Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

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.

Dogging and orgies and swinger clubs are for pretty unusual folk I would say.

Casual sex is quite normal if it is done in private.

 

[Rhea]

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'.

Wait, you said,

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

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.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

Which part of that is the thing you are calling EVIDENCE ?
I think the word you are looking for is ASSERTION.

Which is when you confidently and forcefully make a claim but have ZERO evidence.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

Beats me; unless mojorising answers, it's hard to see what he has in mind.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you even believe what you write? Can you even read your own words without smirking or blushing?

Those are, at best, trends. They would be relevant if you were, literally, marrying two halves of the species, but not when you're marrying individuals.

They are statements about the median vales for respective characteristic traits that each sex brings to the marriage. Yes, they are not true of every single marriage but they are still generally true.

No, they are not generally true. Your best case scenario is would be true if you married group to group, or average to average, and they may be true for many individual marriages, but totally untrue for almost as many others.

And you didn't answer my question:

Do you support banning the marriage of heterosexual couples where the the man is sufficiently "effeminate", or the woman sufficiently "tomboy", for them not to complement each other in the way you deem to be a pillar of marriage, exceptional as those couples may be in your fantasy world? Do you support allowing the marriage of homosexual couples where one of the men is sufficiently "effeminate", or one of the women sufficiently "tomboy", that they do complement each other in the right way?

If you answer either of those with a "no", it demonstrates that this newest attempt at a rational justification is yet another smokescreen.

 

[mojorising]

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?

Sex may have been co-opted for various other means by other species but in humans it is mainly engaged in between heterosexual couples in private because it is the mating instinct.

We are not Bonobos.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Jesus. I live three hours away from where the Patriots and the Celtics and the Red Sox play their home games. It'd be easier to have a casual conversation about raping babies than about sports

Sex as a physical activity is almost exclusively private in humans for evolutionary reasons;

You know, proselytizing is against the rules of the forum.
If all you're going to do is just keep preaching the same sermon over and over and over, you're going to get your posts sent to Elsewhere.

 

[mojorising]

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'.

Wait, you said,

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

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.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

Which part of that is the thing you are calling EVIDENCE ?
I think the word you are looking for is ASSERTION.

Which is when you confidently and forcefully make a claim but have ZERO evidence.

I have the evidence of my own eyes, my own rational reflection and my reading of academic material on evolutionary biology.

 

[dystopian]

Dogging and orgies and swinger clubs are for pretty unusual folk I would say.

That's because you're obviously as square as they come.

If you think those things are unusual, then perhaps we should introduce you to Rule 34.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sex may have been co-opted for various other means by other species but in humans it is mainly engaged in between heterosexual couples in private because it is the mating instinct.

Where did you read any of this shit?
You're the one that brought up reading in evolutionary biology.
Where is the reference that ells you we evolved to keep sex private?

We are not Bonobos.

Okay, I guess I can believe you read that somewhere.
What about the rest of your line of bullshit?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Okay, that's an answer, which apparently contradicts one of your previous answers, when you said:

I think homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt children until we understand better what causes homosexuality and also based on the higher risk of sexual abuse from males than females.

I'm not sure whether I or someone else managed to convince you at least a little bit, but let me ask you:

Scenario 1: 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 straight man. The other person was a gay man. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person, as well as other tests.

Scenario 2: If an orphaned baby girl was available for adoption and there were 2 single persons applying for adoption rights. One of the persons was a straight man. The other person was a gay man. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person, as well as other tests.

Which are the preferences, if any, and why?

(Or do you still support an outright ban in the case of gay men, but not straight men? In that case, why? )

 

[Jokodo]

Wait, you said,

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

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.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

Which part of that is the thing you are calling EVIDENCE ?
I think the word you are looking for is ASSERTION.

Which is when you confidently and forcefully make a claim but have ZERO evidence.

I have the evidence of my own eyes, my own rational reflection and my reading of academic material on evolutionary biology.

And I have evidence from my own eyes, my rational reflection, and my reading of academic material on gravity that allows me to conclude that Australians, being as they are on the wrong side of the earth, must remain chained to the ground at all times, including during sex.

Kind of kinky.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have the evidence of my own eyes, my own rational reflection and my reading of academic material on evolutionary biology.

How can you tell that it's rational reflection?
If you do it all alone and get no verification of your conclusions, it's about as compelling as masturbation.

And I really doubt you get even half of your assertions from academic material.

 

[mojorising]

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?

That is an interesting point Rhea. I would say it has argumentative mileage.

I would say however that female traits are less confusing coming from a female person.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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'.

Now i'm trying to imagine how to even design an experiment in evolutionary biology to establish that man/woman sex is special.
What meter would you use to determine the amount of 'special' in the observed act?

Have you read Mary Roach's book 'Boink?'

She researched sex research. One guy was putting copulating couples through an MRI to observe exactly what goes on in there during the act.

Mary describes her experiences on the exam table, under a blanket, with her husband, and with the researcher standing by the table with a wand, rubbing her pelvis and watching the images.

it's really interesting.

But it appears, from that anecdote, that sex being private is more of a social construct that can be overcome with determination (and a little Viagra. Ed didn't want to appear unmanly in front of god knew how many undergrads...), or in the interest of science.

 

[laughing dog]

Sex may have been co-opted for various other means by other species but in humans it is mainly engaged in between heterosexual couples in private because it is the mating instinct.

There is nothing inherent in a mating instinct that necessitates copulating in private. In fact, one might think a strong mating instinct would lead to copulation whenever and wherever.

But, your assumption that reproduction is the purpose of copulation is unsubstantiated.

 

[mojorising]

Okay, that's an answer, which apparently contradicts one of your previous answers, when you said:

I think homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt children until we understand better what causes homosexuality and also based on the higher risk of sexual abuse from males than females.

I'm not sure whether I or someone else managed to convince you at least a little bit, but let me ask you:

Scenario 1: 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 straight man. The other person was a gay man. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person, as well as other tests.

Scenario 2: If an orphaned girl boy was available for adoption and there were 2 single persons applying for adoption rights. One of the persons was a straight man. The other person was a gay man. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each person, as well as other tests.

Which are the preferences, if any, and why?

(Or do you still support an outright ban in the case of gay men, but not straight men? In that case, why? )

Both interesting scenarios Angra.

I would have to pick the straight fella over the gay fella for the baby boy, obviously

For the baby girl, I would probably still pick the straight fella, but I can see arguments the other way since the straight fella could be a wrong-un.

I just think when it comes to children's upbringing it should be a heterosexual one if possible because that gives the child the more evolutionarily natural environment.

 

[laughing dog]

I would say however that female traits are less confusing coming from a female person.

Kindness, consideration, non-violence and co-operation are less confusing when coming from a female? By any chance, is Conan the Barbarian your uncle?

 

[mojorising]

I have to say goodnight fellas and ladies as it is well past bedtime down under but it has been an interesting and stimulating discussion.

 

[Rhea]

I have the evidence of my own eyes, my own rational reflection and my reading of academic material on evolutionary biology.

And what did your eyes see?

I am genuinely curious about this. Because I'm picturing something like, "I saw that man wearing a pink shirt and his child was crying and that's why I hate gays." and until you tell me otherwise, it's going to be hard to erase that single picture as my determination of what makes you think gay men should not have the same rights as heterosexual men.

 

[Rhea]

I just think when it comes to children's upbringing it should be a heterosexual one if possible because that gives the child the more evolutionarily natural environment.

Eeeewwwww. The idea of my parents having sex is utterly gross.
AS a child, that is THE LAST thing I would be thinking about, regardless of the gender of my parents.

You must have had a very interesting childhood.

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?

That is an interesting point Rhea. I would say it has argumentative mileage.

I would say however that female traits are less confusing coming from a female person.

So you think I should have shunned my fathers overtures in empathy so that I could instead look to the coldness of my mother for comfort that would never come? Because you think I would have thought that was "more natural" despite the OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that it was not?