In a discussion of CPAC, Greg Gutfeld argues that religion alone seems to be the basis for some people’s distastes:
…if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested – without saying “it’s in the Ten Commandments.”
After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We’re better than that.
And if you disagree with me, you probably don’t hit the gym enough.
I have long argued that sexual tastes are just that. Some people like some things, while others don’t. My opinion is that unless someone else’s taste involves the use of unwanted force or fraud against others, it is a bad idea for the government to get into the business of regulating it.
And speaking of regulating human tastes, it wasn’t enough to ban Four Loko and other caffeinated alcoholic drinks. There is now a growing movement to crack down on certain beverages containing caffeine:
Mary Claire O’Brien, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine who helped foment the moral panic that led the FDA to ban Four Loko and three other brands of caffeinated malt beverages last fall, says the fight against demonic drinks is far from over. “These premixed alcoholic energy drinks are only a fraction of the true public health risk,” she and co-author Amelia Arria, a researcher at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, warn in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association commentary. “Regular (nonalcoholic) energy drinks might pose just as great a threat to individual and public health and safety.”
And as in many cases involving the taste wars, caffeinated beverages are a threat to…. The Children!
…the authors, researchers at the University of Miami, equate “heavy caffeine consumption” with “drinking energy drinks,” even though the leading brands contain considerably less caffeine than coffee does. Red Bull, for example, has 9.5 milligrams of caffeine per fluid ounce, while RockStar has 10, compared to about 18 for drip coffee. “In healthy adults,” the article says, “a caffeine intake of 400 mg/day is considered safe,” while “adolescent and child caffeine consumption should not exceed 100 mg/day.” Since a can of Red Bull contains 80 milligrams of caffeine (comfortably below the recommended limit for children and adolescents) and a short coffee from Starbucks has 180 (far above it), the focus on energy drinks–which the authors suggest should be restricted like cigarettes, alcohol, or maybe Valium–is puzzling, especially since, by their own account, American teenagers typically do not consume very much caffeine. “In the United States,” the article says, “adolescent caffeine intake averages 60 to 70 mg/day.” But why let that stand in the way of a good panic?
Look for my dissection of the Four Loko freakout in the March issue of Reason.
The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is that while they might make sense to rational people, to the regulators they are seen as pointing to loopholes that must be closed. Thus, when alcoholic drinks containing caffeine were banned, libertarians like me analogized it to banning Rum and Coke. Sure enough, the regulators of human tastes turned right around and tried to regulate that too! (What’s absurd to me is a moral issue to them!)
So, while the argument that the canned energy drinks have less caffeine than Starbucks coffee might cause guffawing and snickering among libertarians, the taste regulators would see that as little more than an argument in favor of mandatory ID checks at Starbucks, at grocery stores, and anywhere coffee, tea, or “normal” soft drinks are sold. The logic is simple enough. Pepsi and Mountain Dew contain 55 mg. of caffeine to a Red Bull’s 80 mg., which means drinking two cans is like drinking one and a half Red Bulls! And drinking coffee is even more dangerous than drinking two Red Bulls!
All have to be regulated, lest our children overdose!
Sometimes I wonder whether the desire to regulate the tastes of other people is built into the genes.
Of some people.
In that respect, a link in M. Simon’s post yesterday reminded me of the inducement argument.
…they [gay conservatives] are taking advantage of the alcohol parties at CPAC to poison the minds and pollute the bodies of young conservatives who are still too naive to know what is being done to them,” – Eugene Delgaudio, President of the Public Advocate of the U.S., warning about GOProud in a fundraising email.
Just as there are people who believe that exposure to open homosexual behavior will induce people to become gay, there are also people who believe that the presence of energy drinks on store shelves — or for that matter junk food outlets on public streets — will induce people to consume them. This is why cigarettes are treated the way pornography was once treated, kept behind the counter out of reach of children and sold only to adults. The regulators on the left want caffeinated beverages and junk food treated like cigarettes and alcohol, if not banned completely.
The inducement argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, for it is undeniable that there are always going to be some people who will want to do something that they see others doing. Behaviorally, it’s called “monkey see, monkey do.” In the context of homosexuality, I think it has to be admitted that there are some people who might have a tendency to develop that taste, and who, but for gay visibility, might not, or might not have. The idea that people who might have gay tendencies should be protected by society from their own tendencies is considered a little ridiculous by most people, but it has an undeniable appeal to others.
A well-known religious cartoon from many decades ago epitomizes this mindset:
The mom is afraid to let her boy see the gay genderbenders, and it reflects the fear in the minds of parents that a heretofore normal boy might be induced to become one of them.
As to how often that happens, I don’t know. If the “gay disease” were that infectious, the percentage of homosexuals would have increased dramatically. (As I said to Simon in an email, if exposure to homosexuals induced homosexuality, everyone would be gay by now.) I think a good argument could just as easily be made that the boy in the cartoon would repulsed by the men in dresses, and if he had gay tendencies the sight of them might drive him straight into the closet, because for every “monkey see, monkey do” inducement, I think there are also “monkey see, monkey don’t” inducements.
Which is why forbidding things and screaming about how awful they are can actually encourage them. As I have observed, Anita Bryant unwittingly did more for the early gay movement than they ever could have done for themselves.
But that’s just human psychology. Whether or how parents discourage tastes they don’t like in their kids is their business, but when they seek to have the government regulate the tastes of adults, then they’re regulating my business.
If we are monkeys, then I am my own monkey. I am not responsible for the behavior of the other monkeys, nor do I blame other monkeys if I decide to do what they do. That is called personal responsibility, right?
Maybe it’s not a normal monkey trait.
Comments
64 responses to “Protecting the monkeys from developing bad tastes”
Ah. A post about monkey business.
Thanks for the link! And especially the e-mails.
Maybe exposure to heteros makes gay people straight!
In other words, we all used to be gay except for that one couple (Let’s call them, oh…. say Adam and Eve).
They kept throwing parties and inviting all their friends and as the normal, gay people saw the indecent hetero activity, they “turned”.
Eh, that makes as much sense and “choosing” to be gay.
As my brother says, “Yeah, I chose to be ostracized by most of society so I could have a guy stick his dick in my a$$.”
Personal responsibility? Absolutely not a normal monkey trait. If it works, take the credit, if doesn’t, you was sabotaged.
Maybe conservatives will stay away from next year’s CPAC because they’re afraid of catching teh gay.
Not seeing a problem here.
Why was homosexuality considered an abomination by the bible, requiring death for those who participated in it?
Two possibilities.
1. God, the supreme ruler of the Universe declared that it was an abomination and command his people to put to death those who engaged in the practice.
2. In ancient times, long term societal experience with homosexuality yielded the information that those who practice it become riddled with virulent and horrible diseases, and transition from that practice to even more horrible and disgusting practices (Beastiality, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, etc.) and so the wise men of that era decided to incorporate the moral prohibition of the practice in their religion because they felt it was the most workable way to convince people to refrain from the practice without having to explain why.
Which explanation do you consider the more likely, or do you have one of your own?
demonic drinks? gay disease? Some of us, apparently, still huddle in a small hamlet in the Carpathian Mountains cringing at each wolf howl and bedecking our homes with garlic.
DL: It is not my job to explain your irrational fear of homosexuals.
Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., Eddie Long, Ken Mehlman, Roy Ashburn, George Rekers. I’m just saying.
DiogenesLamp, you fail to consider #3 – the most likely explanation.
Homosexuals do not produce children, and the clans back then needed more spear-fodder.
DiogenesLamp, you fail to consider #3 – the most likely explanation.
Homosexuals do not produce children, and the clans back then needed more spear-fodder.
Kathy Kinsley · February 15, 2011 6:04 PM
Very Good. You have identified one of the other vectors in the equation. You contend that it is the more important one. I agree that it was important, and that the people of that time considered it the duty of people to have children to help in the defense of their city/state or village.
I just think the experience of ancient people’s taught them that homosexuals were not only not contributing to the defense/offense force, but that they were dangerous from a standpoint of disease spreading and also because they had a tendency to explore further sexual frontiers.
Citing the Old Testament as an example of recorded behavior, I point out that the Entire tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out to extinction because of the behavior of the men of the Town of Benjamin in attempting to sexually molest a male traveler. They ended up raping his wife to death, and all the tribes of Israel rose up against them vowing to kill them all.
The sexually explorative behavior was one aspect, and the lack of children being produced was another, but I think by far the most worrisome aspect of homosexuality in ancient times were the predilections for diseases.
In an age before anti-biotics, anti-virals and anti-fungals, disease was often a death sentence. (Not only for the people who contracted it through dangerous behavior but through contact with others.) Given the sheer terror people had towards diseases, people were not sympathetic to the carriers. If a group of people were identified as persistent carriers, they would simply be killed.
Given that much of the dietary restrictions in religious texts deal with the suppression of diseases known to be associated with certain foods such as pork or blood, it is reasonable to assume that concerns over disease were taken very seriously.
As an asthmatic child, I started having straight, black coffee … at age three I think. In pre-inhaler days, (at least where I was) it was the thing.
Gay people and young children… We always had gay friends. Doesn’t disturb the kids. (And btw didn’t stop them using “gay” as an insult in playground up to about age ten, because “Gay” in elementary school ONLY means “weird.” I.e. “you stick out.”) The little mountain town we lived in till the younger was eight is very gay-friendly and has a huge gay community. I don’t remember any gay couples amid the parents in older-boy’s classes, but they were about half among parents in younger-boy’s classes. I suppose that contributed to their viewing it as normal and boring “if it’s something parents do it’s booooooooooring.”
Gender bending is a little more difficult, particularly if you’re talking about kids under five? There is simply no way to explain to them why a man is wearing a dress. Saying “Because he is” doesn’t mean the kid won’t be insufferably rude ANYWAY. Kids at that age are enforcers of conformity as far as I can tell. I found it easier to avoid circumstances where my kids could make other people uncomfortable until the kids were old enough to at least not misbehave. Probably offended some people, but that’s life.
Oh, and Eric, as I’m SURE you know (G) there is homosexual behavior (sometimes not exclusively so) in all apes and monkeys as well as any other species with low sexual dimorphism. (Occurs to me that aliens with HIGH sexual dimorphism would probably view us all as a bunch of perverts.)
Oh, and Eric, as I’m SURE you know (G) there is homosexual behavior (sometimes not exclusively so) in all apes and monkeys as well as any other species with low sexual dimorphism. (Occurs to me that aliens with HIGH sexual dimorphism would probably view us all as a bunch of perverts.)
Sarah · February 15, 2011 8:05 PM
Tell me, do the homosexual monkeys have only male partners? Or only Female Partners?
DL
I’m not Sarah, but the answer is “Yes”. It depends on the monkey.
Re: the association of homosexual sex with “filthy” and “disease”, I imagine that’s not surprising in a society where bathing is communal (look at the prohibition on menstruating women bathing – it’s so they didn’t bleed into the water) and not all that common. ANY sex would have been pretty risky, which explains why there aren’t a lot of old people’s remains from those times/cultures. Most of the dead adults are in their 30 – 40s, with the kind of degenerative diseases we’d expect to be seeing from 70s on, at least once you get out of nomadic and into farming culture. Nomadic tended not to leave as much in the way of burial grounds for archaeologists to go through.
Incidentally, DL, there is no evidence that homosexual behavior translates to necrophilia, bestiality or pedophilia. It’s about as evidence-based as the argument that possession of a penis makes the owner a rapist.
Of course, you are welcome to believe what you believe. You just don’t get to make anyone else accept it.
Hey, I see there is interest in the topic!
Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts says he was sexually molested by a camp counselor when he was 10. I wonder what the gender of the molester was?
http://minx.cc/?post=312143
DL, when will you just come out of the closet?
Dude, is that the best you can do? Didn’t you forget to call me racist or something?
DiogenesLamp
there are many other reasons:
It could be genetic. There could be a gene for hating gay behavior, and this gene would have a survival advantage for the simple reason that killing animals with gay genes (gay or bi animals) would increase the reproductive success of animals with the gay-hating genes. Humans could have inherited this gene, and continued the behavior.
Which explanation do you consider the more likely, or do you have one of your own?
The straits couldn’t handle the competition?
More likely:
The gays were the object of that culture’s two minutes of hate. i.e. they needed scapegoats. Not too many scapegoats. It is wasteful to raise a child and then get little labor out of it.
The more male children a woman has the more likely that the next male will be gay. i.e. the probability of producing a gay goes up with each additional male produced. Or better put: the probability that the third male produced will be gay is higher than the probability that the first male will be gay.
There is a theory that women with the male gay gene have more children than women without it. Which explains the prevalence of the gene despite its obvious reproductive disadvantage.
It could be genetic. There could be a gene for hating gay behavior, and this gene would have a survival advantage for the simple reason that killing animals with gay genes (gay or bi animals) would increase the reproductive success of animals with the gay-hating genes. Humans could have inherited this gene, and continued the behavior.
plutosdad · February 16, 2011 4:11 PM
You may be right about the genes, but does this really explain why homosexuality was considered an abomination punishable by death?
Most of the gene wars occur in relative obscurity with their functions being neither understood or noticed by most people.
Obviously the reasoning of the people who wrote that stuff in the bible is very likely a composite, the most significant portion of which (in my mind at least) is the fear of disease.
At least everyone who has responded (not Eric. dodging inconvenient data seems to be SOP for him.) has pretty much discounted the “God said so.” theory. That only leaves the possibility of irrationality or practicality.
I go with practicality.
DL,
Gays did well as spear carriers. See Sparta. Or Rome.
Julius Caesar was described as “every woman’s husband and every man’s wife”.
So if gays don’t reproduce what is the problem? And how do you explain why they are still out and about?
More likely:
The gays were the object of that culture’s two minutes of hate. i.e. they needed scapegoats. Not too many scapegoats. It is wasteful to raise a child and then get little labor out of it.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 4:49 PM
You believe it was an irrational reason such as needing a scapegoat?
I cannot fathom this. Anyone who has done any degree of study on the issue of homosexuality should be familiar with the exceptional degree of promiscuity and disease that is rife in that community.
I doubt you’ll bother looking at it, but here’s a link that provides some data.
http://home60515.com/4.html
Homosexual behavior is EXTREMELY disease ridden in General. There is no reason to believe that it has not always been so all the way back to biblical times.
Don’t take my word for it. Just google “Homosexual and Disease.”
I’m going with the two minutes of hate. Lots of people don’t seem to be able to get along without some object to take out their murderous fantasies on. Hating gays serves that purpose as there are not that many of them.
“Homosexual disease” 482,000 results
“Heterosexual disease” 2,110,000 results
Make of it what you will.
There is a theory that women with the male gay gene have more children than women without it. Which explains the prevalence of the gene despite its obvious reproductive disadvantage.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 4:56 PM
I have long thought that there MUST be some evolutionary benefit for a genetic predisposition to Homosexuality. What you have suggested is one possible benefit, but it needn’t be the only one.
From various studies, Homosexuals appear to be more intelligent than average, often coupled with various other talents and abilities. Most of them earn significantly better than average, which is a real world indicator of possible benefits of the gene.
Homosexuals that I have met personally appear to fit the stereotype for intelligence and insight.
I suspect that most of the time the gene(s) simply confer a possibility of homosexuality, but do not guarantee such an outcome. I think in many cases they are given a “Push” by environmental factors such as being molested, or conditioned into it.
It may also be a left over component of the Dominance/Submission characteristics of the Simian/human genome.
There are characteristics of homosexuality that are distinctly male, such as a preference for viewing porn, and masturbating, both of which are far less common in females than males.
Oh, and Eric, as I’m SURE you know (G) there is homosexual behavior (sometimes not exclusively so) in all apes and monkeys as well as any other species with low sexual dimorphism.
Sometimes when my mate and I get it on I look at her broad shoulders and think: it could be a guy. That is when I grab for her double “D”s and try to forget it.
I always had a thing for those sturdy Midwestern girls.
I hope that didn’t ruin it for you guys who like the “A”s.
Gays did well as spear carriers. See Sparta. Or Rome.
I didn’t offer that theory. Kathy Kinsley did. Congrats, you just zinged her. 🙂
Julius Caesar was described as “every woman’s husband and every man’s wife”.
I wonder if he was a pitcher or a catcher? We know he was a catcher in the end, but I suspect he was always the pitcher previously.
So if gays don’t reproduce what is the problem? And how do you explain why they are still out and about?
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 5:06 PM
There are many forms of reproduction. The gay meme reproduces by infection.
DL,
Some of those references in that piece you linked to are reputable, others are… not. It’s a sadly slanted article that fails to mention quite a few pertinent facts, such as that AIDS originated in Africa as a mutation of a pathogen common in apes and that it is killing far more people in Africa, very few of them homosexual, than it kills here.
Then there’s this: any sexually transmitted disease can be transmitted by other means. Cold sores are a variant of herpes – and kids get it from being around other infected kids and forgetting to wash their hands as often as they should.
I don’t think the reasons for ancient cultures that were living at subsistence level regarding homosexuality with abhorrence were at all irrational – then. I do think that such attitudes typically faded or died out altogether in cultures where frequent bathing was seen as a good thing and where it wasn’t essential that there be lots of babies so that some would survive. Every Mediterranean culture that got to a moderately high standard of living (they were wealthy enough to support specialized occupations such as permanent soldiers and some castes whose sole existence was based on non-productive abilities (philosophers, teachers, artists, musicians and the like) also became relatively relaxed about homosexuality.
It was also common enough not to raise a fuss in those societies that there’d be a long term male ‘companion’ along with the wife – since heirs were important as well. Promiscuity in most of those societies wasn’t any more or less than among heterosexuals.
You might also find it interesting that there are several distinct homosexual communities in the US. The loudest is the one that you’re probably finding most objectionable. There’s also a fairly large number of homosexuals in stable, long-term relationships, not promiscuous, and not any more disease-ridden than any random married heterosexual. Then there’s the down-low, which is a complex issue all by itself.
A better take in my view would be “extremely promiscuous behavior puts people at a much higher risk of disease than non-promiscuous behavior.”
I’m going with the two minutes of hate. Lots of people don’t seem to be able to get along without some object to take out their murderous fantasies on. Hating gays serves that purpose as there are not that many of them.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 5:18 PM
And the account of the Benjamites is completely irrelevant? Funny how they didn’t need a scapegoat until AFTER an atrocity. I would suggest that the facts do not fit your theory.
“Homosexual disease” 482,000 results
“Heterosexual disease” 2,110,000 results
Make of it what you will.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 5:22 PM
It appears you spent as much time on it as I figured you would. The quantity of google returns is really irrelevant to understanding the issue, but if you want to play this silly game I will point out that 482,000 is approximately 20% of 2,110,000+482,000.
1.2 % of the population making up nearly 20 of all disease? Sounds like a serious infection problem to me.
Is that the lesson we are to glean from your google search results?
If you actually READ one of the articles, you will notice that JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) points out that Anal cancer among male homosexuals is 50 times the average among heterosexuals.
”
1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”
Pretty busy for 1.2% of the population!
“Homosexual disease” 482,000 results
“Heterosexual disease” 2,110,000 results
Make of it what you will.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 5:22 PM
It appears you spent as much time on it as I figured you would. The quantity of google returns is really irrelevant to understanding the issue, but if you want to play this silly game I will point out that 482,000 is approximately 20% of 2,110,000+482,000.
1.2 % of the population making up nearly 20 of all disease? Sounds like a serious infection problem to me.
Is that the lesson we are to glean from your google search results?
If you actually READ one of the articles, you will notice that JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) points out that Anal cancer among male homosexuals is 50 times the average among heterosexuals.
”
1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”
Pretty busy for 1.2% of the population!
Some of those references in that piece you linked to are reputable, others are… not. It’s a sadly slanted article that fails to mention quite a few pertinent facts, such as that AIDS originated in Africa as a mutation of a pathogen common in apes and that it is killing far more people in Africa, very few of them homosexual, than it kills here.
First article I saw after googling. It fits with other articles i’ve read in the past, and the Cite for JAMA convinced me it was probably in the ballpark.
As for AIDS in Africa, the common denominator is excessive promiscuity. People of African descent are one of the widest depository of AIDS in America after the Homosexual community. Most likely a genetic predisposition. I have several black friends that have had sex with over 300 women. I don’t know any white people that can make that claim. (not saying they don’t exist, just that most white men either can’t play that hard, or they just don’t.)
Some of those references in that piece you linked to are reputable, others are… not. It’s a sadly slanted article that fails to mention quite a few pertinent facts, such as that AIDS originated in Africa as a mutation of a pathogen common in apes and that it is killing far more people in Africa, very few of them homosexual, than it kills here.
First article I saw after googling. It fits with other articles i’ve read in the past, and the Cite for JAMA convinced me it was probably in the ballpark.
As for AIDS in Africa, the common denominator is excessive promiscuity. People of African descent are one of the widest depository of AIDS in America after the Homosexual community. Most likely a genetic predisposition. I have several black friends that have had sex with over 300 women. I don’t know any white people that can make that claim. (not saying they don’t exist, just that most white men either can’t play that hard, or they just don’t.)
I don’t think the reasons for ancient cultures that were living at subsistence level regarding homosexuality with abhorrence were at all irrational – then.
This point has some validity, but I don’t think it is definitive. The fact that we can treat the diseases now is an ameliorating component, but it argues that spreading disease is inconsequential because they can be cured. It may not always remain so. Diseases are mutating, and what works today may not work tomorrow. Infections like C.Diff, and Staph Aureus are becoming immuned to large swaths of current anti-biotics. On the other hand, medicine is making advances, and THAT aspect of the issue may indeed be permanently resolved one day. Should such a day come, this particular point will become moot.
I do think that such attitudes typically faded or died out altogether in cultures where frequent bathing was seen as a good thing and where it wasn’t essential that there be lots of babies so that some would survive. Every Mediterranean culture that got to a moderately high standard of living (they were wealthy enough to support specialized occupations such as permanent soldiers and some castes whose sole existence was based on non-productive abilities (philosophers, teachers, artists, musicians and the like) also became relatively relaxed about homosexuality.
I have long argued that prosperity pushes any society towards tolerance. Others have argued that Socialist movements throughout history have been instigated by the wives and children of the wealthy men. It is axiomatic to me that people who cannot afford to be tolerant aren’t. Those who can afford it are.
The history of humanity is rife with booms caused by conservative behavior following busts caused by Liberal behavior. I would suggest that it would be in the best interest of everyone if some part of society could be advocating in opposition to the current trend, whatever it might be. Only by applying out of phase pressure can the perturbations be canceled to a stable quiescent state. (lack of major social upheavals.)
The quiescent point is what we should be trying to create. To do so requires negative feedback, not positive.
People move too quickly to accept things during a boom, that contribute to the subsequent bust.
I don’t think the reasons for ancient cultures that were living at subsistence level regarding homosexuality with abhorrence were at all irrational – then.
This point has some validity, but I don’t think it is definitive. The fact that we can treat the diseases now is an ameliorating component, but it argues that spreading disease is inconsequential because they can be cured. It may not always remain so. Diseases are mutating, and what works today may not work tomorrow. Infections like C.Diff, and Staph Aureus are becoming immuned to large swaths of current anti-biotics. On the other hand, medicine is making advances, and THAT aspect of the issue may indeed be permanently resolved one day. Should such a day come, this particular point will become moot.
I do think that such attitudes typically faded or died out altogether in cultures where frequent bathing was seen as a good thing and where it wasn’t essential that there be lots of babies so that some would survive. Every Mediterranean culture that got to a moderately high standard of living (they were wealthy enough to support specialized occupations such as permanent soldiers and some castes whose sole existence was based on non-productive abilities (philosophers, teachers, artists, musicians and the like) also became relatively relaxed about homosexuality.
I have long argued that prosperity pushes any society towards tolerance. Others have argued that Socialist movements throughout history have been instigated by the wives and children of the wealthy men. It is axiomatic to me that people who cannot afford to be tolerant aren’t. Those who can afford it are.
The history of humanity is rife with booms caused by conservative behavior following busts caused by Liberal behavior. I would suggest that it would be in the best interest of everyone if some part of society could be advocating in opposition to the current trend, whatever it might be. Only by applying out of phase pressure can the perturbations be canceled to a stable quiescent state. (lack of major social upheavals.)
The quiescent point is what we should be trying to create. To do so requires negative feedback, not positive.
People move too quickly to accept things during a boom, that contribute to the subsequent bust.
You might also find it interesting that there are several distinct homosexual communities in the US. The loudest is the one that you’re probably finding most objectionable. There’s also a fairly large number of homosexuals in stable, long-term relationships, not promiscuous, and not any more disease-ridden than any random married heterosexual. Then there’s the down-low, which is a complex issue all by itself.
From my reading, these run contrary to the norm. “Most” male homosexuals are quite interested in having as many sexual encounters as they can. If you stop and think about this, it becomes obvious.
In heterosexual relationships, it is the female who is usually the limiting factor. males want sex far more often than females, so usually it is the female that puts the brakes on the quantity, and most females absolutely forbid their male from having sex with other females when they aren’t getting it from them.
Males, on the other hand, will find that other males share their desire for many (partners) and often. Because of this, males who like sex with other males discover that they can behave like kids in a candy store, and have a bit of this and that, and this other without any objections from the participants!
This theory fits with available evidence. I recall reading one stat that Before they were shut down because of the AIDS epidemic, a study of San Fransisco bath houses indicated that the average number of sexual encounters for an average homosexual male were 10 per night.
10 Sexual encounters per night each!
A better take in my view would be “extremely promiscuous behavior puts people at a much higher risk of disease than non-promiscuous behavior.”
Kate · February 16, 2011 5:41 PM
Consider my point that males are already natural nymphomaniacs, (or Saytrs if we want be picky about it, but I think Nymphomaniacs confers the point better.) and whatever they find attractive they want to have sex with as often and in as large of a variety as possible.
As a result, excessively promiscuous behavior is “built-in” to male homosexuality. It is only contained in heterosexuality by the consent of the females.
DL,
There are many forms of reproduction. The gay meme reproduces by infection.
Actually, the evidence is quite strong that environmental factors – especially including in utero hormonal levels – are the largest factor in “gayness” (As a side note, androgen insensitivity can play an interesting role here) – there’s one hormonal surge at about 8 weeks after conception that triggers differentiation of sex organs, another one nearer the end of pregnancy that gets the male organs to descend into place, and a third one at puberty. Males where any of that gets mixed up or where genetic and epigenetic structure gets damaged can present anything from apparently female right through to normal male. (Curse you for sending me through google researching this – it’s a work night, damn it, and I need to be up at oh god AM).
Short version – it’s complicated, but it’s probably not contagious.
DL,
The more promiscuous group of gay males is probably also the “loudest” and most written about – that tends to influence any discussion of how many of them there are and their proportion in the general population. Add in the effect of the 60s into the 70s as an era of general promiscuity (at least among the baby boomers), you’ve got a perception that could well be less than accurate – but it’s the one that’s going to be cemented in a lot of peoples’ minds.
The boom and bust cycle actually correlates rather more strongly to how much individual responsibility for action was assigned (boom) vs unearned benefits being handed out as largesse (preceding a bust). The Byzantine Empire generally maintained more or less conservative (by our standards) social values throughout its thousand year history – but the economic conservatism it started with was replaced with “free bread and circuses” at the peak of the Empire’s wealth and influence, after which there was a long and painful decline.
Machiavelli traces the decline of Rome to the decision to institute a similar set of unearned benefits – it’s worth reading his commentaries on Livy for a perspective of ancient Rome you won’t get in any modern texts.
That the economic decisions coincide with the reduction of social conservatism in a lot of places does tend to blur the causation.
Aside from which, in the current economic mess, it makes a lot more sense to focus on getting the largest possible number of people agreeing that there needs to be less – much less – government spending on absolutely everything. On a purely utilitarian basis, that means making common ground with people whose social philosophies are completely alien too you. If every department gets a 20% budget cut, everyone is unhappy, but no-one can claim favoritism, so the coalition holds together.
Get the foreign debt dead, get the budget into routine surpluses, then argue about whether homosexuality is immoral.
Short version – it’s complicated, but it’s probably not contagious.
Kate · February 16, 2011 6:48 PM
It is not contagious to most people, but it is contagious to those who have a predisposition towards it. Human sexuality IS complicated, and fetishes can arise from all sorts of stimuli. The Sexy Librarian, and the young Catholic School girl fetishes are often the result of previous experiences fantasizing about such. Meme’s in the human mind sometimes self-reinforce.
As Most of the genes governing human behavior are contained in the Y chromosome, it is axiomatic that males and females carry components that code for sexual attraction in both males and females. In other words, the potential exists for a person to be mentally either if sufficient activation of those genes occur.
This is not to say this is a good thing, just that it is an understandable possible cause.
Alan Turing.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream – Wm. Shakespeare
Aside from which, in the current economic mess, it makes a lot more sense to focus on getting the largest possible number of people agreeing that there needs to be less – much less – government spending on absolutely everything. On a purely utilitarian basis, that means making common ground with people whose social philosophies are completely alien too you. If every department gets a 20% budget cut, everyone is unhappy, but no-one can claim favoritism, so the coalition holds together.
Get the foreign debt dead, get the budget into routine surpluses, then argue about whether homosexuality is immoral.
Kate · February 16, 2011 7:12 PM
A very pragmatic approach, and one that I will not deny has benefits, but from my perspective I wonder if it will work out like the alliance we had between the Soviets for the purposes of defeating the Germans. Our erstwhile friends turned out to be a far greater threat to us then the German’s ever did.
It occurs to me that a plan cannot have eventual success if the seeds of it’s destruction are included as an ingredient. I regard social and fiscal to be two sides of the same coin. As Burke and Smith were friends and contemporaries, their philosophies were intertwined and co-reinforcing. Smith with his Fiscal theories was an exact compliment to Burke with his social theories.
I agree that the primary concern everyone should have is for the financial collapse which we are all facing. We will all drown if it is not subdued. However, is the price to pay for alliance in subduing it another conflict just like it postponed for the future?
Perhaps you are right. At this stage of my understanding I can see it working out in theory on the one hand, but I can also see it as possibly incorporating an ingredient of destruction on the other.
I will point out that the Father of our runaway spending by government is non other than John Maynard Keynes. Guess which way he swung?
http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-maynard-keynes-didnt-just-screw-up.html
Two ways to look at this:
1:
God doesn’t make mistakes.
2:
Nature is always trying things. That which works is amplified. That which doesn’t is attenuated. If something works in some conditions and not others it is probably good as the human range extends.
A gay crew might be good for long space voyages. Then break out the hetros when a suitable habitat is found.
You never know what might be useful.
Alan Turing.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 7:49 PM
A Midsummer Night’s Dream – Wm. Shakespeare
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 7:59 PM
If your point is that there were talented Homosexuals in history, I have already acknowledged that and gone beyond it to state that as a general rule the group seems to be highly talented and intelligent.
Interesting that you should mention Alan Turing. He died from suicide, which I have read is the number one cause of death among homosexuals. I have already explained to you my theory of why this might be so, but others may not have heard it.
In a Male/Female sexual relationship, each partner transfers hormones to the other. The male by direct injection, the female by trans-dermal absorption through the penis. The hormone transferred by the female confers a feeling of satiation and happiness to the male, and is an ordinary part of heterosexual sex.
Male homosexuals do not receive this female produced hormone, and the sex does not satiate them endocrinally. Indeed, it leaves them feeling unfulfilled, and as a result their own endocrinal system tells them they aren’t done. As a result, they seek out more and more sexual activity in an effort to acquire this satiating chemical transfer.
They are doomed to fail, and as a result their own internal biology is at war with them. Their minds may find males attractive, but they have receptors for those female hormones which are not getting filled.
That’s a pretty quick run down of the concept, and it appears to accurately fit the available information on the subject. Male homosexuals (most) ARE far more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, on a level that is substantially beyond what heterosexuals can normally manage. (10 occasions of sex in one night? are you kidding me? )
Sounds like junkie behavior because biologically it IS junkie behavior.
Alan Turing.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 7:49 PM
A Midsummer Night’s Dream – Wm. Shakespeare
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 7:59 PM
If your point is that there were talented Homosexuals in history, I have already acknowledged that and gone beyond it to state that as a general rule the group seems to be highly talented and intelligent.
Interesting that you should mention Alan Turing. He died from suicide, which I have read is the number one cause of death among homosexuals. I have already explained to you my theory of why this might be so, but others may not have heard it.
In a Male/Female sexual relationship, each partner transfers hormones to the other. The male by direct injection, the female by trans-dermal absorption through the penis. The hormone transferred by the female confers a feeling of satiation and happiness to the male, and is an ordinary part of heterosexual sex.
Male homosexuals do not receive this female produced hormone, and the sex does not satiate them endocrinally. Indeed, it leaves them feeling unfulfilled, and as a result their own endocrinal system tells them they aren’t done. As a result, they seek out more and more sexual activity in an effort to acquire this satiating chemical transfer.
They are doomed to fail, and as a result their own internal biology is at war with them. Their minds may find males attractive, but they have receptors for those female hormones which are not getting filled.
That’s a pretty quick run down of the concept, and it appears to accurately fit the available information on the subject. Male homosexuals (most) ARE far more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, on a level that is substantially beyond what heterosexuals can normally manage. (10 occasions of sex in one night? are you kidding me? )
Sounds like junkie behavior because biologically it IS junkie behavior.
DL,
But was everyone who latched onto Keynes’ “free money” theories (which is what they amount to, although wrapped in a lot of fluff and changing according to the whims and politics of the time when he wrote them) also swinging the same way? I doubt that. I think it’s more likely that politicians saw a way to get more votes by claiming this stuff, because they wouldn’t have to actually limit spending – politicians being a sadly necessary evil, and in general prone to being seduced by power (or they wouldn’t be politicians. Power attracts the corruptible).
For that matter, is the screwed up personal life because of the orientation, or because the orientation has been pretty much a guarantee of ostracism until very recently – and the orientation plus non-left views is still a guarantee of ostracism in large chunks of the “gay” culture? I don’t know. There’s no way to know which causes what in the current climate, and I’m not going to condemn anyone for something they can’t control – which may be the difference between allying with Communist Russia to remove Hitler and a social conservative-social liberal alliance to reintroduce economic conservatism. Communism is a choice (at least at the national government level). Sexual orientation isn’t.
The manifestation of sexual orientation is a whole other multi-variant tangle that I’m not going to go near.
DL,
Just as a counterpoint, celibate males in a high status occupation (mostly celibate, and mostly high status, anyway – I’m well aware the Catholic Church has its share of those fallen from grace) would also not be getting those receptors “filled” – but they’re just as human and just as inclined to want sexual satisfaction.
Why is suicide not a bigger issue among celibate clergy, then? I would suggest that the social status has a bigger impact than the sexual orientation.
(Incidentally, human sexuality is a lot more complex than that – genetically male people with total androgen insensitivity can and do have fulfilling and happy lives as women. Where do they fall in this theory?)
Two ways to look at this:
1:
God doesn’t make mistakes.
2:
Nature is always trying things. That which works is amplified. That which doesn’t is attenuated. If something works in some conditions and not others it is probably good as the human range extends.
This I agree with, but I apply the concept beyond just simple biology. Evolutionary theory also applies to memes. I argue that biblical prohibitions against the practice were evolved from practical experience in exactly the same way that biological advantages evolved from the rules of evolution.
Prior examples of biology throwing off characteristics which were heretofore beneficial include snakes and whales losing their legs. Scales evolving into feathers. etc.
On the disease front, biology evolved Vaginas to be highly acidic. Strongly acidic enough to kill viruses and bacteria. This is to keep the female healthy because the environment is otherwise a paradise for various pathogens. Sexual disease transfer to females ordinarily requires male ejaculate. Male ejaculate contains acid neutralizing components as well as hormonal signaling components which signal the female’s body to turn off the acid. (otherwise conception would be impossible.)
None of these mechanisms work outside of a male/female relationship. The chemical transfers are all complimentary. Heteros have a built in advantage for disease prevention.
A gay crew might be good for long space voyages. Then break out the hetros when a suitable habitat is found.
You never know what might be useful.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 8:07 PM
If my theory is correct about genetic drug addiction to female hormones, you’re crew will likely arrive dead or possibly not arrive at all.
You are the most vocal proponent of the theory of genetic addiction to drugs, so i’m betting you are going to come down on my side of this particular theory. 🙂
It would be hilarious if you didn’t!
Two ways to look at this:
1:
God doesn’t make mistakes.
2:
Nature is always trying things. That which works is amplified. That which doesn’t is attenuated. If something works in some conditions and not others it is probably good as the human range extends.
This I agree with, but I apply the concept beyond just simple biology. Evolutionary theory also applies to memes. I argue that biblical prohibitions against the practice were evolved from practical experience in exactly the same way that biological advantages evolved from the rules of evolution.
Prior examples of biology throwing off characteristics which were heretofore beneficial include snakes and whales losing their legs. Scales evolving into feathers. etc.
On the disease front, biology evolved Vaginas to be highly acidic. Strongly acidic enough to kill viruses and bacteria. This is to keep the female healthy because the environment is otherwise a paradise for various pathogens. Sexual disease transfer to females ordinarily requires male ejaculate. Male ejaculate contains acid neutralizing components as well as hormonal signaling components which signal the female’s body to turn off the acid. (otherwise conception would be impossible.)
None of these mechanisms work outside of a male/female relationship. The chemical transfers are all complimentary. Heteros have a built in advantage for disease prevention.
A gay crew might be good for long space voyages. Then break out the hetros when a suitable habitat is found.
You never know what might be useful.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 8:07 PM
If my theory is correct about genetic drug addiction to female hormones, you’re crew will likely arrive dead or possibly not arrive at all.
You are the most vocal proponent of the theory of genetic addiction to drugs, so i’m betting you are going to come down on my side of this particular theory. 🙂
It would be hilarious if you didn’t!
He died from suicide, which I have read is the number one cause of death among homosexuals.
In many cases suicide is a symptom of oppression.
The Ultimate Refuge: Suicide in the Jewish Community under the Nazis
So we lost a great talent to anti-gay prejudice.
And you my friend wish to go back to those days or worse? I have words for such attitudes. But on the off hand children might be reading here I will not use them.
The suicide of gays is not a defect of gays. It is an indictment of you.
DL,
Genetic addiction to pretty much anything is possible. A genetic addiction to female hormones in a male would be more likely to send that male chasing females than males – whereas a mismatch between brain structure, hormonal balance, internal and external genitalia explains the entire range of human sexual orientation and behavior.
M. Simon has also observed more than once that many if not most drug addicts are self-treating conditions that either respond better to the illegal drugs than the legal ones (casual users are a different beastie) or are attempting to alleviate the aftereffects of prior trauma.
DL,
But was everyone who latched onto Keynes’ “free money” theories (which is what they amount to, although wrapped in a lot of fluff and changing according to the whims and politics of the time when he wrote them) also swinging the same way? I doubt that. I think it’s more likely that politicians saw a way to get more votes by claiming this stuff, because they wouldn’t have to actually limit spending – politicians being a sadly necessary evil, and in general prone to being seduced by power (or they wouldn’t be politicians. Power attracts the corruptible).
That the tinder already existed to which Keynes applied the spark I will not dispute. Politicians LOVE a brilliant and educated person telling them that what they want to do anyway is what they SHOULD do. Politicians were ecstatic that someone rationalized their most fond wish for them. However, I have read articles which argued that Keynes Economic theories were the fiscal component of his social perspective. Many of his critics pointed out that in the long run his ideas would fail. His famous response? “In the long run we are all dead anyway.” This is the philosophy of a mortal hedonist. It should not be the philosophy of a government intended to exist for subsequent generations.
For that matter, is the screwed up personal life because of the orientation, or because the orientation has been pretty much a guarantee of ostracism until very recently
Every time this point comes up, I point out that far more Blacks suffered far worse ostracization for far longer time periods, and yet they didn’t kill themselves. I’ve suggested above one possible explanation, or perhaps a component of the explanation for why Male Homosexuals (Homosexual females are a very different phenomenon) tend to die from suicide.
As far as their personal lives being screwed up, this often applies to highly intelligent heterosexuals as well, so it may be an overlapping characteristic of intelligence rather than a strictly “gay” characteristic. Homosexuality appears to have some common genes with intelligence.
– and the orientation plus non-left views is still a guarantee of ostracism in large chunks of the “gay” culture? I don’t know. There’s no way to know which causes what in the current climate, and I’m not going to condemn anyone for something they can’t control – which may be the difference between allying with Communist Russia to remove Hitler and a social conservative-social liberal alliance to reintroduce economic conservatism. Communism is a choice (at least at the national government level). Sexual orientation isn’t.
I’m not sure i’m interested in condemning them. My thinking is more along the lines of refusing to humor their agenda. That they often have talent is undeniable. (I love Tchaikovsky’s music.) That they will behave in society’s best interest is not always demonstrated, indeed the converse seems far more common than their representation in the population ought to warrant.
The manifestation of sexual orientation is a whole other multi-variant tangle that I’m not going to go near.
Kate · February 16, 2011 8:27 PM
The subject is massive, and I am certain that not all aspects of it have been worked out nor sure that it’s even possible.
Just as a counterpoint, celibate males in a high status occupation (mostly celibate, and mostly high status, anyway – I’m well aware the Catholic Church has its share of those fallen from grace) would also not be getting those receptors “filled” – but they’re just as human and just as inclined to want sexual satisfaction.
Why is suicide not a bigger issue among celibate clergy, then? I would suggest that the social status has a bigger impact than the sexual orientation.
Good question. Possible answer is the fact that it is a grave sin in the Catholic Faith and perhaps they fear the afterlife more than the present one? They are taught they can be forgiven for the sin of sex, but not for the sin of suicide. Religion can have amazing effects on true believers. Then of course, if a priest committed suicide, would we hear much about it if at all?
Hmmm… it just occurred to me that perhaps Catholics teach that suicide is a ticket to hell precisely because it had been such a problem in the past?
(Incidentally, human sexuality is a lot more complex than that – genetically male people with total androgen insensitivity can and do have fulfilling and happy lives as women. Where do they fall in this theory?)
Kate · February 16, 2011 8:33 PM
The hormones utilized by the human body are many and not all of them have been identified or understood. Human biology likewise has quite a lot of variation in it, and as you said people may be more or less sensitive to different effects. Before I would consider this a significant variation/deviation on the theory, I would have to look at percentages affected and the probabilities that this would lie outside the norm.
I happen to have a good friend that had a sex change operation. Back when he identified as a man, he told me that he had suffered from endocrinal problems all his life, some of them nearly killing him. Years later, after he started transitioning or had transitioned to a faux woman, he said he felt better than he ever had. Funny thing was, he was really attracted to lesbians! 🙂
Haven’t heard from him in years.
From the comments at: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2011/02/political_socia.html
Tall Dave says:
Interestingly, if you read A Renegade History of the United States one of the amusing ironies of the 18th and 19th century is that blacks actually enjoyed considerably greater cultural freedom than whites in many regards, and whites were generally whipped more in childhood than the average slave was over his lifetime — in fact one of the abolitionists’ arguments was that slaves didn’t work hard enough, if you can believe that, and it was probably accurate. And they almost certainly lived longer, better lives here than they would have wherever they were enslaved.
And you my friend wish to go back to those days or worse? I have words for such attitudes. But on the off hand children might be reading here I will not use them.
The suicide of gays is not a defect of gays. It is an indictment of you.
M. Simon · February 16, 2011 8:46 PM
I’ve discussed suicide as a human response to tragedy before. While that is certainly a component in gay suicide, I don’t believe oppression is the sole triggering one. As I point out, blacks did not commit suicide (often) as a result of their far worse oppression.
My understanding is that Male homosexuals commit suicide in very Homosexual friendly environments as well. That tends to put a dent in that oppression theory. I have seen the Stats for San Fransisco (probably the most gay friendly environment on earth) and if I recall correctly they were way off the national average. (been a long time since I read about this.)
I hate to be the bearer of sobering news, but that’s my current understanding of the facts.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=5647416
Genetic addiction to pretty much anything is possible. A genetic addiction to female hormones in a male would be more likely to send that male chasing females than males –
🙂 Most males DO chase females. :
The effects of it depend on a host of factors, such as how many receptors, and at what locations. The effect of satiation may be in the subconscious or “reptile” brain, while the components of sexual desire may be located in a different part of the brain. There is a lot we don’t know about how the brain can be wired and re-wired.
whereas a mismatch between brain structure, hormonal balance, internal and external genitalia explains the entire range of human sexual orientation and behavior.
Yup, pretty much.
M. Simon has also observed more than once that many if not most drug addicts are self-treating conditions that either respond better to the illegal drugs than the legal ones (casual users are a different beastie) or are attempting to alleviate the aftereffects of prior trauma.
Kate · February 16, 2011 8:48 PM
I have pointed out to MSimon that most drugs are derived from plant toxins which were evolved by the plant to kill or disable their predators by mimicking the effects of naturally occurring hormones. Evolution played a trick by causing some predators to evolve a preference for the toxin intended to kill them!
Physiological addiction to certain drugs is an essential part of biology. Drugs (hormones, etc.) are nature’s signaling system for a lot of necessary functions, including sex.
Unfortunately, mankind has become clever enough to synthesize or concentrate drugs which mimic naturally occurring substances necessary for body chemistry and reproduction, and turn them to uses which are detrimental to the individual who wishes to tamper with his chemistry.
The usage of drugs by individuals is mostly a danger to themselves alone, but the MEME of drug usage is an ever present danger to others (Uninfected) who cannot realize the danger it represents. Once infected, they become a carrier.
But that is another subject, and one which is probably just as long as the one at hand.
Needless to say, he and I disagree as to whether or not drugs are harmless to society. I say “self-medication” is a self reinforcing meme and trap.
People don’t do themselves (or anyone else) any good by tampering with their normal chemistry. The evidence of death and injury is all around.
That’s it for me for now. I have responsibilities that require my attention.
I believe Kate at least has given my thinking/theories some degree of impartial consideration and has likewise put forth some interesting insight.
I may not have changed any minds, but I suspect i’ve provoked some thinking, and perhaps a better understanding of what I see and how I see it.
I’ve also been given some bits to think about, and I assure you I will. One of my great faults is the inability to TURN OFF THE THINKING. (I swear it drives me nuts sometimes! I sometimes think I have a mild form of Aspergers syndrome. )
Later people.
I argue that biblical prohibitions against the practice were evolved from practical experience
In that place at that time. Conditions may be different now. And we can’t use some old book as a final arbiter.
Of course if that old book is a final arbiter perhaps bringing back slavery is in order.
BTW hardly any Christians today know a damn thing about the old book. The Jews have had what? 1,000 or 1,500 more years of experience with it than the Christians. We have the Mishna and the Talmud to clarify what was meant. I know of very very few Christians who make pronouncements about the old book who are intimately familiar with with those works.
On top of that the Council of Jerusalem abrogated the old laws for Christian gentiles. You aren’t Jewish are you? Well even if you were it wouldn’t do you any good. The Jews have found clever ways to legislate away the old laws that make no sense. And if you are a Reform Jew you can treat the whole Torah the way gentiles are allowed to by the Council of Jerusalem.
The lack of Biblical scholarship is what has led to the recent rise of Fundamentalism. Once actual learning returns that will all be swept away.
My condolences.
In the old days you couldn’t be a Biblical scholar without being intimate with four languages.
1. Hebrew
2. Latin
3. Greek
4. Aramaic
Those languages gave you access to all the literature.
Fundamentalism was invented for the ignorant by those unfamiliar with the Jewish literature. Which is why it is a recent development. As ignorance declines it will fade away.
I cited the old testament as an example of how the practice was viewed in biblical times and asked why it was viewed this way.
I was not suggesting that this religion or that religious doctrine should be followed, as a matter of fact I implied that it was doubtful that God handed down a bunch of laws, and more likely that they were written by clever men.
Therefore, intimate knowledge of the details of the Torah or Talmud, or Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or Aramic isn’t really pertinent to the topic of discussion.
Besides, how can you re-interpret “Abomination” and “BE KILLED” ?
You are offering a variation on the fallacy of Authority. I’ve dealt with it many times.
I recall when I was offering legal advice to a woman being sued for not paying her hospital bill. I told her to refuse to pay because the bill was wrong.
The attorney for the hospital told me my opinion on the bill was irrelevant because I was not a medical expert. I pointed out that I didn’t need to be a medical expert to be able to do arithmetic. The Quantities on the bill did not jive with the services claimed.
After I went to the Hospital and asked them about various charges, they admitted they charged 9 times for something they only did once. Took that info to the Attorney and he decided he didn’t want to take it to the judge after all. 🙂
MSimon, i’m not sure you are aware of this, but I have whipped Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, College Professors, Politicians, Journalists and News Media, Police Officers, and all sorts of numerous and sundry “experts” in my life time. (defeated/and or proved them wrong, requiring them to apologize or backtrack/ got them fired.)
I routinely pull a David and Goliath, so i’m not easily cowed or rattled by fallacies of authority.
As I’ve said before, the number one rule for winning an argument is to be on the correct side of it.
I leave it to others to determine whether ridicule of DL’s superstition and bigotry, or taking them seriously, is more productive. IMHO, ridicule is clearly the winner. Particularly since anti-gay right-wingers have the hilarious habit of turning out to be gay themselves.
What’s next? When someone comes to this blog and spouts a lot of anti-Jewish venom, or maybe comes out in favor of slavery because the Bible says it’s OK, are we going to act as if those are ideas to be taken seriously? Ideas to be EXPLAINED as somehow adaptive?
Particularly since anti-gay right-wingers have the hilarious habit of turning out to be gay themselves.
This seems to be a repeated theme in your verbal repertoire. Is the Racism accusation next? Huh ? Is it? Huh? 🙂
What’s next? When someone comes to this blog and spouts a lot of anti-Jewish venom,
BINGO! Ha ha ha ha ha… I predicted this earlier to. Just read up the thread.
or maybe comes out in favor of slavery because the Bible says it’s OK, are we going to act as if those are ideas to be taken seriously? Ideas to be EXPLAINED as somehow adaptive?
Don · February 17, 2011 12:51 PM
You DO overlook that point. For the Last two thousand years, people have interpreted the bible as utterly condemning and demanding death for, homosexuality.
Don’t you think that 40 years is a little too soon to turn the entire culture on a dime? A lot of inertia is left in the culture, despite the best efforts of Liberals to eradicate it.
Just for a gedanken experiment, if someone has a mental problem, how likely would they be to recognize that they have a mental problem?
I honest to God know a man who had a sex change to be a woman so he could be a lesbian. Nothing wrong with his cognitive facilities eh?
“As I point out, blacks did not commit suicide (often) as a result of their far worse oppression. ”
I would hazard to guess black people who were slaves had a support system: other black slaves. A much better analogy would be the only free black man in a community of white people at the time – in the South. I imagine there is a big difference between people struggling to survive oppression together, and someone doing it alone.