Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (74840)	9/16/2003 6:33:29 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"If homosexuality had prevailed, we would have either faced extinction as a species, or have had to force a number of people, against their natural inclinations, to contrive ways of copulating. Not only would this have been onerous, but uncertain as a means of gaining an adequate replacement level, or as a solid foundation for domestic life" I see no difficulty in their copulating. Indeed, IF homosexuality had prevailed one suspects it would be even easier than it is now. It is common knowledge that imagination may be led by prejudice in ways which may or may not be evident to the weaver. This makes "thought experiments" of the type you have entertained us with less than useful from an objective perspective. In the first place your argument is conditional: IF human reproduction is the ONLY activity by which we will judge the relative merits of hetero and homo, THEN it can be imagined that hetero might result in more prolific reproduction. But setting up this "thought experiment" to isolate one measure of value from all others, one can only remark relative to that one value and this can inform little upon the larger question of over-all value. The desirability of heterosexuality as an evolutionary singularity is not compelling as you have presented it. Even were it granted that passion and lust were more likely to a larger population than planned reproduction, this does not mean that SURVIVAL or the QUALITY of survival relates merely to population size, if at all. One rather suspects the converse. The virtual elimination of unplanned pregnancies, single mothers, abortions, unwanted families, and so forth would seem to represent an obvious evolutionary advantage. Then there are all the other civilizing influences that might or might not stem from one or the other evolutionary path. We have no way of knowing. This "thought experiment" sets up an either/or dichotomy which is far too artificial, narrow, and necessarily without data as to be reliable--even for imagined utopias. One could hope that all family planning would serve a noble purpose and process a la Plato rather than the rather unfortunate misery of heterosexual reality, but even this is mere conjecture. You and I would miss the pleasure and delight of copulating with females; but if our thought experiment be comprehensive we might instead be delighted in one another. So the thought experiment suggests only that reproduction would proceed at a less reckless and more thoughtful pace. It does not speak to the likelihood or quality of SURVIVAL which only evolution knows how to gauge. Nor is it likely that these orientations are competing in terms of survival but rather that they are working together to afford evolutionary advantage through diversity and complementarity. This assumption of an either/or competition was likewise an inappropriate aspect of the "thought experiment".

To: Neocon who wrote (74840)	9/16/2003 7:13:36 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"That leads to the other argument, which is that the affirmation of heterosexuality is a central value to most societies, and to try to put homosexuality on the same plain as heterosexuality, equal rather than tolerated, goes too deeply against the grain" I make a distinction between society and the State although I appreciate the inter-relationship. A recognition of the harm caused by prejudice leads me to err on the side of caution when it comes to the State holding an official position on sexual orientation. If we accept the premise that orientation is innate then one hardly sees any advantage or rationale in moralizing from a Governing perspective. How one BEHAVES (whether heterosexual or otherwise) is, of course a matter for education, regulation, and laws--within the appropriate concerns of the State. I don't know that society has any interest in what people are...but only in what they DO. Thus one expects the State to moralize as regards behaviours aggressive, intrusive, or harmful to others: Those behaviours which violate the natural rights to safety and equality which attach to all citizens regardless of gender, sexuality, or other innate qualities. However, moralizing which runs afoul of the ideas of fundamental equality has no place in the State, but may be served by the various churches who have authority over their own members on a voluntary basis--without having authority of imposition. I have no problem with preachers, pastors, or priests haranguing their flock in private quarters on the evils of homosexuality, etc. I think it is hogwash, but religion would perhaps have little to say if it was in any way unsure as to what to hate (not to insinuate that all religions hate homosexuals). However, I think the State ought to be scrupulously impartial to any ideas which would favour or disfavour an identifiable minority or majority above or beneath another. This principle is the domino which supports the whole rack of personal rights and freedoms. It is the principle which protects the safety and freedom of Jews; it is the principle that protects the rights of Christians to pursue happiness in accordance with their specialized beliefs; and it ought to be the principle which prevents blacks and homosexuals from being chained to a pick-up truck and dragged to a tortured death. As to the issue of marriage which may have started this discussion, Canadian churches are free to proselytize as they choose, provided they do not instigate hate and harm --and that would have to be quite overt I am sure. The State takes no position on whether or not the various churches ought to sanctify homosexual marriage. The churches address the matter as they see fit in their independent ways. It is called freedom of religion. It is also called freedom to moralize. It is also called freedom of religion that a homosexual (like any other human being) ought to be able to utter his vows of love before his God and His representative in whatever religion...and with the legal acknowledgment of the State. Approximately ten percent of the population are homosexual. If society and religions would cease to manipulate this as a moral issue, but instead treat homosexuality as a neutral genetic fact...we would live in a far better place. And note that I refer to the innate genetic attraction. I do not say that sexual mores are beyond the interest of society.