rebuttal to biological defenses of heteronormativity

[El Nino]

As sick as I am of gay debates, I can't stay away. It's like an intoxicating sweet taste of impending fail that just sucks you in. You know you shouldn't, but you do it anyway.

And I'm on double strength gingko biloba capsules right now. Don't take herbal supplements lightly, kids. My eyeballs are bulging out of their sockets. Perfect time to post in DH.
-----------------------------------

One argument I run into from people who defend heteronormativity and stand against increasing acceptance of homosexuality/transgenderism/bisexuality/intersexuality etc. in society is the argument that biology supports heterosexuality for the sake of procreation. This is true. Heterosexuality does lead to procreation. But I don't see why that should lead to the suppression of LGBT, especially in the modern era, where the human world population has exceeded 6.8 billion in number.

Another argument related to procreation surrounds the concept of what is natural. Usually, LGBT supporters point out that homosexuality and hermaphroditism are present among non-human animals. The opposition then responds by saying that animals sometimes kill their own young and would it be okay for humans to copy that behavior?

That line of reasoning is contradictory. We should procreate because it is natural, but we can't be homo because although homo is natural it's against the rules of our society.

So which one is it?

Or should we consider homosexuality among animals to be failed attempts at mating?

Sure it is, if we are to believe that populations are successful only when every member is procreating. But this is not always true for social animals, among them ants, termites and bees. For those groups, only the queen and king form a mating pair; the drones are sterile, but they assist in the caring of the young. This works from an evolutionary perspective because it eliminates competition between the drones. If they all had their own children, they would fight amongst each other over food and resources; parents almost always favor their own children above all others. This disrupts the social order of a hive or a colony. Since the drones don't have their own offspring, they have no reason to fight amongst themselves. On top of that, they are all one family, descendants of the queen, and the success of the collective is the success of their own genes as well.

In cases like that, nature does not favor procreation for every member of a population.

But, to consider the philosophical angle, could it be that human beings are intended to be heterosexual, regardless of the procreation question? Even if it is advantageous for some people to not procreate, are LGBT practices to be categorized as "misuses" of the physical body?

Now may or may not be a good time to remind everyone that all life forms on this planet evolved from single celled prokaryotes that reproduced asexually, making sexual dimorphism itself (and heterosexuality) a deviation from the original template. Biologists refer to the first life form that gave rise to all life on the planet as LUCA (last universal common ancestor). It reproduced asexually. Over time, due to mistakes in the replication process, LUCA's descendants began to diverge (become different) from each other. From this, other prokaryotes emerged, and then eukaryotes emerged, and eventually two sexes appeared among eukaryotes.

The old phylogeny taught in schools was that all life on the planet are classified into five kingdoms: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria.

Now, the updated phylogeny only has three main groups: 1) old bacteria, 2) new bacteria, and 3) everything else. Bacteria account for at least half of the planet's biomass.

Biologically, asexuality is the original template. Sexual dimorphism (two physically different sexes) emerged as a deviation from that template.

Deviation from the norm is the basis of evolution. In nature, old patterns don't hold forever. They are subject to change. The processes of creation and destruction are always ongoing.

Observation and deduction tell us that we are the products of our environments, rather than shapes cut out to a certain specification. If we have a maker, our maker is less of a rigid engineer and more of a schizophrenic artist. The creator's mind changes often, and the creator is still creating, even as of now.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, hermaphroditism/intersexuality--these things may be the minority among human societies, but as a deviation, it's just one abnormality among an already abnormal population. Nature holds us to no rules except those we make for ourselves.

In my opinion, we can't default to a higher authority or a higher design as the basis for social rules of conduct.

 

[ballin4life]

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

Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's good or right.

 

[Dre89]

Interesting post El Nino.

With the homosexuality being natural argument, do you consider **** natural? I hope not. My point is not to compare the two, but to show that just because something is practiced, it doesn't mean it's natural. Now this doesn't mean the default position is that homosexuality is wrong, but I'm just saying you can't automatically claim it as natural just because it's practiced.

If you do think **** is natural and acceptable, then you're a relativist, which is a different debate.


Something happening doesn't automatically make it natural, because then the word unnatural would have no purpose.

Also, I find the social insect analogy poor because we aren't structured like them. Similarly, I could say I'm entitled to commit infanticide because lions do it.

But if you want to bring nature into it, then I'm happy to dance. Find me an exclusively asexual creature that still has sex, despite the fact it never reproduces sexually.

 

[El Nino]

I am not a relativist. I have no training in philosophy. I studied biology, and that is why I am targeting biologically based arguments specifically.

**** happens, both in society and in nature outside of society. It is no different from killing in that regard. However, societies forbid **** most of the time because it is damaging to social cooperation. Therefore, as a reproductive strategy, it is not a very successful strategy. The benefits in terms of reproduction gained from social cooperation outweigh anything that would gained from tolerating ****.

Ethics have evolved from reproductive constraints and the benefits of social cooperation. There is a reason why murder within the tribe is not tolerated but wars are waged between tribes in which the killing of members of another tribe are allowed. Life is not sacred outside of the tribe. Life within the tribe is sacred due to the bounds of collectivity and the shared benefits of cooperation.

Nature itself is amoral.

The word "unnatural" doesn't have much meaning to me. It only really serves to distinguish human activity from non-human activity, but inherently, there is no difference between natural and unnatural to me. My view comes from studies of ecology and nature and the acknowledgment of human beings as being a part of the natural order.

And nature is incredibly chaotic. It follows no real order. Evolution depends on accidents and changes to the environment.

Words come from concepts, and those concepts may or may not be consistent with reality. I use "unnatural" as shorthand to designate something that is human in origin. Beyond that, I don't find it conceptually to be consistent with scientific observations of nature and reality.

We are not structured like insects anatomically, but we are structured like them socially to a degree. The rules that emerge with respects to reproduction are comparable because of this.

You are not entitled to commit infanticide because the difference between lions and humans is that the death of the cubs will cause the females to enter a hormonal state in which they are ready to become pregnant. This encourages mating between the females and the male in charge, which is what helps secure the succession of their genes. That is why the males do it. (Edit: to clarify, the males kill the cubs of the previous king, not their own)

In humans, the killing of children does not cause this to happen. If it did, then it is highly likely that we would do just that, and our codes of ethics would reflect that.

In humans, infanticide is taboo because humans had a high rate of infant mortality in the pre-modern era. As such, we have evolved socially to take care of our offspring. If we did not, our genes would have been eradicated generations ago.

My point with bringing up asexuality is that sex itself is a deviation from the norm. It does not matter whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex. Sex itself began as an abnormality. We are all products of mistakes in nature, errors in replication. The first life form did not look like us.

Also, for an asexual life form, self-replication is sex. So I don't quite understand that final statement you made.

Edit: It doesn't make much sense realistically or conceptually, but I guess your point was to draw a parallel between homosexual practices and asexual cells "having sex" for the heck of it. But if I did find an example, would you just say the same thing you said about the lions committing infanticide?

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

Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's good or right.

This post is a rebuttal to arguments using "natural" to say something is wrong. If something being "natural" doesn't make it right, then I don't see how something being "unnatural" would be wrong either.

Furthermore, society's code of ethics is subject to cultural evolution, which makes it subject to natural selection. The codes of conduct we develop and the values that we hold will only persist if they do not cause the decline of our numbers. I think there's evidence to suggest that we have evolved to a point at which LGBT practices would not cause the decline of our numbers. We have also evolved to a point at which we have to examine our quality of life beyond that of reproduction. As such, a cultural climate of tolerance to sexuality and other aspects of life will likely factor in to that re-examination.

From a human rights standpoint, there is also a conflict in logic that may be threatening to the social order if one particular group is denied rights that are given to another, even when both groups fulfill their part of the social contract.

 

[ballin4life]

I was agreeing with you

 

[Dre89]

Already I find thus debate to bemorw productive than the CE equivalent.

I know why lions commit infanticide. That was my point, to illustrate that your insect analogy is poor on the grounds that their system is different to ours, so the comparison is invalid.

In fact, if anything, the analogy actually works against you, because worker and soldier insects, which as you know are the ones that can't procreate, and they never have sex. If you're going to apply animal analogies, then if anything this demonstrates that sex is meant entirely for procreation, as those who can't procreate don't have sex. Even you must concede that you lost that specific point, and that your analogy back-fired.

The thing is, you're either being relative or arbitrary. Either you don't believe in objective moral truths, but say that collectively we determine what is good so that society can be sustained, or you say that we have evolved objective moral values.

The latter point becomes arbitrary, because are these morals determined by what our consciouses are structured to permit, or by our biology/nature. Either preference will be arbitrary in your framework.

 

[El Nino]

I was agreeing with you

Lol. Sorry, my bad. That's what I get for trying to think coherently at 3 in the morning.

I know why lions commit infanticide. That was my point, to illustrate that your insect analogy is poor on the grounds that their system is different to ours, so the comparison is invalid.

It doesn't help to say that something is "different" and therefore invalid for comparison without understanding why it is different and why it would be valid or invalid. Few systems in nature are exactly the same. Few individuals in nature are exactly the same either.

The insect example is not an analogy for human behavior. It is a model that showcases how reproduction and genetic succession determine behavior in a collective. My point is that we cannot assume that all living things in nature operate on the model of each individual simply procreating to further its own genetic line. Collectivist insects are an example that it is possible that evolution may favor a system in which some individuals procreate and some do not.

Humans are also social animals, and we also form kin groups composed of extended family. If one member of this family were to forgo procreation in favor of assisting the family, this individual's genes will also be passed on to the next generation because family members share similar genes.

Forgoing procreation does not mean forgoing sex because the organs still remain. Even in evolution, parts don't just disappear when they are not needed. That's how we ended up with vestigial organs. The appendix serves no function, but it still requires maintenance. If it gets infected, it has to be removed.

Also, social or cultural evolution differs from biological evolution in that it modifies behavior rather than the physical body.

Homosexuality is observed in humans and at least one other primate. In the Bonobo, sexual behavior plays a significant role in their societies, whether in terms of social bonding or conflict resolution. They also don't appear to discriminate on the basis of sex when choosing their partners.

In fact, if anything, the analogy actually works against you, because worker and soldier insects, which as you know are the ones that can't procreate, and they never have sex. If you're going to apply animal analogies, then if anything this demonstrates that sex is meant entirely for procreation, as those who can't procreate don't have sex. Even you must concede that you lost that specific point, and that your analogy back-fired.

Again, it is not an analogy. It is a model of how genetic succession guides behavior. Humans and insects have both adapted to behave in ways that work best for furthering their genes. This does not change, whether you are a human being or a fruit fly. I meant only to counter the assertion that individual procreation is the only model of behavior through which a population can survive.

Furthermore, on the topic of sex. The evolution of sex is not significant in regards to procreation because self-replication was the first method of procreation. Before sex existed, procreation already existed. Sex is significant only in that it allows different individuals to exchange genes.

So, technically, sex is about exchanging DNA.

In addition to that, identifying one particular function for an organ does not preclude the possibility of other functions. As species evolve over time, an organ that was once used for one purpose might end up being used for something else.

The thing is, you're either being relative or arbitrary. Either you don't believe in objective moral truths, but say that collectively we determine what is good so that society can be sustained, or you say that we have evolved objective moral values.

The latter point becomes arbitrary, because are these morals determined by what our consciouses are structured to permit, or by our biology/nature. Either preference will be arbitrary in your framework.

As I said before, nature is amoral. This leads me to believe that there is no objective moral truth.

Our morals are arbitrary in the sense that we usually don't determine them consciously, and they are the end-product of cultural evolution, something that is influenced by biological evolution and the environment. The only constant in nature is persistent change. As such, the code of ethics of one species of bipedal ape will either adapt with it, or the species will die out completely.

The irony is that we have evolved also to believe in our values and our morals absolutely. In order for the social fabric to hold, we must believe that our morals are like objective truths, even though they are not.

 

[Dre89]

But I never argued that the idea of the majority of the population pro-creating applies to all animals, I just argue that it applies to humans, based on our nature.

This goes beyond the biology sex act as well. Firstly, if we were supposed to function as a society where only a select few procreate, not only would most of us not have the capacity to reproduce, but the select few who do bear that capcity would be popping out kids like there's no tomorrow. Secondly, humans are structured to function in societies where the majority of the population procreates. This is evidenced by the fact that all humans have the capacity to reproduce, and that pregnancies generate very few offspring. Had only a select few procreated, because pregnancies produce so little offspring, generlaly only one per pregnancy, our civilisation would quickly dug out.

If you want to talk evolution as well, you could even go as far as to say that we have evolved the ability to desire different traits in partners, meaning that more people will find partners and procreate, as opposed to everyone desiring the same traits in partners, and then only very ferw people procretaing, because of very few people having these traits.

I'm aware asexuality preceded sexuality, but this does nothing to my argument. This doesn't change the fact that sex exists for procreation. Even in species that have access to both asexual and sexual procreation, they only engage in sexual activity to procreate.

Furthermore, regardless of what your intention in bringing up insects was, that doesn't change the fact that insects which can't reproduce never having sex severely comprimises your argument.

On an unrelated note-

1. How did you become a discussion leader?
2. Do you still hate me?

 

[Sucumbio]

Interesting read... I see a lot of common themes from other topics of this nature but you've at least done a good job basing your analysis in science...

about this:

The opposition then responds by saying that animals sometimes kill their own young and would it be okay for humans to copy that behavior?

is that REALLY the opposition's argument? Humans kill their own young in an albeit different fashion by way of abortion... seems as if this would be a poor argument against the position but maybe I'm missing the point...

and yeah, **** is natural. might not be nice, but it has its uses in biological terms, and is a certain throwback in human society to a more primitive time. of course this going off the definition of natural which means not man-made, in which case we can examine several examples such as infanticide, incest, homosexuality, ****, torture, murder, pleasure, ... all precede humans' coming of age so to speak, by which time we as a species could reason. if anything, reason is to blame for any and all conflicts of interest including the creation of society, social taboos and morality.

 

[El Nino]

I just argue that it applies to humans, based on our nature.

"Our nature" is to use sex for purposes other than biological reproduction.

This goes beyond the biology sex act as well. Firstly, if we were supposed to function as a society where only a select few procreate

No, we have not functioned as a society in which a "select few" procreate, but we do function as societies in which a "select few" do not.

If you want to talk evolution as well, you could even go as far as to say that we have evolved the ability to desire different traits in partners, meaning that more people will find partners and procreate, as opposed to everyone desiring the same traits in partners, and then only very ferw people procretaing, because of very few people having these traits.

That is a very haphazard way of putting it, and I think the conclusion is a little off. What you're talking about is mate selection and mating competition. People exhibit different traits that reflect their genetic makeup. Those traits which are more popular will result in more instances of procreation, allowing those particular genes to be more prevalent. This does not mean that every other allele gets wiped out. They just occur at varying frequencies reflective of their success.

What you're describing is in fact different genes competing with each other. The end result is not necessarily more procreation. The offspring created will be subject to natural selection. Some will survive; some won't. However, human technological capabilities in the modern age has influenced that process greatly. It is our technology at this stage that allows for us to procreate so successfully, not our ability to desire different traits in our partners.

This doesn't change the fact that sex exists for procreation.

"For" is a problematic word for me. Sex doesn't exist "for" anything. Sex exists as a result of evolution.

Even in species that have access to both asexual and sexual procreation, they only engage in sexual activity to procreate.

Example? I'm just curious.

Furthermore, regardless of what your intention in bringing up insects was, that doesn't change the fact that insects which can't reproduce never having sex severely comprimises your argument.

What, exactly, do you think my argument is? Just so we're clear on that.

On an unrelated note-

1. How did you become a discussion leader?
2. Do you still hate me?

1. An admin asked me. I talked too much over at UB, and I've been around for a while.
2. I never hated you, Dre..

is that REALLY the opposition's argument? Humans kill their own young in an albeit different fashion by way of abortion... seems as if this would be a poor argument against the position but maybe I'm missing the point...

It's come up in conversation for me on more than one occasion. And the opposition usually doesn't approve of abortion either. My concern is the conflict in reasoning:

1) straight is natural, therefore gay is not natural because it's different from straight (because it's impossible for two things that are different to both be natural)

2) yes homo exists in nature, but so do other things that we don't do because we have the ability to judge behaviors

So, can the judgment used in #2 be applied to #1? If we judge that there are times when it is okay to act against our natural instinct to kill, then why can't we act against our natural instinct to procreate? And if we can do that, why can't we have intercourse that doesn't lead to procreation? Even if you don't use your wisdom teeth, it doesn't mean that you can just ignore them and pretend that they don't exist. They need maintenance too, or it becomes a health problem.

The function of our parts is something that we decide. This property is a function of the 3 lb glob of white and grey matter stuck inside our heads. There is no magnificent template to emulate. Just us, as we are.

 

[Dre89]

I don't argue that gay is wrong because straight is right, and it is the opposite of straight. Besides, I'd say asexuality is the opposite of straight.

The very word "asexual" shows sex is meant for procreation, because to not procreate through sex means to not be sexual.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm aware asexuality preceded sexuality, but this does nothing to my argument. This doesn't change the fact that sex exists for procreation. Even in species that have access to both asexual and sexual procreation, they only engage in sexual activity to procreate.

Aphids can reproduce sexually and asexually I believe. They do both.

The very word "asexual" shows sex is meant for procreation, because to not procreate through sex means to not be sexual.

That's a pretty poor argument. It's a very subtle appeal to authority. Basically it goes like this:

• A person discovers organisms reproducing asexually.
• He decides to name it asexual.
• Because he named it something meaning, without sex, sex must be for reproductive purposes.

I hope you see that it's not very watertight. The fact that some guy named something in a particular way with a particular meaning, is not evidence of the supposed evolutionary purpose of a certain adaptation.

 

[Sucumbio]

2) yes homo exists in nature, but so do other things that we don't do because we have the ability to judge behaviors

hm... true. we judge. weigh... sort... do brain-things. I guess I see the decision to banish homosexuality or for that matter alternate-sexuality as .. well, arbitrary? Yeah, totally ... in essence without any real basis in anything other than personal preference. And that isn't something to base policy on. I find it difficult to see how such a line of reasoning could even progress beyond personal preference. Ergo branch from subjective reasoning to objective good.

 

[Dre89]

Bob- Yeah I guess it wasn't too flashy, I just came up with it on the spot and it's not my core argument.

I know about aphids and the like, but they still only have sex to procreate. Generally hybrid sexuality animals only procreate asexually if there are no other mates accessible to them.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What I'm not sold on is not "Sex is only natural for procreation". What I'm not sold on is still how we go from that to "Sex for non-procreational purposes is (morally) wrong and/or harmful". AND how you get there without being against condoms, sex with women past menopause/before ovulation, or people who are otherwise unable to reproduce (vasectomized people, for example)

 

[Dre89]

I am against condoms.

I'm not against infertile sex because as long as you are having sex that you are happy to have kids result from (obviously someone you're committed to), you're doing the natural act. It's not as if I'm saying you have to have kids everytime you have sex, I'm just saying you have to have sex the natural way.

 

[El Nino]

I am against condoms.

You do know that the human sex drive has kind of evolved to always be on, right? We make the judgment to curb reproduction based on external factors, but we can't turn off the drive. Just because we don't need it right then, doesn't mean that it'll go away. We resist impulses when we judge that they need to be resisted, but the existence of condoms means that we don't have to resist this particular impulse in order to control population.

I see no benefit to not using condoms for sex not intended to result in pregnancy, nor do I see a benefit to resisting the impulse to engage in intercourse that does not result in procreation. Unless you have anything to offer on that count. How would it benefit us?

I'm not against infertile sex because as long as you are having sex that you are happy to have kids result from (obviously someone you're committed to),

If two people of the same gender would like to have children together and engage in sex (even though the sex itself does not produce children) is that acceptable? If the intercourse allows them to form a stronger bond with each other, which encourages them to establish a family unit and adopt a child without parents, is that acceptable? The end result is not procreation, but the assistance of procreation by providing resources in the raising of a child.

Also, I've never actually seen the inside of anyone I've had relations with. For all I know, they could have appeared to be one thing on the outside while being something else underneath. If I accidentally engage in either heterosexual or homosexual intercourse, is that moral or immoral behavior? And how would we ever know unless we have all our partners get DNA testing (which is really the only way to be 100% sure)? Some people are born with the anatomical appearance of one gender but the DNA of another.

Generally hybrid sexuality animals only procreate asexually if there are no other mates accessible to them.

I guess that means it's okay if you're in prison. What if mates of the opposite sex aren't accessible to someone because he/she is not attracted to the opposite sex?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I am against condoms.

I'm not against infertile sex because as long as you are having sex that you are happy to have kids result from (obviously someone you're committed to), you're doing the natural act. It's not as if I'm saying you have to have kids everytime you have sex, I'm just saying you have to have sex the natural way.

But sex between infertiles is not natural. They are unable to reproduce, therefore should not **** at all.

And furthermore, you are continuing to not answer the question-that's your opinion, now why do you hold it?

 

[ballin4life]

I still don't understand why it matters what's natural and what's not.

Natural isn't even that well defined since humans are part of nature so anything done by humans is natural by definition.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, what I'm trying to do is get why he thinks this.
Oh, and he has argued quite often that humans are not a part of nature in the same way, say, monkeys are.

 

[ballin4life]

Yeah I know that people like to think that.

But I don't get why it matters what is natural. Cars aren't natural, for example.

 

[Sucumbio]

...I'm just saying you have to have sex the natural way.

This. This statement alone should for all intents and purposes nullify what he has to say, which is why I tend to ignore his posts on the matter (at least until I see him change up from this.)

Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy, nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First, the word "natural" is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. Second, "nature" and "natural" have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as "all-natural" wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection. Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives).

 

[Dre89]

The development of technology is also natural.

My concept of nature refers to human nature.

The reason why I think we should adopt this framework is that it is not purely intellectual or arbitrary, it's actually based on something as objective, which is nature. So many of you here love science so much, yet my theory is as scientific as a moral theory can get.

Consequence based frameworks lead to slippery slopes. You will
say that hasn't been proved, but the way we are now shows the ball is already rolling, seeing as we are becoming more and more consequence based.

The problem is, if you are going to say there are no objective goods outside of preserving communal survival, that human flourishing and virtues (such as sexual abstination etc.) don't matter, then all we're doing is surviving so we can...keep on surviving.

My point is that the basic goods sustain us so we can flourish, but in your framework we sustain ourselves, just to keep sustaining ourselves, there is nothing greater beyond that.

It's the equivalent to servicing a car, but not driving it. Keeping it functional is pointless if you're not going to key it do what it excels at.

 

[ballin4life]

Sexual abstination is not a virtue. In fact it represents the oppression society places on humans to try to control you and eliminate basic desires.

You know what else is sexually unnatural? Marriage. Optimal male reproductive strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, and we see this where in nature and in many societies the "alpha male" has multiple partners.

And I have no idea how you are going to say technology is natural but these sexual behaviors aren't. If your framework is based on nature, how can you allow for the internet, or cities, or anything? If we have to follow the incredibly vague idea of "nature", then doesn't your moral framework say that we should be out hunting and gathering?

I also loled at the "but this moral framework is scientific!" argument when NO ONE ever said they wanted a scientific moral framework (I would also argue that it isn't scientific either, but whatever). People use science to discover truths about the physical world. Morals have nothing to do with science.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm just saying you have to have sex the natural

My concept of nature refers to human nature.

way.

Yeah, I know that's what you're saying, but the point still stands that you've employed a fallacy of logic. You're saying you have to have sex the way human nature intended sex to be. This is a fallacy because there is no specific way humans are intended to have sex. There are ways we are intended to procreate, obviously. But they're not the same thing. It's sex or procreation, not sex and procreation.

The reason why I think we should adopt this framework is that it is not purely intellectual or arbitrary, it's actually based on something as objective, which is nature. So many of you here love science so much, yet my theory is as scientific as a moral theory can get.

What and what? There's nothing objective about nature. Where has it been shown (in science) that it must rain on Thursdays? If Hurricane Katrina proved anything, it's that Nature is a beast; unruly, unpredictable (to a degree) and certainly not discriminating - as in the Aristotelian concept of the word, which would suggest at least some semblance of compartmentalization or harmonious capitulation.

Consequence based frameworks lead to slippery slopes. You will
say that hasn't been proved, but the way we are now shows the ball is already rolling, seeing as we are becoming more and more consequence based.

The way we are now proves that we as a species subscribe to consequentialism instead of natural law? I don't see how they're at all different. It's in our nature as intellects to look at the results of our decisions to influence new decisions. So what? Would you prefer we ignore our past mistakes and just do what "feels right" in every instance? Instincts can be wrong, especially if you're not privy to all the facts!

The problem is, if you are going to say there are no objective goods outside of preserving communal survival, that human flourishing and virtues (such as sexual abstination etc.) don't matter, then all we're doing is surviving so we can...keep on surviving.

Nonsense. Human flourishing is not unlike surviving at the Holiday Inn. You don't HAVE to have room service... you don't HAVE to have running water, or electricity. You can survive in the wild with a bow and arrow and a loin cloth and a room full of naked women with a club in one hand to keep order. But why would you? Your chances of survival are increased if you have a sturdy home, with a strong family unit, lights, a toilet and a PS3. :D

My point is that the basic goods sustain us so we can flourish, but in your framework we sustain ourselves, just to keep sustaining ourselves, there is nothing greater beyond that.

Oh is that your point, well I don't buy what you're suggesting. JUST to sustain ourselves. Well.. duh. What else we got going on? Obviously the only real goal in life is to live. It's the quality of life that we strive for better. Man is like lion times a million. Instead of lounging in the prairie though, we live to lounge in our living room.

 

[El Nino]

The development of technology is also natural.

But the development of alternative sexual lifestyles is not?

The problem is, if you are going to say there are no objective goods outside of preserving communal survival, that human flourishing and virtues (such as sexual abstination etc.) don't matter, then all we're doing is surviving so we can...keep on surviving.

This the point where our paradigms crash.

Communal survival in the scientific sense is not an "objective good." It is the effect of a cause-and-effect relationship. The cause is life, down to its biochemical roots and up to the evolution of species.

Morality is a paradigm that fits within this paradigm. It is, itself, a product of evolution.

My point is that the basic goods sustain us so we can flourish, but in your framework we sustain ourselves, just to keep sustaining ourselves, there is nothing greater beyond that.

By recognizing the absence of an absolute, objective, moral good, we allow for greater diversity of values among different individuals. Starting from the chemical bonds that make us, none of us are exactly the same. Any idealized model that attempts to mold us as if we were the same will not succeed.

It's the equivalent to servicing a car, but not driving it. Keeping it functional is pointless if you're not going to key it do what it excels at.

I don't think you've actually proven that your model would lead to a preferable existence for people in any society. Let's say that you are right and the suppression of homosexuality, transgenderism, bisexuality, intersexuality, etc., would in fact lead to a preferable human society. I want you to tell me how it would accomplish that. What things would we see change and how would they benefit us?

 

[Dre89]

Well medieval society did have a similar system.

No system is going to make the world sunshine and roses, but what's interesting is that the societies you endorse statistically have higher suicide rates.

 

[El Nino]

Well medieval society did have a similar system.

No system is going to make the world sunshine and roses, but what's interesting is that the societies you endorse statistically have higher suicide rates.

I don't think it's very convincing to use just one particular phenomenon and weigh that against all the activities of a society. But then, I'm not even sure which argument you are responding to here.

Is there even a connection between rates of suicide and the increase of tolerance towards alternative sexualities?

If anything, a society's oppressive view towards alternative lifestyles can cause people of those orientations to succumb to depression and suicide. In that case, intolerance can add to the number of suicides, not reduce it.

It's true that certain diseases (whether physical or mental) are specific to certain regions. But unless we isolate the causes or factors that contribute to it, we can't say that changing (or swapping) one system for another would necessarily decrease the occurrence of a particular phenomenon.

I would also like to see these statistics, so I know what we're talking about. I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're trying to say.

 

[ballin4life]

You know what other society repressed homosexuals? Nazis.

You don't want to be a Nazi, do you Dre?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well medieval society did have a similar system.

It's one thing to make a fallacious comparison. But this... This is like trying to use ad hominem and arguing fallaciously with "You are amazingly intelligent, dashingly handsome, and have never been wrong" to try to prove someone wrong.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No system is going to make the world sunshine and roses, but what's interesting is that the societies you endorse statistically have higher suicide rates.

Source? I'd love you to source such a claim and make the causal connection. After all, correlation doesn't imply causation. Otherwise we'd be asking women to wear shorter skirts and men to grow longer hair to get the stock market up.

 

[Dre89]

It's from the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm.

Also, William Lane Craig in his debate with Theodore Drange refers to a separate source which indicates that people in the poorer opressed countries have higher rates of happiness.

 

[ballin4life]

Also suicide rates are not the main factor in determining whether one society is better than another.

Plus it's a pretty clear case of correlation is not causation.

As to the second point there's all kinds of problems measuring happiness and the same correlation-causation problem. That plus it would seem that you are implying that we should make people be poor and oppressed because of this result, which is ridiculous.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think it's the opression that makes poor people happier, but rather their circumstances perhaps make them more grateful, and have tighter family bonds. Those can theoretically be achieved without the opression.

Similarily, I think the higher suicide rates in developed, liberated countries can be decreased, whilst still mainting wealth and technology, but perhaps not liberation, because liberation and individualisation is the opposing attitude to the poorer nations which is the result of their happiness.

 

[El Nino]

As of 2003, the country with the highest suicide rate according to the WHO is Russia (based on data from the year 2000):

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Russia has had a difficult time after their transition from communism:

At the start of transition, roughly half the population of households fell below the poverty line. While this has subsequently declined, at end-1996 nearly 40 per cent of households were below the poverty line and a substantial stratum of households were locked in chronic poverty.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0351.00019/abstract

Similarily, I think the higher suicide rates in developed, liberated countries can be decreased, whilst still mainting wealth and technology, but perhaps not liberation, because liberation and individualisation is the opposing attitude to the poorer nations which is the result of their happiness.

Russia, when it was communist, did not promote individualism. If anything, the government promoted conformity, often using very brutal tactics. After the transition, even though the political and economic systems changed, the culture did not turn around and leave those values behind. Russian culture leans away from individuality and leans more in favor of duty and sacrifice.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6408-6.cfm

This denial of individuality did not seem to, on its own, lead autmatically to happiness, judging by those WHO suicide numbers.

 

[Dre89]

Ok but does can one statistic invalidate two separate statistics?

I ask that as a genuine question, rather than as a subtle argument.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok guys suicide rates do not matter, because there are a million things that could be a factor in suicide rates.

I might claim that Russia has high rates because it's cold and snowy.

Suicide rates are not a measure of how good a country is anyway.

 

[Dre89]

But this isn't just one country.

There's a correlation between irreligious, developed countries and higher suicide rates.

 

[rvkevin]

But this isn't just one country.

There's a correlation between irreligious, developed countries and higher suicide rates.

Can you link me to that study or the data that was used to make such a conclusion?

 

[ballin4life]

What's with everyone addressing the specifics of what I say rather than the general point? Maybe I should make it clearer that it was just an example meant to show that there are many factors involved, not an actual attempt at an explanation.