Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.

---

There are many species like that, especially in the insect world, since it favours survival of the species to breed servants/slaves to take care of them, like ants. Besides, when my neighbours dog humps his owners leg, that is closer to nature in action than morality from a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Um, that doesn't matter?



Totally incorrect.

---

Not incorrect, and it does matter. If everyone in the world was gay humans would go extinct. Yeah, we got the tech to technically still be able to reproduce, but it is really expensive and not adequate for sustaining a significant population. When the population gets to small, the support structures that our capabilities to reproduce rest on would be gone and we would either learn to be straight very fast or go out in a blaze of...buggery? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

There are many species like that, especially in the insect world, since it favours survival of the species to breed servants/slaves to take care of them, like ants. Besides, when my neighbours dog humps his owners leg, that is closer to nature in action than morality from a book.

---

So what are you saying, gay men should keep women as slaves to give them babies? Unfortunately that has been the fate of women in most societies that have embraced homosexuality (Ancient Greece and Japan, etc, etc.) I think that any normal person can agree that is hardly desirable though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

So what are you saying, gay men should keep women as slaves to give them babies?

---

At a complete stretch compared with my previous stances on issues, Gay-Adoption would help the survival of the species as they can take care of the offspring and future generations. That is not including being productive members of society such as farming, producing goods, doctors, who would help take care of the species. Not every individual needs to reproduce.

Your fantasy scenario of the Planet of the Gay where women are held against their will to be used as reproduction tools of Gay Men (no such things as lesbians either) is something not remotely referenced anywhere i have ever seen or heard about in all my time on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

At a complete stretch compared with my previous stances on issues, Gay-Adoption would help the survival of the species as they can take care of the offspring and future generations. That is not including being productive members of society such as farming, producing goods, doctors, who would help take care of the species. Not every individual needs to reproduce.

Your fantasy scenario of the Planet of the Gay where women are held against their will to be used as reproduction tools of Gay Men (no such things as lesbians either) is something not remotely referenced anywhere i have ever seen or heard about in all my time on Earth.

---

Seemed to be what you are insinuating. Maybe you should take a closer look at societies that fully embraced homosexuality, because that is what always happens.
What about lesbians? They are women, and women are physically weaker than men. As gay men want offspring and are unable to create them themselves, they invariably make women cattle to bear them children. Being physically weaker, women generally have little say in this.

As far as a 'gay planet', I consider it unlikely as well, but I was discussing a poster's idea that we are evolving to be gay. My argument was that if we all became gay our species would no longer exist or women would become simple tools for bearing children.
You think I am joking? Seriously dude, do some research into Greece and Japan back when they thought the perfect union was one between a young boy and an old man (remember what I said about that correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?), and you will see that women were just complete cattle in their societies. They were much worse off than in mostly straight societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Seemed to be what you are insinuating. Maybe you should take a closer look at societies that fully embraced homosexuality, because that is what always happens.
What about lesbians? They are women, and women are physically weaker than men. As gay men want offspring and are unable to create them themselves, they invariably make women cattle to bear them children. Being physically weaker, women generally have little say in this.

As far as a 'gay planet', I consider it unlikely as well, but I was discussing a poster's idea that we are evolving to be gay. My argument was that if we all became gay our species would no longer exist or women would become simple tools for bearing children.
You think I am joking? Seriously dude, do some research into Greece and Japan back when they thought the perfect union was one between a young boy and an old man (remember what I said about that correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?), and you will see that women were just complete cattle in their societies. They were much worse off than in mostly straight societies.

---

Ok, I really have to ask, and please believe me that I am sincere and not trying to insult you here: Do you really believe all this stuff? I'm almost at the point where I'm picturing you as a brighter than average college student who is smoking a fatty and laughing at us right now because you have managed to get us all to dance with you by spouting ideas that are ridiculous, but you manage to sound just rational enough that we actually believe that you believe what you are saying. If that is the case, sir, I tip my hat to you. If not, I bid you good day.

Here is an interesting article for you to read:
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...sexuality.html

With some back-up and expanded context:
http://japanhistory-homo.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan


http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...nt-confinement



Basically, when Buddhism was introduced to Japan, homosexuality as an acceptable practice was as well. Women became thought of as literal offspring of the devil, and purely evil creatures whose only purpose in life was to provide children. True love and a perfect relationship was only between a young man/boy and an older man (again, notice how homosexuality and child molestation go together).



Greece was a very similar case, where for a while in several Hellenistic states sodomy was embraced. Women's role's were strictly that of child-bearing. Men would have sex with boys, and keep a wife simply to provide them with sons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...istory.society

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wmna/hd_wmna.htm

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F200...alHISTORY.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Here is an interesting article for you to read:
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...sexuality.html

With some back-up and expanded context:
http://japanhistory-homo.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan


http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...nt-confinement



Basically, when Buddhism was introduced to Japan, homosexuality as an acceptable practice was as well. Women became thought of as literal offspring of the devil, and purely evil creatures whose only purpose in life was to provide children. True love and a perfect relationship was only between a young man/boy and an older man (again, notice how homosexuality and child molestation go together).



Greece was a very similar case, where for a while in several Hellenistic states sodomy was embraced. Women's role's were strictly that of child-bearing. Men would have sex with boys, and keep a wife simply to provide them with sons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...istory.society

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wmna/hd_wmna.htm

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F200...alHISTORY.html

---

I said good day! :clown:

Frankly I think that Vuk has gone over the edge, but at least the thread is interesting.

Define macro evolution.

Why is there a statistically significant relationship between having more older brothers and the chance of being gay? Is its natures way of curtailing overpopulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Define macro evolution.

Why is there a statistically significant relationship between having more older brothers and the chance of being gay? Is its natures way of curtailing overpopulation?

---

Maybe because that makes the younger brothers more over shadowed, more depressed, and it becomes easier for them to be preyed upon. They will respond more well to a guy who pretends to appreciate them when no one else does.

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

---

Shhh. Those are Science Lies put in the world by Satan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

---

But again, you are talking about restructuring of existing genetic material in an organism designed to adapt, not the creation of new bits of genetic code. These viruses are not mutating into bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Shhh. Those are Science Lies put in the world by Satan.

---

Wow, condescending schmuck much? So I see we are back to the insulting your enemies as religious fanatics (which simultaneously attacking their religion). Personal insults make a poor substitute for intelligent debate, Lemmy-lambs. Then again, intelligent debate was never your strong point, was it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Then again, intelligent debate was never your strong point, was it?

---

But intelligent design is clearly yours.

Denial of evolution is a disavowal of all modern biology and medicine. All of it. Poof. Gone.

Seems pretty radical.

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

All this evidence flies in the face of the standard modern attempts to attribute sexuality purely to genetics. It may be more accurate to view is a social phenomena, rather than a product of individual genetics/choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

---

I think a case could be made that while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

So while homosexuality might in the grander scheme of things be natural as a social phenomena; in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

Quote:

---

a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

---

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

Quote:

---

in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

---

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

Humans are mammals.

Most but not all mammals give birth to live young. A tiny minority lay eggs.

The ability to give birth relies on the fetus staying attached inside. This means the placenta which attaches to your belly button needs to stay attached to the womb wall.

The ability to attach the placenta is based on genetic code. Some birth defects will stop attachment. The successful ones use a particular set of DNA codes.

This code has been found to derive from a virus. As it turns out viruses love to get inside your body and subvert your factories (cells) to produce more viruses. Sometimes in the process of subversion their own code gets stuck inside. Most of the time for no effect, sometimes fatal consequences or a mutation of some sort.

For mammals it appears the code for placental attachment is based on a retrovirus.

So unless you are an egg laying mammal you need a particular virus derived mutation to have any chance of carrying a fetus to term.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../403785a0.html

Those with a better understanding of biology can simplify and correct my summary.

In short there are plenty of examples of mutations within not just the fossil record but the DNA one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

---

I disagree with the bit in bold, since I think we are born with certain predispositions that show our true, inherent humanity. Indeed, your side of the argument seems to argue that sexuality is a purely genetic predisposition, so I'm not quite sure why you are contesting the fact now.

However, while we have these internal predispositions, the external pressure of society can lead an individual to be untrue to their own humanity, whether by force, conditioning, or necessity.

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural, I would suggest looking to the original conditions in which humanity developed and the behaviours displayed in those times; and contrast that with how these behaviours changed when the individual became increasingly defined by the abstract creation that is society.

What would your response be to all those examples of sexuality being down to social (and particularly artificial) conditioning?

Quote:

---

untrue to their own humanity

---

Conceptually-speaking, there is just no such thing as one's "own humanity". Might as well be speaking of fairies in the woods.

Quote:

---

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural

---

Natural to the individual, as per your post.

Quote:

---

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural, I would suggest looking to the original conditions in which humanity developed and the behaviours displayed in those times; and contrast that with how these behaviours changed when the individual became increasingly defined by the abstract creation that is society.

---

This is the critical error - there has been society as long as there have been humans. There is no separating the two, so attempts to divine a human nature 'beneath' society is akin to searching for an era in which the Earth was wholly flat.

Quote:

---

What would your response be to all those examples of sexuality being down to social (and particularly artificial) conditioning?

---

'Little Johnny turned gay after the bad man taught him gayness' is easily dismissed with the far more reasonable inference that Johnny was gay all along.

Sexual orientation is emphatically not something that can be taught.

I see morality as a emergent phenomena.

Without delayed reciprocity society would not be able to grow beyond small family groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Conceptually-speaking, there is just no such thing as one's "own humanity". Might as well be speaking of fairies in the woods.

---

Nonsense, a whole host of drives and desires are instilled in use from birth, not least those regarding our human relationships. For example, how a baby craves for its mother.

You seem to be advocating the idea of 'tabula rasa', which is at best a fringe theory within the scientific community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Natural to the individual, as per your post.

---

Yes, natural to the individual. Like I said, this can be assessed by looking at the conditions in which humans began to emerge, and how artificial (from an individual viewpoint) things like society alter them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

This is the critical error - there has been society as long as there have been humans. There is no separating the two, so attempts to divine a human nature 'beneath' society is akin to searching for an era in which the Earth was wholly flat.

---

I already answered this objection in anticipation of it:

"while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual."

Of course, if you believe in fringe theories like tabula rasa, and believe that our humanity has no foundations beyond our experiences, then you will not share the assumptions that underpin the above statement. But within my framework of thought, it stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

'Little Johnny turned gay after the bad man taught him gayness' is easily dismissed with the far more reasonable inference that Johnny was gay all along.

Sexual orientation is emphatically not something that can be taught.

---

I'm sorry, but that is really inadequate in the face of the examples I gave you. Examples that cross all sorts of cultures and historical timeframes, and consistently depict homosexuality as something that thrives only in very artificial environments - a phenomena that is drastically reduced when more typical sexual relations are available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

---

I think you are confusing attraction and the ability to use sex as a means to an end. Lots of people have sex with people they are not particularly attracted to for any number of reasons. Gay men have sex (and children) with women all the time to maintain their cover and straight men have sex with other men in prison to establish hierarchy, gain protection, and/or regain a lost sense of intimacy. Deep down, however, those gay men will always fantasize about other men, and those prisoners will return to women as soon as they are released.

This is a point that I was trying to make to Vuk. There is a big difference between who we are attracted to and who we choose to have sex with. That's where social and situational constraints come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Morality certainly isn't emergent at all. Morality exists all over the animal Kingdom, you just don't call it that. What is morality? Is it not the unspoken (or spoken) rules that govern our behaviour? The proverbial pheromones that drive an ant colony to do the queen's bidding serve the same function: Some species' evolve a means to work together. Wolves operate in packs with rules and regulations. Geese fly in formation. Social rules are one of life's oldest tricks, but humans have the misfortune of being smarter than the sum of their parts. Our mutated brains have enough processing power to question the rules that we never understood on a conscious level anyway, and I suppose in that sense it is emergent indeed.

---

Atoms don't have morals. Therefore it is an emergent property of a complex ie multi molecular system. It is not a property of electromagnetics, gravity or nuclear forces.

The properties emerge out of combining various other things. One requirement for morality to be non instinctual would be memory. Game theory and the prisoners dilemma takes on a whole different strategy when played as a single thought game vs a series.

Morality deals with future consequences. Some people do the right thing because it is right others will worry about the ROI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

You seem to be advocating the idea of 'tabula rasa', which is at best a fringe theory within the scientific community.

---

Then there must be a misunderstanding. You seemed to be conceiving of a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

That is clearly false. The social conditioning is the core.

Another interpretation based on this bit of your latest post is that you're claiming that humans are inherently heterosexual at birth and can only deviate from this rule as a result of social conditioning.

It's essentially the same position, and it is also clearly false.

Quote:

---

"while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual."

---

So look, the only other interpretation I can come to is that 'all humans individually have the exact same nature' (i.e. heterosexuality in particular), which is also clearly false. One common trait, however, is to conceive of and organize the world in social terms.

Note that without society a human is nothing, so there's no point in this "true...individual" stuff.

Even being raised by a wolf-pack instills social conditioning into a human. A human raised in solitude by machines in a sterile laboratory would automatically raise a private society about his environment.

What is the individual behavior of a dog that contains no atoms?

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but that is really inadequate in the face of the examples I gave you. Examples that cross all sorts of cultures and historical timeframes, and consistently depict homosexuality as something that thrives only in very artificial environments - a phenomena that is drastically reduced when more typical sexual relations are available.

---

As Panzer pointed out, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not equivalent notions. Homoeroticism is not homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Atoms don't have morals. Therefore it is an emergent property of a complex ie multi molecular system.

---

It's an emergent property in the same way sunlight is an emergent property of the sun. Everything is precisely the sum of its parts; just because some have difficulty grasping the concept of 10^20 or 10^30 discrete parts to an "object" doesn't mean there's anything "emergent" about it, if we're using "emergence" in that holistic sense and not in the hum-drum literal sense.

A car has 10^3 parts or so, and we have no problem understanding that it works according to the individual capabilities of its parts in their combination.

There is no need to make magical exceptions for any elements of any system.

Quote:

---

I see morality as a emergent phenomena.

Without delayed reciprocity society would not be able to grow beyond small family groups.

---

What you are talking about is a certain sort of behavior, allowed for by the neural complexity of the human brain. There's really nothing more to it. Holistic "emergence" is just an excuse to ignore complexity while paying it lip-service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Social rules are one of life's oldest tricks, but humans have the misfortune of being smarter than the sum of their parts.

---

Let us put the number of neurons and glia in the adult human brain to be on the order of magnitude 10^11 or 10^12. Now, within these there are many different effective elements, from mitochondria to ribosomes producing proteins to the proteins themselves in their myriad roles, to the transmitter molecules in chemical cascades at the synapses of neurons, and so on. Let's say this is anywhere in between 10^8-10^12 effective, discrete molecules - per cell. This gives us a figure of 10^8*10^11 = 10^19 parts minimally, and 10^12*10^12 = 10^24 parts maximally in the human brain. That's something like a billion billions of cars. And of course we're not even talking about muscle tissue here, or bones, or all the support structures that maintain the body to maintain the brain. Not so easy now to say that we're more than the sum of our parts, eh?

The brain can not be treated as one discrete part, or else you come to such fallacies as this...

Natural instinct and behaviour is being over-thought and misconstrued by peoples own morality. There are some very basic preconceptions which are innate, but none of these are in league with morality. They are simple guidelines such as 'Loud Noise = Bad' and as such, drop a pan on the floor or knock over a glass, everyone suddenly goes quiet and draws their attention towards you, heightened senses, anxiety, it starts kicking in the bodies "fight or flight" mechanisms.

The most basic construction of morality was adopted by Christianity and that is "Do upon others as you would do upon yourself". Murder is wrong as you would not wish to be murdered yourself, even this is a stretched as it is a fundamental selfishness. What is very surprising is when you take a look at other cultures where you have the example of HoreTore in Africa saying "First to the tree gets all the apples" and all the kids hold their hands and run to the tree together, so they all got an apple. Put that in America where there is more focus on the individual, and bam, that kid just ran off with all the apples. Clearly the environment makes a massive difference even if you do not understand or appreciate how complex it actually is.

What is inherent is the sex drive, and that desire to do the mating, this is even within asexuals, but it doesn't affect attraction in the slightest. The nature 'favours' certain scenarios such as making sex pleasurable, as people are more likely to do pleasurable things. 'I have a pleasure stick, I have a pleasure hole, lets put them together and both feel good' and the by-product of this is the child, thus this is how nature encourages reproduction. There is no 'You have to be with female only' gene, such as there is no 'You have to be with male only' gene.

Monty i believe we are misaligned on emergence.

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

Look at the layer approach to networking from 1 to 7. The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

Quote:

---

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

---

Quote:

---

The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

---

Then let's be really clear about how we mean this.

Let's go back to the automobile. The car is an assembly of parts (including hydrocarbon molecules actually, though this inclusion still leaves the car many orders of magnitude below the human brain) that function a certain way as a system when properly combined. When improperly combined, the system may act a totally different way, or may even be relatively stable (i.e. totally inoperable).

Does the automobile not have the same properties as its constituents? It doesn't only if you tack on extraneous labels. Yes, you can't drive a steering wheel or scrap a hexane molecule - but so what?

It is totally OK to have a definition of emergence (see end of post) that deals precisely with this sort of thing, but my impression is that it's not the emergence you have in mind.

Quote:

---

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

---

There are a number of parts to a computer, and when they are combined - just as with a car - you get a certain systemic behavior that is reducible to the interaction of the components. A car is what we call a particular agglomeration of parts that has a certain appearance and a certain behavior; it doesn't matter that pistons or wheels or plastic molecules are not 'tiny cars'. A car is just what we call a result.

If a mixture has different properties than its constituent chemicals, well, maybe that's just because the constituent chemicals (each with their own particular properties) react to produce a different chemical with its own unique properties, and not because its some mysterious thing unrelated to the chemicals that were combined to produce it, to be discovered purely by trial and error.

It is not conceptually difficult to predict the "emergent" systemic behavior of automobiles or computers, which are relatively simple compared to biological systems. We do it all the time, in fact, or else we wouldn't indeed have such technology available.

The crux: emergence defined as the interactions of parts producing a - any - systemic function at the highest level, or an emergence defined as the arising of significant new properties on a systemic level that can not be expected to derive from the interactions of the constituents.

The second half of the latter is really critical, and I'm seeing your talk of emergence in that light. So, choose one or offer a different definition.

As an example: if we were to build a human being 'from scratch', do you believe that morality could be predicted as a feature of this human?

I'm not saying emergence is not predictable. I'm saying there are new attribute sets when you combine things.

=][=
However your view is very mechanical.

It seems to not include things like HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) where the computers abilities are not directly linked to its particular hardware. It's why windows runs on so many different hardware combinations. The hardware isn't determining how the applications work.

Add in probability, chaos theory, quantum physics. The last being very interesting as you scale up you go from a digital to continuum so something that changes from probable outcomes to mechanical ones as it gets larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think you are confusing attraction and the ability to use sex as a means to an end... This is a point that I was trying to make to Vuk. There is a big difference between who we are attracted to and who we choose to have sex with. That's where social and situational constraints come into play.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As Panzer pointed out, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not equivalent notions. Homoeroticism is not homosexuality.

---

Panzer, my problem with what you are saying is that this divorcement of the act from the attraction is somewhat novel (at least in those cases where it serves no purpose beyond pleasure), and indeed seems to change the goalposts with what we understand by sexuality - and all this because a cursory glance at sexuality in past societies challenges your position.

Consider my example of ancient Sparta, or modern Afghanistan/Central Asia, or the Ottoman Empire - while you assert that certain constraints might lead to people acting against basic predispositions; in all these examples, no such constraints exists - rather, homosexuality is something pursued in addition to heterosexual relationships. And, indeed, it occurs on such a scale relative to other societies, that we must conclude that society is what is conditioning these people to seek such relationships. Unless, of course, you were to argue that certain population groups had a genetic predisposition towards such behaviour - but I find that highly unlikely (although I would of course consider any evidence presented). Finally, in all these examples, attraction was central to the desire for the act, since it was entirely voluntary and served no purpose but pleasure, at least on the part of one partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Then there must be a misunderstanding. You seemed to be conceiving of a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

That is clearly false. The social conditioning is the core.

---

This notion is not "clearly false", it has been comprehensively proven by the mainstream scientific community. For example:

"Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from Behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies. These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits. Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind such as memory and reason fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Another interpretation based on this bit of your latest post is that you're claiming that humans are inherently heterosexual at birth and can only deviate from this rule as a result of social conditioning.

It's essentially the same position, and it is also clearly false.

---

Again, it is plainly not, and is really just an extension of the evidence I gave above. As to why we should be heterosexual by nature, that is clear enough by looking at human reproduction throughout our history as a species. Homosexuality might make more sense in certain arrangements - for example in pack animals where only the alpha male/female reproduce, but not with human social arrangements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So look, the only other interpretation I can come to is that 'all humans individually have the exact same nature' (i.e. heterosexuality in particular), which is also clearly false. One common trait, however, is to conceive of and organize the world in social terms.

Note that without society a human is nothing, so there's no point in this "true...individual" stuff.

Even being raised by a wolf-pack instills social conditioning into a human. A human raised in solitude by machines in a sterile laboratory would automatically raise a private society about his environment.

What is the individual behavior of a dog that contains no atoms?

---

You seem happy to declare many things as "clearly false", providing no evidence in doing so - and, indeed, in the face of a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

Does society condition a baby to cry for its mother? And to stop when she cradles it? From birth, we can see that particular aspects of the most basic human relationships are instilled in us by nature.

Look at other species - ants and bees know by nature the role they have in their colony, it is hardwired into them. They don't learn it from experience, they don't have the mental capacity to do that. What makes anti-social species like bears seek after a mate, when no society taught them to do so?

If a boy was raised in isolation away from all humanity, and exposed to a female once he was a grown man, do you think he would just stand there unperturbed, since he lacks the social conditioning to be attracted to her? Heck, people knew where to put it before we had sex education.

Society plays its role but you are going way overboard here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Panzer, my problem with what you are saying is that this divorcement of the act from the attraction is somewhat novel (at least in those cases where it serves no purpose beyond pleasure), and indeed seems to change the goalposts with what we understand by sexuality - and all this because a cursory glance at sexuality in past societies challenges your position.

Consider my example of ancient Sparta, or modern Afghanistan/Central Asia, or the Ottoman Empire - while you assert that certain constraints might lead to people acting against basic predispositions; in all these examples, no such constraints exists - rather, homosexuality is something pursued in addition to heterosexual relationships. And, indeed, it occurs on such a scale relative to other societies, that we must conclude that society is what is conditioning these people to seek such relationships. Unless, of course, you were to argue that certain population groups had a genetic predisposition towards such behaviour - but I find that hardly unlikely (although I would of course consider any evidence presented). Finally, in all these examples, attraction was central to the desire for the act, since it was entirely voluntary and served no purpose but pleasure, at least on the part of one partner.

"Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from Behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies. These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits. Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind such as memory and reason fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind."

---

May I point out that homosexuality has also occured plenty in places where the tolerance with homosexuality is zero? As in, more consistant with your second statement than your first?