« Well, I Think Demographics Is Interesting ... | Main | Motiveless Malignancy »

May 04, 2009

Comments

I'm a bit more qualified than a brief comment on a blog would indicate; Human biology was my second major in college. But what do you expect from blog comments, PHd dissertations?

"But what do you expect from blog comments, PHd dissertations?"

No. Some authoritative cites on how "A behavioral trait which interferes with reproduction IS a defect in an organism" will do.

May I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a "defect" in a human being?

No confusing of "biological fitness and moral worth" involved, to be sure.

But what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?, I ask as well.

And when you say, in the same comment, that you speak "[f]rom a standpoint of reproductive fitness, which is the only objective standpoint for measuring superiority vs inferiority for organisms?," could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?

Again, authoritative cites will do the trick. Answers lacking them will not.

No dissertation involved. A few dozen words can contain the cites, and do the trick. Thanks.

So the AIDS rhetoric didn't work, and Brett has now jumped to the reproduction argument. What pseudo-scentific argument is he going to fling next?

I mean, we're talking about a guy who is unaware that anybody except gay men have anal sex. Presumably he also believes that oral sex is anti-Nature because you can't get knocked up that way?

Cites, cites cites. I expect any day now to mention that water is wet, and face a demand for a 'cite' from a chemist to prove it.

"I mean, we're talking about a guy who is unaware that anybody except gay men have anal sex. Presumably he also believes that oral sex is anti-Nature because you can't get knocked up that way?"

I'd be interested in any evidence you have for this conclusion about my views.

"Cites, cites cites. I expect any day now to mention that water is wet, and face a demand for a 'cite' from a chemist to prove it."

I didn't think so. Neither did you bother to reply to my own three cites.

Argument-by-assertion is ever so much more convincing. And quicker!

"I'd be interested in any evidence you have for this conclusion about my views."

I wouldn't draw any conclusions, but as support for a hypothesis, I'd note that you wrote this:

"Why can't homosexual and extramarital sexual activity be safe?l"

Speaking as somebody who doesn't think homosexuality is particularly immoral, nor sex outside marriage for the unmarried: Male homosexual sex is pretty well established to be unsafe for fundamental medical reasons, the fact that the AIDS epidemic first showed up, and mostly stayed in, the male homosexual community, was no accident. Tab A is not 'designed' to be inserted in slot C.

Note that your response didn't actually answer the question. The question was "Why can't homosexual and extramarital sexual activity be safe?"

Since the answer is "no reason!," you went off into a non-sequitur assertion that "Male homosexual sex is pretty well established to be unsafe for fundamental medical reasons," while completely ignoring the fact that heterosexual sex is, in fact, pretty well established to be unsafe for fundamental medical reasons. This is why people use condoms, and (should be) practice[ing] safe sex.

Regardless of their sexual orientation.

You also attempted to reason that "Tab A is not 'designed' to be inserted in slot C," without regard to the number of heterosexuals who have anal sex.

Since you ignored these points, it raises questions about why.

You also, let me note, did a sleight of hand from your "view [of] homosexuality as a birth defect" to defending that claim as a "behavioral trait."

I'd still like to know what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?

I'd still like to know your answer to "may I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a 'defect' in a human being?"

I'd still like to know when you say, in the same comment, that you speak "[f]rom a standpoint of reproductive fitness, which is the only objective standpoint for measuring superiority vs inferiority for organisms?," could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?

Is there a problem explaining what you mean? Thanks in advance.

I reject the claim that water is wet. The only water I ever encounterd was either dry and solid or a very thin and cold vapour. Now, methane on the other hand...
signed P.L.Uto, 666 Mi-Go city, Yuggoth


Brett: A behavioral trait which interferes with reproduction IS a defect in an organism, every bit as much as a missing limb or poor vision.

Being attracted to the same gender does not interfere with reproduction. As any lesbian mother or gay father would be able to tell you.

Being attracted exclusively to the same gender does interfere rather neatly with accidental reproduction, but most people regard that as a worthwhile benefit: people in mixed-sex relationships have to use contraception, people in same-sex relationships only have to refrain from using turkey basters. Comes cheaper. Pun intended.

Gary, I suppose I should be used to the fact by now, that at this site, when people read my comments, they first load the "stupid, evil conservative" 'include file'.

"Why can't homosexual and extramarital sexual activity be safe?"

They can be, that's just not the way to bet. At least, that's what STD transmission rates tell us. But maybe STDs are discriminating against male homosexuals and the promiscuous because they're bigoted.

Yes, Gary, I am quite aware that anal sex is neither an exclusively nor an obligatory homosexual activity. Again, you play the odds.

"Birth defect" and "behavioral trait" are not mutually exclusive categories, unless you're convinced that behavioral traits never have a biological basis.

"I'd still like to know your answer to "may I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a 'defect' in a human being?""

I would say that it is, in cases where use of contraceptives results from an innate drive, rather than a reasoned choice. I don't think that's too common, though.

"I'd still like to know what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?"

The point is merely to establish why I use the "defect" in "birth defect", that homosexuality isn't a neutral variation, like hair color, or an attached vs detached ear lobe. But, of course, birth defects don't have any moral component, despite what that line in the 'include file' leads you to attribute to me.

"could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?"

Could you explain what could possibly lead you to think, in the first place, that I believe biological fitness and moral worth to be even vaguely related? Am I a bad person because I'm near-sighted, with flat feet? I don't think so, which is perhaps why I wouldn't take offense to them being described as "birth defects".

Remember, I don't have a copy of that include file, maybe you could provide one, so next time I'll know what things I didn't say to expect folks here will assume I mean.

Brett, you still haven't managed to come up with any reason why sexual orientation should be regarded as a birth defect in any way at all... except inside the tiny mind of a stupid, evil conservative, who's got it in his include file that "homosexuality is not normal".

Speaking as a tiny-minded, stupid, evil conservative, I too am still puzzled by Brett's insistence (sans cite! "Darwin" does not constitute a cite) that homosexuality is a birth defect.

I'm really not sure why Brett thinks objections to this completely unsourced and unsupported assertion stem completely from ideological opposition, rather than from something more like "WTF?"

This isn't one of your better arguments, Brett, and I'm hoping that your defense of it isn't one of your better defenses.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad