[chippa13]

MorePower4me, on Nov 10 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Not for nothing but being gay has nothing to do with your ability to reproduce.

Let's say the breakdown of society happens tomorrow. No more surrogate mothers, or sperm donors.
Still think it works out the same?

2 men will always need a woman in the mix somewhere, and 2 women will always need a man in the mix somewhere.
I'm not claiming it should be that way, or divine design or anything like that, its simply an irrefutable fact of human anatomy.

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Funny, you stick to reproduction and yet tons of gay women have had children.

Tons? Without a man/sperm donor?

Thats quite a feat! Please link me to those articles, I am woefully outdated.

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

[MorePower4me]

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

No, I'm worried that some people think reproducing with a 3rd party and several million dollars worth of equipment is the same as being able to reproduce without either... hint, hint :P


And admittedly, none of this has absolutely anything to do with the use of slurs in hockey, which I abhor.

I do think the commentary is interesting though. A similar conversation happens on weight loss boards vs 'elite fitness' boards across the interwebz. The triathletes/etc wonder why the fat slobs won't get off the couch and stop eating bon-bons and the fatties (myself included previously) wonder why they're cursed with such terrible genes.

I think both sides have interesting points there too, but as with here, its just educated guesses or the scientific study of the week.

This post has been edited by MorePower4me: 10 November 2009 - 04:57 PM

[Race4LastPlace]

Watching the Columbus v. Carolina the other day, i couldnt tell who was saying it, or the player being said to; but this was clearly heard on the telecast:

" (couldnt make out player's name), You F*****G Faggot!"

[chippa13]

MorePower4me, on Nov 10 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

No, I'm worried that some people think reproducing with a 3rd party and several million dollars worth of equipment is the same as being able to reproduce without either... hint, hint :P


And admittedly, none of this has absolutely anything to do with the use of slurs in hockey, which I abhor.

I do think the commentary is interesting though. A similar conversation happens on weight loss boards vs 'elite fitness' boards across the interwebz. The triathletes/etc wonder why the fat slobs won't get off the couch and stop eating bon-bons and the fatties (myself included previously) wonder why they're cursed with such terrible genes.

I think both sides have interesting points there too, but as with here, its just educated guesses or the scientific study of the week.

Just because people choose to do it that way does not mean that they are not able to do it the old fashioned way. I'm pretty sure if the only folks left on this rock were the gay ones and for some reason none of them had any scientific knowledge then they would figure out what to do.

Gay people are just as capable of reproducing as you are, and I'm guessing quite a bit more capable, they just choose different methods.

[psh]

MorePower4me, on Nov 10 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

The funny thing about science is that you can find a study funded by just about everyone, and another study, funded by someone else refuting that first one.

I'll give you that perhaps I was a bit narrow in my scope of evolution, and that there may be in fact some miniscule benefit to having large # of non-reproducing members of your species (hell, go to a Wal-Mart) but you are grasping at straws.

The idea that evolution does anything but make certain the most fit, able of the species thrive, is comical at best. So please continue to find your one-off studies, to try and illustrate a point that doesn't exist. Evolution always is, and always will be about a species adapting to an environment to the betterment of that species.

Find me one environment where not reproducing will benefit the species as a whole and I'll gladly concede my point.

I think your focus on individuals, rather than populations of species, is clouding your thinking. Evolution is understood as occurring within a species, not a single organism or pair of organisms. Moreover, evolution does not move in a specific direction. It produces scattered mutations, some of which prove to be beneficial in the immediate environment. It is a process driven by randomness. If you really want to think about this rigorously, read EO Wilson or SJ Gould. The homosexual population is tiny, most estimate it to be approximately 2% of the human population. Nobody arguing in good faith would assert that the size of the human homosexual population is significantly impacting our fertility rates or ability to propagate the species. Because homosexuality and non-reproductive mating occurs across species, and seems to be most frequently observed in mammals, specifically primates, evolutionary biologists who engage in the discussion (or at least those I have read) fall into two camps: They believe it either (i) is statistically insignificant "noise" or (ii) is the result of evolution that must serve some beneficial purpose in social species. Of course, others, discussed above, believe homosexuality is not transmitted through any direct genetic mechanism at all and is, instead, the result of intra-uterine hormone levels (which themselves may or may not be subject to genetic determination).

Finally, if you want to disregard the Journal of Endocrinology as a propoganda rag that produces one-off studies, I can do nothing but conclude you're approaching this debate in bad faith and there really is no reason for us to engage in this conversation any further.

[MorePower4me]

psh, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

I think your focus on individuals, rather than populations of species, is clouding your thinking. Evolution is understood as occurring within a species, not a single organism or pair of organisms. Moreover, evolution does not move in a specific direction. It produces scattered mutations, some of which prove to be beneficial in the immediate environment. It is a process driven by randomness. If you really want to think about this rigorously, read EO Wilson or SJ Gould. The homosexual population is tiny, most estimate it to be approximately 2% of the human population. Nobody arguing in good faith would assert that the size of the human homosexual population is significantly impacting our fertility rates or ability to propagate the species. Because homosexuality and non-reproductive mating occurs across species, and seems to be most frequently observed in mammals, specifically primates, evolutionary biologists who engage in the discussion (or at least those I have read) fall into two camps: They believe it either (i) is statistically insignificant "noise" or (ii) is the result of evolution that must serve some beneficial purpose in social species. Of course, others, discussed above, believe homosexuality is not transmitted through any direct genetic mechanism at all and is, instead, the result of intra-uterine hormone levels (which themselves may or may not be subject to genetic determination).

You've missed my point and continue to assert that this gay 'mutation' (your words) can somehow be beneficial for the species as a whole, in the way that a birds changing of feather colors could be. But your 'mutation' doesn't in any way make the population as a whole more likely to survive. It makes it less, because there are now that many less reproducing organisms.

And you've still yet to point out ANY species benefiting from non reproducing members...

psh, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Finally, if you want to disregard the Journal of Endocrinology as a propoganda rag that produces one-off studies, I can do nothing but conclude you're approaching this debate in bad faith and there really is no reason for us to engage in this conversation any further.

Firstly, I never referred to the journal (or even the study) as propoganda. Solely that this weeks breakthrough is next weeks rebuffed theory. There are countless, countless examples of this over the last 25 years, and if I wanted to dig a little I am sure I can find a more recent study than the one you posted declaring those findings invalid. And if you waited a few weeks/months you could find one reversing mine.

Secondly, unless the Journal of Endocrinology is unlike EVERY other medical/scientific journal I've ever reviewed, they don't have a 'staff' of researchers, but rather individually funded, individually undertaken studies that are published in the journal for peer review. Since you don't know that, I am led to believe you haven't spent much time in these journals, and your above posting is the result of (admittedly) impressive 'google-ing'

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Just because people choose to do it that way does not mean that they are not able to do it the old fashioned way. I'm pretty sure if the only folks left on this rock were the gay ones and for some reason none of them had any scientific knowledge then they would figure out what to do.

Gay people are just as capable of reproducing as you are, and I'm guessing quite a bit more capable, they just choose different methods.

You lost me here... Why are they more capable? Feel free to cite facts (or even well reasoned opinions).

And I never said not able. I said wouldn't. If the last few people on earth were bi-sexual than by all means you're right. No problems.

But to assume that a gay man, having NO desire to procreate with a a female, could 'perform' (word used in an effort to keep it family friendly) is quite an assumption. I certainly couldn't 'perform' with a man. So why is it they could?

This post has been edited by MorePower4me: 10 November 2009 - 05:48 PM

[chippa13]

Quote

But to assume that a gay man, having NO desire to procreate with a a female, could 'perform' (word used in an effort to keep it family friendly) is quite an assumption. I certainly couldn't 'perform' with a man. So why is it they could?

You're kidding right? There are a few conservative legislators and preachers who could tell you how it happens.

[MorePower4me]

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

Quote

But to assume that a gay man, having NO desire to procreate with a a female, could 'perform' (word used in an effort to keep it family friendly) is quite an assumption. I certainly couldn't 'perform' with a man. So why is it they could?

You're kidding right? There are a few conservative legislators and preachers who could tell you how it happens.

How what exactly happens? If a 'conservative legislator' or 'preacher' has intercourse with a person of the same sex, willingly, then they are not heterosexual. They are bi-sexual. Thats not even an opinion or interpretation, its the literal definition.

So if a homosexual man (again, feel free to take a look at the definition on that one) is sexually attracted to a female, he is not homosexual, he is bi-sexual.

All of your examples said 'gay' or 'homosexual', not bi-sexual. I stand behind my comments.

[psh]

MorePower4me, on Nov 10 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

psh, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

I think your focus on individuals, rather than populations of species, is clouding your thinking. Evolution is understood as occurring within a species, not a single organism or pair of organisms. Moreover, evolution does not move in a specific direction. It produces scattered mutations, some of which prove to be beneficial in the immediate environment. It is a process driven by randomness. If you really want to think about this rigorously, read EO Wilson or SJ Gould. The homosexual population is tiny, most estimate it to be approximately 2% of the human population. Nobody arguing in good faith would assert that the size of the human homosexual population is significantly impacting our fertility rates or ability to propagate the species. Because homosexuality and non-reproductive mating occurs across species, and seems to be most frequently observed in mammals, specifically primates, evolutionary biologists who engage in the discussion (or at least those I have read) fall into two camps: They believe it either (i) is statistically insignificant "noise" or (ii) is the result of evolution that must serve some beneficial purpose in social species. Of course, others, discussed above, believe homosexuality is not transmitted through any direct genetic mechanism at all and is, instead, the result of intra-uterine hormone levels (which themselves may or may not be subject to genetic determination).

You've missed my point and continue to assert that this gay 'mutation' (your words) can somehow be beneficial for the species as a whole, in the way that a birds changing of feather colors could be. But your 'mutation' doesn't in any way make the population as a whole more likely to survive. It makes it less, because there are now that many less reproducing organisms.

And you've still yet to point out ANY species benefiting from non reproducing members...

psh, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Finally, if you want to disregard the Journal of Endocrinology as a propoganda rag that produces one-off studies, I can do nothing but conclude you're approaching this debate in bad faith and there really is no reason for us to engage in this conversation any further.

Firstly, I never referred to the journal (or even the study) as propoganda. Solely that this weeks breakthrough is next weeks rebuffed theory. There are countless, countless examples of this over the last 25 years, and if I wanted to dig a little I am sure I can find a more recent study than the one you posted declaring those findings invalid. And if you waited a few weeks/months you could find one reversing mine.

Secondly, unless the Journal of Endocrinology is unlike EVERY other medical/scientific journal I've ever reviewed, they don't have a 'staff' of researchers, but rather individually funded, individually undertaken studies that are published in the journal for peer review. Since you don't know that, I am led to believe you haven't spent much time in these journals, and your above posting is the result of (admittedly) impressive 'google-ing'

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

Just because people choose to do it that way does not mean that they are not able to do it the old fashioned way. I'm pretty sure if the only folks left on this rock were the gay ones and for some reason none of them had any scientific knowledge then they would figure out what to do.

Gay people are just as capable of reproducing as you are, and I'm guessing quite a bit more capable, they just choose different methods.

You lost me here... Why are they more capable? Feel free to cite facts (or even well reasoned opinions).

And I never said not able. I said wouldn't. If the last few people on earth were bi-sexual than by all means you're right. No problems.

But to assume that a gay man, having NO desire to procreate with a a female, could 'perform' (word used in an effort to keep it family friendly) is quite an assumption. I certainly couldn't 'perform' with a man. So why is it they could?

I think you're smarter than you let on in this string of posts. You refuse to accept that evolution is a process by which a species, not any single organism, adapts through a random process of mutations.

I have also pointed out that there are multitudes of a ways a species could benefit from non-reproductive members: by resource gathering, resource protecting, or the rearing of young. This gets back to your first blind spot--evolution is a social phenomenon that impacts an entire population. But, again, you are entirely missing the point. I'm not asserting that homosexuality is the product of genetic selection. It may well be socialized or the result of the intra-uterine environment. I don't care. What I do care about is how a modern culture treats its homosexual members. This whole string, after all, began as a discussion about whether or not slurs toward gays are acceptable in a locker room. I'd like to think that if there is any doubt, one's first assumption, whether motivated by religious morality, liberal humanism, or pure economics, is that a group ought to be supported and included. Inclusion and toleration, after all, creates an integrated, stable, healthy society, and it expands the marketplace. What's not to like?

And, I do, of course, understand that scientific journals have no paid research staff and publish submissions as part of a peer review process. I have a lot of faith in the scientific process and I think that process is far more reliable than one that would involve paid vetters. A paid staff would be beholden to whomever is writing the check, presumably including advertisers in the journal. When you say I don't "know" this, you're right. I have no idea what you are referring to. Unless you presume that I am not familiar with scientific journals. Quite presumptuous. Based on your line of reasoning and questioning, I wonder whether you're familiar with the basic tenets of the scientific process. But, that's neither here nor there. This is a hockey board.

In the end, I think you're either crazy like a fox or willfully ignorant. As such, I don't think there is anything I can add because no worthwhile discussion can occur if the facts or assumptions on which the debate depends can't be agreed upon. And that's fine with me, because I think the thread has run its course.

[chippa13]

MorePower4me, on Nov 10 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

chippa13, on Nov 10 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

Quote

But to assume that a gay man, having NO desire to procreate with a a female, could 'perform' (word used in an effort to keep it family friendly) is quite an assumption. I certainly couldn't 'perform' with a man. So why is it they could?

You're kidding right? There are a few conservative legislators and preachers who could tell you how it happens.

How what exactly happens? If a 'conservative legislator' or 'preacher' has intercourse with a person of the same sex, willingly, then they are not heterosexual. They are bi-sexual. Thats not even an opinion or interpretation, its the literal definition.

So if a homosexual man (again, feel free to take a look at the definition on that one) is sexually attracted to a female, he is not homosexual, he is bi-sexual.

All of your examples said 'gay' or 'homosexual', not bi-sexual. I stand behind my comments.

Genius, the folks I was alluding to were all married fathers.

[Chadd]

I tried to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but it was obviously wishful thinking on my part.