The Danger of Male Homosexuality vs Female Homosexuality

[HMS_Irruncible]

@gamerunknown

Then why were you bringing up obvious evolutionary reasons, centuries old practices and obesity? If something persists for millennia, it’s not a “status marker” that’s amenable to change in a lifetime, is it? If it presents a disadvantage to the survival of the genes to the person displaying that status, it won’t survive for millennia.

I should have been more clear. Taking for example blonde hair… it is entirely genetic in origin, and also a status marker in some places. Yet the ultimate outcome is not that blondes will edge out everyone else, the ultimate outcome is that when blonde hair becomes too common, then it can’t be a status marker anymore. Alternately, some other random trait becomes culturally regarded as a status marker.

So what I’m getting at is that the contradiction between society reviling a trait that is perfectly genetically viable could be accounted for by the fact that it can be considered a status marker. High status itself may contribute to the fitnesse of any gay gene, but not necessarily so.

Here is a good primer on the causes of homosexuality.

There’s no primer on the causes as they’re not known and not proven. People have theories. YouTube videos are not a cite, do not waste my time with them, particularly if they won’t even load. I’ll happily read text if you wish to provide it.

[BigT]

@panache45

But wouldn’t that work the other way as well? If I, a gay man, am disgusted by something that straight people do, e.g. cunnilingus, wouldn’t that disgust cause me to label it as immoral, and cause me to become heterophobic? But it doesn’t. Disgust, in and of itself is not a sufficient explanation.

No, because you’ve already experienced what it’s like to be considered immoral due to your sexual preference, and thus you do not want to do it to others. If homosexuality were the dominant sexuality, and thus you’d never been discriminated against, it would probably be different.

But, now that I think of it, maybe not. There have been studies showing that gay men’s brains are actually different that straight males, so it’s possible that you just think differently for biological reasons.

[BigT]

@mister_nyx

So the person who made the claim – the original poster of the thread – has no responsibility to find any evidence! SDMB-style debate is interesting! And when someone points out reasons why those invented “statistics” are perhaps not plausible, well, it’s the responsibility of someone else to disprove the claim! There’s no responsibility on the person who made the claim to come up with any evidence for it! This is a unique and interesting style of debate you folks have here! One doesn’t have to supply evidence for one’s claims, but if someone disagrees with the citation-free claims, they have to prove them wrong! What a novel and unique approach to debate you folks have come up with!

Neat!

No. She brought citations for the OP. Now that she did that, you are required to provide citations to continue to allege that the OP is wrong. Without doing so, you are admitting that you are not actually arguing in good faith, and thus your protestations against the lack of cites from the OP are because you didn’t like the argument, and not because you thought it was false.

You can’t claim that the OP is required to bring citations for his position, and then, when citations are provided, balk on the fact that you are now required to bring citations to argue against it. Or, you can, but it proves you aren’t interested in an honest discussion, and thus Una is justified in no longer engaging with you:

TL;DR: If you want the OP to provide cites when it’s his turn, you have to be willing to provide them when it’s your turn. Otherwise he is right by default.

[mister_nyx]

@BigT

No. She brought citations for the OP. Now that she did that, you are required to provide citations to continue to allege that the OP is wrong. Without doing so, you are admitting that you are not actually arguing in good faith, and thus your protestations against the lack of cites from the OP are because you didn’t like the argument, and not because you thought it was false.

You can’t claim that the OP is required to bring citations for his position, and then, when citations are provided, balk on the fact that you are now required to bring citations to argue against it. Or, you can, but it proves you aren’t interested in an honest discussion, and thus Una is justified in no longer engaging with you:

TL;DR: If you want the OP to provide cites when it’s his turn, you have to be willing to provide them when it’s your turn. Otherwise he is right by default.

Oh, boy, this stupid thread being revived again. Great.

Thanks for sharing your insightful ideas about how debate works, BigT. I will be sure to follow your rules of debate the next time I am worried about your opinions about who is right and who is wrong.

[gamerunknown]

@HMS Irruncible

High status itself may contribute to the fitnesse of any gay gene, but not necessarily so.

@HMS Irruncible

There’s no primer on the causes as they’re not known and not proven. People have theories.

Both of these contentions are outmoded due to Popper. In modern scientific parlance, there is no proof, there is only evidence and disproof. If hypotheses have no mechanism for disproof, they are discarded. I don’t think you’ve offered any for your claim that homosexuality is a status marker comparable to obesity.

I was not using the video as a cite, merely an attempt to rectify ignorance. This wikipedia article (which cites relevant studies) performs the same function. That said, I should have been more careful in my language (contributory factors to, rather than causes of).