Before I get back in on the fun, I'd like to state for the record that the 3.5lbs lobster I had last night was simply fabulous. One of the best lobsters ever, save for the one I had up in Ogunquit and the 6lbs I had at Ocean Grill in uptown NYC.
Now on to the fun.
Bigus Dickus said:
Natoma said:
You framed a supposition wrt homosexuality based on a reduced chance of offspring (if homosexuality is genetic) and continuing a particular genetic line. I framed a supposition wrt white skin (which we know is genetic) based on a reduced chance of offspring and continuing a particular genetic line.
Yet you neglected to acknowledge that skin pigmentation could have both negative
and positive aspects. Yes... it depends on the environment. Advantages can sometimes partially or fully offset disadvantages - having a larger brain after all carries plenty of evolutionary disadvantages, but in some environments the advantages may outweigh those negatives. Adaptations aren't environment neutral - they are direct responses to the environment. In this particular case, after reveiwing some nearby texts, it appears that skin pigmentation is probably tied more to Vitamin D production than to heat absorption or retention. Though the thought I threw out was obviously not well thought through (try typing that fast five times
), the fact remains that in some environments lighter skin is an evolutionary adaptation because it offers advantages darker skin does not.
Good boy. I was about to lambast you for not understanding this simple concept of skin color evolution wrt vitamin D production in the dermis, and not that, erm, interesting take on heat absorption/retention that you postulated earlier.
Bigus Dickus said:
I've already clearly outlined the case for the negative evolutionary aspects of homosexuality. I refuse to acknowledge your challenge to that because you and I both know it is vaccuous. I've asked you to name any possible positive evolutionary aspects of homosexuality. I will be patient while you research this and get back to us. I've sincerely interested in what you may find.
There are a few socio-scientists such as Bruce Bagemihl (I had a chance to read his book on homosexuality and it's possible evolutionary advantages a little while ago. dusted it off last night.) who believe that one reason homosexuality was evolutionarily advantageous is because of socio-sexual interactions between animals in which these homosexual interactions helped strengthen the social bonds between the males in the societies.
It is argued that homosexuality may have been one of the prerequisites of the stabilization of male-dominated societies, be they human or otherwise. So instead of being roaming loners who only interacted with others when mating was required, social nets were created, and homosexual interactions were used as a glue. Apparently homosexuality existed before the creation of societies. They were merely a different expression of every animals innate sexuality.
This enabled the further expansion of territory protection and overall security due to the proliferation of peaceful male co-existance within a society. Again, this has been shown in all social species, human and animal alike.
But this is just a theory. Frankly it is too early to tell what advantages homosexuality would play in today's world. But then, caucasian features play no evolutionary advantages in today's world either due to the proliferation of vitamin D substitutes. Not to mention that the vast majority of the world, by breeding within its own "race" by and large, would make having caucasian features an evolutionary disadvantage as well. But this is simply conjecture.
Bigus Dickus said:
My definition, by your admission, is true in more cases than his, thus it is more effective than his, thus it is better.
And again, that is just ridiculous reasoning. What if you two want to discuss a subject in which, by the context of the topic, requires a rarely used definition of a word? Is the more general definition (either in terms of it's use or in the variety of cases in which it is the correct definition) "better" in the context of your discussion? Of course not. I simply can't believe you would continue to argue from such an illogical premise.
It's quite easy to do so when people are sending illogical arguments to you and trying to use that as a reason for condemning homosexuality. But that is beside the point. Better, by definition, means that something fits more cases than something else. So, by that definition, my chosen definition is indeed better than Joe's, and thus because it is better, I use it.
Bigus Dickus said:
No need to go into detail. My point was simple, and I think you understood it. Homosexuality being natural by your definition doesn't tell you a whole lot, since by your definition plastic hearts, computers, canals, and high-rise apartments are also natural.
I never said that homosexuality being natural automatically confers upon it a "right" or "wrong" tag. I merely said that it can't be argued with any certainty that homosexuality is not natural. The "right" or "wrong" tag is something that needs to be applied separately.
For instance, cancer is natural. It exists in many other animals and exists in us as well. We know this for a fact.
I can argue that I think cancer is right for some people because it helps them focus their lives (see Lance Armstrong as one person who said cancer was the best thing that ever happened to him because it focused his cycling career), and I can argue that cancer is wrong for others because it results in their deaths.
Can I say that because cancer is wrong, in my opinion, that it is unnatural? Yes. But would that be a fundamentally flawed conclusion due to the established existence of cancer as a natural phenomenon? Most certainly.
