidence that goes in the other direction, then I would change my view.

Now, could you please address my questions?
For example, why do you want to ban abortions by gay men, but not by straight men?
After all, if it's about violence against children, there is a lot of evidence that men are more likely to engage in violence against children (or against anyone else) than women (aside from killing babies, but again that probably does not apply to adoptions), but no good evidence (you have failed to produce any) that gay men are more likely to engage in violence against children than straight men?
Also, even if gay men were statistically more likely, why would you factor in that increased likelihood to support an outright ban on adoptions by gay men (rather than just preference all other things equal), while you wouldn't factor in the increase likelihood from women to men as the basis for an outright on adoptions by a [single] men? Or would you ban adoptions by single men as well?

Men are evolved as competitive hunter gatherers with skills at aggression and confrontation and ability withstand pressure under hostility and also physical strength. They are good at leading physical activities in the family unit like sports and horseplay.

Women are evolved as natural care-givers, home-makers and child rearers. They are better at empathising with others and better at consoling children who are struggling to learn the ropes at the beginning of life and they are good at nursing very young children. This is not social conditioning it is evolved in their genes.

Well, in light of that, consider this case:

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 single persons applying for adoption rights. One of the persons was a man. The other person was a woman. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person.

Do you think preference should be given to the woman?

If your answer is "no", then why not?
If your answer is "yes", then my next question is:
Do you support an outright ban on adoptions by single men? If so, please say so. If not, then see questions above for the case of gay men.

 

[Jokodo]

No, you're not. This is something that anyone who knows children of homosexual unions can tell you and anyone who's ever done or read a study on the matter can tell you. You have a theory and the other side has data. When theory and data conflict, data wins every time.

Yes, I am.

I am making the argument based on my observations of the world around me and my reading on the evolutionary biology that is the cause of the nature of human beings, both men and women. You can claim that there are studies that undermine my arguments but that is still the basis of my argument.

A reading of evolutionary biology that leads you to make incoherent attributions like "evolutionarily correct". Yeah, we should sure all bow to your wisdom.

 

[mojorising]

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

That's another way of saying "I am god's messenger, the truth has been revealed through and anyone who doesn't agree is willfully ignorant and rebellious and will BURN IN HELL", right?

Because if you actually were arguing on the basis of evidence, you could point us to that evidence rather than just claiming that it exists.

There is nothing wrong with postulating an argument as a hypotheses based on your knowledge of the world. It is not an invalid form of making a point. You don't have to back up every internet forum post with a peer-reviewed study and data.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think preference should be given to the woman?

Yes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, you're not. This is something that anyone who knows children of homosexual unions can tell you and anyone who's ever done or read a study on the matter can tell you. You have a theory and the other side has data. When theory and data conflict, data wins every time.

Yes, I am.

I am making the argument based on my observations of the world around me and my reading on the evolutionary biology that is the cause of the nature of human beings, both men and women. You can claim that there are studies that undermine my arguments but that is still the basis of my argument.

But it's a baseless argument which directly conflicts with available data.

You're making an argument along the lines of saying that the world is flat because that's obvious to anyone who looks around them and are completely ignoring the observations from people who've flown around it on planes. Random assertations based on things that might be relevant don't make for an argument.

 

[Rhea]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

I am making the argument based on my observations of the world around me and my reading on the evolutionary biology that is the cause of the nature of human beings, both men and women. You can claim that there are studies that undermine my arguments but that is still the basis of my argument.

So thanks for finally admitting this. It's an important thing.

You are saying that you, one person among 7 billion, and based on your observations of about one one-hundred-millionth of the available data, can competently make a predictive behavioral claim about millions of people you have not met, analyzing their emotional avialability and adaptability to the confidence level of denying them children.


This is you.

Think about that really hard for a while.

 

[Jokodo]

That's another way of saying "I am god's messenger, the truth has been revealed through and anyone who doesn't agree is willfully ignorant and rebellious and will BURN IN HELL", right?

Because if you actually were arguing on the basis of evidence, you could point us to that evidence rather than just claiming that it exists.

There is nothing wrong with postulating an argument as a hypotheses based on your knowledge of the world. It is not an invalid form of making a point. You don't have to back up every internet forum post with a peer-reviewed study and data.

There's a hell of a lot wrong with denying people basic rights based on speculations, which is what you demand. And you're not making a point, unless your point is to demonstrate that you have a vivid fantasy.

 

[mojorising]

You're making an argument along the lines of saying that the world is flat because that's obvious to anyone who looks around them and are completely ignoring the observations from people who've flown around it on planes. Random assertations based on things that might be relevant don't make for an argument.

It is not a 'random' assertion. It is an argument based on my experience of the world around me and my reading of various material on the nature of evolutionary biology.

I would be happy to continue the discussion of you want to counter the argument.

 

[Rhea]

actual discussion in my workplace
me (I'm female, the Boss' peer but sort of his boss): look I am asking you to make some changes to improve the atmosp[here around here. We need you guys to work as a team,
Boss (he's male): What do you want me to do? I am not going to walk around here sucking their dicks to make them happy, I've got a job to do.
me: Can you just lick them a little? Maybe stroke their butts from time to time? We've got a behavioral crisis here and you're the boss and you need to be the one to make the first change....

this is a little on the extreme side because it's a shop environment, but it is not out of the norm.

Well I think the fella would be in some trouble in any office in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra if he used the term 'sucking dick' to a female colleague within audible range of a group in a large office in any large blue-chip organisation.

Well I think you just proved to yourself that your view of the world is not an accurate description of the whole world.
Is this a useful revelation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You could treat me as a special needs poster Keith. No I genuinely cannot derive your answer.

Sex is a subject that can be alluded to obliquely in advertising and such but it is not a subject for everyday casual chit chat and sex itself, as an activity, is almost exclusively private.

"Sex" am the big umbrella word.
It include gender and attractive-ness and who goes in which bathroom and who TENDS to write books about action and who TENDS to write books about feelings and why no one at work has seen my penis but everyone in the building refers to me as 'he' or 'him.'
It would include oblique references and less oblique references and risqué jokes and post-dating bragging, and people criticizing the unit manager who is dating the receptionist because of his poor math skills (Thirty six doesn't go into twenty three, they'll say. He replies that on his spreadsheet, 36 goes into 23 about three times a night.), and who you can compliment on their skirt and who you don't compliment on wearing a nicely fitted skirt but rather call it a kilt and ask if they lost a bet.

Sex is everywhere and drives just about everything we do, according to Freud.

You probably don't notice the parts you're comfortable with and find the uncomfortable bits so jarring you don't compare them with the rest of it.

Sex is a subject that can be alluded to obliquely in advertising and such but it is not a subject for everyday casual chit chat and sex itself, as an activity, is almost exclusively private.

And again, your broad brush is trying to paint the world a color that you don't have a big enough bucket of paint for.

 

[Jokodo]

You're making an argument along the lines of saying that the world is flat because that's obvious to anyone who looks around them and are completely ignoring the observations from people who've flown around it on planes. Random assertations based on things that might be relevant don't make for an argument.

It is not a 'random' assertion. It is an argument based on my experience of the world around me an my reading of various material on the nature of evolutionary biology.

I would be happy to continue the discussion of you want to counter the argument.

Arguments referencing evolutionary biology made by an individual who actually uses the phrase "evolutionarily correct" and doesn't even see why that's problematic need to be countered no more than arguments referencing gravity by a European who doesn't understand why Australians don't fall off the surface of the earth.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 single persons applying for adoption rights. One of the persons was a man. The other person was a woman. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person.

Do you think preference should be given to the woman?

If your answer is "no", then why not?
If your answer is "yes", then my next question is:
Do you support an outright ban on adoptions by single men? If so, please say so. If not, then see questions above for the case of gay men.

Yes.

Alright, so at least I got one answer.

So, my next question, as I said:
Do you support an outright ban on adoptions by single men? If so, please say so. If not, then why do you support a ban on abortions by gay men, single or not?
After all, if it's about violence against children, there is a lot of evidence that men are more likely to engage in violence against children (or against anyone else) than women (aside from killing babies, but again that probably does not apply to adoptions), but no good evidence (you have failed to produce any) that gay men are more likely to engage in violence against children than straight men?
Also, even if gay men were statistically more likely to do violence against kids than straight men, why would you factor in that increased likelihood to support an outright ban on adoptions by gay men (rather than just preference all other things equal), while you wouldn't factor in the increase statistical likelihood from women to men as the basis for an outright on adoptions by a [single] man? Or would you ban adoptions by a single man as well?

 

[Rhea]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THAT?

You've claimed to based your desire to take children away from gay men on some evidence that you personally have seen and deemed representative of the entire species.

Please share that evidence so we can see if you are reasonable or bat-shit crazy.
Right now the evidence is leaning one way... you have the power to adjust that by saying something taht is not crazy.

I mean, so far you have described gay pride parades. Is that your only evidence that causes you to conclude gay man will harm their children?

 

[mojorising]

Sex is everywhere and drives just about everything we do, according to Freud.

You probably don't notice the parts you're comfortable with and find the uncomfortable bits so jarring you don't compare them with the rest of it.

Yes sex dirves a lot of our behaviour but it is a prickly subject and not one for casual conversation like the weather or eating food or sports.

Sex as a physical activity is almost exclusively private in humans for evolutionary reasons; unlike Bonobos, which are frequently brought up in discussions of human homosexuality even though they are of almost no relevance.

 

[Rhea]

and who you can compliment on their skirt and who you don't compliment on wearing a nicely fitted skirt but rather call it a kilt and ask if they lost a bet.

 

[mojorising]

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THAT?

You've claimed to based your desire to take children away from gay men on some evidence that you personally have seen and deemed representative of the entire species.

Please share that evidence so we can see if you are reasonable or bat-shit crazy.
Right now the evidence is leaning one way... you have the power to adjust that by saying something taht is not crazy.

I mean, so far you have described gay pride parades. Is that your only evidence that causes you to conclude gay man will harm their children?

My main argument was made in post 271

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...e-in-Australia&p=166791&viewfull=1#post166791

It is just my observation of the relative merits of the sexes and my belief that the union of a man and a woman is special and unique thing and is not the same as the union of 'any two adult humans'.

 

[dystopian]

Of course we do.

Hey Dystopian, can you give me an example of when you, as a human, would use actual physical sexual interaction as a general purpose social activity like a Bonobo? i.e. not in private and not with your partner, if you have one.

Ever hear of orgies?

How about casual sex?

How about what the British refer to as Dogging? You know, go to a parking spot, have casual sex in public (with or without a permanent partner) while others watch and maybe join in.

How about swinger clubs?

You know, I really could go on and explain how sexual relations between people aren't restricted to your narrow understanding, but I really shouldn't have to explain elementary things like this to you.

 

[Rhea]

Yes.

Alright, so at least I got one answer.

So, my next question, as I said:
Do you support an outright ban on adoptions by single men? If so, please say so. If not, then why do you support a ban on abortions by gay men, single or not?
After all, if it's about violence against children, there is a lot of evidence that men are more likely to engage in violence against children (or against anyone else) than women (aside from killing babies, but again that probably does not apply to adoptions), but no good evidence (you have failed to produce any) that gay men are more likely to engage in violence against children than straight men?
Also, even if gay men were statistically more likely to do violence against kids than straight men, why would you factor in that increased likelihood to support an outright ban on adoptions by gay men (rather than just preference all other things equal), while you wouldn't factor in the increase statistical likelihood from women to men as the basis for an outright on adoptions by a [single] man? Or would you ban adoptions by a single man as well?

Hang on... if men (masculine, testosterone-laden, macho) are more likely to commit violence why would gay men (not manly, estrogen-tainted, effeminate) be more dangerous? Wouldn't they be closer to the woman-behavior and therefore less of a risk?

That is, if one is using stupid broad brush and biologically incorrect definitions of "gay" in the first place?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

But nobody agrees with you. Everybody here sees something different than you and thinks something different than you is obvious. I too think the conclusion is obvious. Yet, mine is contrary to yours. So just asserting that it´s obvious won´t convince anyone. You´ll have to actually make coherrent arguments. Ie, arguments that are stronger than the ones you made so far. Because... let´s face it... they´ve been pretty weak and easy to find holes in.

 

[mojorising]

Yes.

Alright, so at least I got one answer.

So, my next question, as I said:
Do you support an outright ban on adoptions by single men? If so, please say so. If not, then why do you support a ban on abortions by gay men, single or not?
After all, if it's about violence against children, there is a lot of evidence that men are more likely to engage in violence against children (or against anyone else) than women (aside from killing babies, but again that probably does not apply to adoptions), but no good evidence (you have failed to produce any) that gay men are more likely to engage in violence against children than straight men?
Also, even if gay men were statistically more likely to do violence against kids than straight men, why would you factor in that increased likelihood to support an outright ban on adoptions by gay men (rather than just preference all other things equal), while you wouldn't factor in the increase statistical likelihood from women to men as the basis for an outright on adoptions by a [single] man? Or would you ban adoptions by a single man as well?

I am not in favour of absolute bans on any specific adoption scenario. I am just strongly in favour of a male-female couple as candidate parents over any other combination.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not a 'random' assertion. It is an argument based on my experience of the world around me and my reading of various material on the nature of evolutionary biology.

So...in your reading of evolutionary biology, you noted that almost nothing comes out of nowhere, right?
Things are adapted from existing things?
Muscles and bones and sensors adapted to new functions over time?

So...things that do ANYTHING in our biology likely used to do something else, right?
And often, in your reading of evolutionary biology, things are used for more than one thing, right? Blood provides nutrients AND removes wastes. Bones are structural support AND blood providers. Our tongues move food AND provide nuances to sound. The penis delivers sperm and marks trees. Teeth reduce food and are displayed to exhibit emotions.


So, where in your evolutionary biology reading did you come to understand that sex has the one and only single function of providing for reproduction? Who wrote that? What book is it in? Dear god, it's not in a textbook is it?
Most especially, who the fuck taught you that a human trait has one and only one single EVOLUTIONARILY CORRECT function?

Is there anything else that has only one function? One EC function?

Eyes are "for" seeing. And also they display emotion, interest, attraction, attention....
Ears are "for" hearing. And detecting pressure changes.

Anything? Anything else that's EC1-function?