Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[arildno]

I agree with 2.
Overpopulation, though, is only a very recent problem !

I said over-population relative to available resources; you said "scarcity of resources". Same thing. Very old.

And since it is a problem, there are birth control methods which are more effective on the short term than waiting until this bisexuality is eventually selected for.

It already is, which is amply attested by history.
Western societal influences TODAY tend to maximize the manifest heterosexuality (manifest meaning explicit desires, thoughts and actions), while minimizing manifest homosexuality.
Societies in which this societal influence is dissimilar show widely varying degrees of manifest sexuality; the simplest explanation of this is that the majority of individuals have a bisexual potential (latency, that is), whose manifestation is dependent on societal influences.

In other words, the majority of those calling themselves today "straight" are deluding themselves, the psychologically implanted mechanism being that of a carefully constructed bulwark of emotional disgust at the thought of homosexual encounters.
This bulwark mechanism works at its poorest on those individuals who happen to be on the homosexual extreme of the spectrum, since for those, the major sources of pleasures will be homosexual.
It is at its most effective on the other end, where the only slight homosexual tendencies might be dispensed with, since the dominant source of pleasure will be heterosexual encounters, anyway.

The INTENSITY of disgust will roughly be proportional to the strength of latent homosexual desires, in order to have a sufficiently strong bulwark.
This is why intense homophobia is typically found in male police officers, career army folk and athletes who desire and choose a career where they are in close physical contact with other males, and form passionate buddy relationships. They NEED the physical&mental intimacy with other men (more than with their girl-friends who they tend to beat, anyway), but they are sh*t-scared of being labelled as gays.

At some point, though, the exclusivity of homosexual desire becomes so strong that the societal control mechanism of disgust is ineffective in keeping them at the latent level, i.e, the societal control of desires experiences a collapse.

 

[Lisa!]

I want to know whether the majority of gays prefer the marriage to open relationship or they're just defending their basic rights as a human.
Does anyone have any information about the gay marriage in countries that it's legal?

 

[arildno]

I want to know whether the majority of gays prefer the marriage to open relationship or they're just defending their basic rights as a human.
Does anyone have any information about the gay marriage in countries that it's legal?

In Norway, we've got what is called "partnerships".
Typically, those who enter a partnership have been together for quite a few years before they choose to take the step of formalizing their relationship in this manner.
Many don't bother with it at all.
Some (a minority) actually disagree to it in principle in that it is a form of aping the "breeders", and that the government haven't got a damn right to legislate on such personal matters.

As you can see it is quite varied attitudes..

 

[vanesch]

I said over-population relative to available resources; you said "scarcity of resources". Same thing. Very old.

Ah, but when there is scarcity of ressources, the winning policy is not to limit one's offspring !
Imagine 2 groups of individuals living in a confined space with limited ressources. One group A limits its offspring while the other one (B) breeds on. The breeding group will soon lack ressources and they'll compete for the same ressources. As there are more of B as of A, and as we take it that due to competition, both are equally reduced in numbers (say, 50% of each survive), at each generation, there's relatively more of B than of A that will survive: A is competed out. Now, if A and B would have IDENTICAL offspring limitations, that would be of course beneficial to both. But it is unstable: once one generates slightly more offspring, it pushes as well A as B in ressource scarcity, and then the B will statistically start to outnumber the A.

It already is, which is amply attested by history.
Western societal influences TODAY tend to maximize the manifest heterosexuality (manifest meaning explicit desires, thoughts and actions), while minimizing manifest homosexuality.

I'm not arguing against any selectivity of homo or bisexuality. One thing is clear: homosexuality can not be dominantly selected for, because then the species stops breeding :-) But as long as it is a relatively small fraction that is purely homosexual, there's no problem ; bisexuality can be neutral or even slightly positive as you point out.

The thing I wanted to underline is only that the "monogamous 1 man 1 woman" cell - as breeding is concerned - can be understood to be socially endorsed because it maximizes the transfer of the genetic material to the next generation within that cell and hence will motivate mostly the partners to invest in their offspring. As human offspring is small in number and requires high investments, this motivation is important.
This doesn't say anything about the homosexual behaviour because it is neutral concerning offspring.

 

[Lisa!]

1. To develop a healthy bisexuality in the population at large will mean that from a SPAP-perspective you get lots of new pleasures to choose from, and by thereby (presumably) limiting the frequency on strictly heterosexual relationships you will limit the number of kids being born, so that adverse effects of over-population relative to available resources are reduced (which is not in contradiction with natural selection)

I don't know if I've understood you well. You mean bisexuality could be very useful and it should be encouraged in order to tackle the overpopulation problem?

 

[arildno]

Ah, but when there is scarcity of ressources, the winning policy is not to limit one's offspring !
Imagine 2 groups of individuals living in a confined space with limited ressources. One group A limits its offspring while the other one (B) breeds on. The breeding group will soon lack ressources and they'll compete for the same ressources. As there are more of B as of A, and as we take it that due to competition, both are equally reduced in numbers (say, 50% of each survive), at each generation, there's relatively more of B than of A that will survive: A is competed out. Now, if A and B would have IDENTICAL offspring limitations, that would be of course beneficial to both. But it is unstable: once one generates slightly more offspring, it pushes as well A as B in ressource scarcity, and then the B will statistically start to outnumber the A.

Incorrect; you are confusing historical contingencies with dynamical, adaptive mechanisms.
It is a historical contingency if there happens to be two population groups adjacent to each other in a time of starvation/resource scarcity.
There could equally well be historical situations in which population limitation is the optimal choice.

Furthermore, you ignore the dynamical utilization of a bisexual population (which is what you find among other primates):
The main function of sexuality from a Darwinian point of view is for primates to keep the level of social tension within the group on an acceptably low level (this is important in order to have safe enough environment for the growing young)
However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in.
The tension level within the group can by this means be kept roughly constant, whereas a swift adaptation in terms of numbers of members to the current situation is made possible.

I'm not arguing against any selectivity of homo or bisexuality. One thing is clear: homosexuality can not be dominantly selected for, because then the species stops breeding :-)

Ah, the old myth!
You think gays "can't get it up" in the presence of women?
That's wrong.
Nor is it true that a gay man will find it painful or unpleasurable to have intercourse with a woman; but why do you think so many humans once they are in a relationship don't bother any longer with masturbation?
It is because that pleasure is found inferior to the ones one rather would have, i.e, it is pleasures one readily might dispense with, nor can one develop the rich and varied emotions you may find in a relationship.

In fact, a far more rational planning of child-raising would be possible if the human population today had been predominantly homosexual.
Dominant genetic flaws like Huntingdon's could readily be removed from the gene pool, by simply banning such individuals from engaging in reproductive sex; to which they wouldn't have too much inclination towards anyway, and
thus, such a ban would not be an inappropriately harsh regulation of individuals' lives (as such a ban would be today).

The thing I wanted to underline is only that the "monogamous 1 man 1 woman" cell - as breeding is concerned - can be understood to be socially endorsed because it maximizes the transfer of the genetic material to the next generation within that cell and hence will motivate mostly the partners to invest in their offspring. As human offspring is small in number and requires high investments, this motivation is important.
This doesn't say anything about the homosexual behaviour because it is neutral concerning offspring.

Now, as for the motivation thing:
Intention is not experience, seeking something desirable is not the same as having the desire fulfilled.

The fact that reproductive sex is pleasurable is, of course, predetermined by genetics, the fact that people seek it, is a SPAP-strategy, not, in general, a desire to procreate (only homosexuals are interested in engaging in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation (with a mild pleasure besides), heterosexuals engage in it for quite different reasons).

That is to say, there are several pleasures and pains present in humans laid down by natural selection; it does not follow that you can construct individual psychologies on basis of a spurious (and, IMO, basically non-existent) motivation for procreation.
Rather, their presence means that, on average, a sufficient number of SPAP-strategies will be developed that involve procreative acts.

However, what is painful and what is pleasurable is by now means a strictly INHERITED phenomenon; far more important is the influence of individual experience (and the corresponding unique development of the neural system, i.e, learning).
But, therefore, since it is not inherited, simplistic models of natural selection fails on the individual level, but is trivially true in a statistical sense.

For example, take again the case of suicides.
In as much as the enironment is relatively stable in providing triggers for the development of suicidal tendencies in some members of a population, then the recurrence of suicides over time is not something selected for genetically.

There is no need to implant desires towards natural selection in individual members; natural selection works fine without it, and aside from regarding a limited set of pleasures&pains universal among humans as genetically predetermined, most of our pleasures&pains may be regarded as experentially determined, and that in all cases, on the individual level, it is SPAP-strategies that constitute our psychologies and may explain behaviours.

 

[DM]

However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in.

Even though there could be more homosexuals than heterosexuals? I disagree.

If the world fully accepts homosexuality, the danger zone of not reproducing due to a "devastating plague" kicks in.

The fact that reproductive sex is pleasurable is, of course, predetermined by genetics, the fact that people seek it, is a SPAP-strategy, not, in general, a desire to procreate (only homosexuals are interested in engaging in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation (with a mild pleasure besides), heterosexuals engage in it for quite different reasons).

Is it me or you got it wrong? Isn't this the other way around?

 

[arildno]

No, heterosexuals mainly engage in reproductive sex for the pleasure it brings them, not because they "intend" by every such act to produce a baby.
Any other viewpoint is simply wrong.

 

[DM]

No, heterosexuals mainly engage in reproductive sex for the pleasure it brings them, not because they "intend" by every such act to produce a baby.

That's a bold statement. Prove it.

Any other viewpoint is simply wrong.

 

[cronxeh]

What we know for a fact is that there is a gene that is responsible for homosexuality. I've read a study on this done on the fruitflies I believe where they've altered a gene and the affected male fruit fly was trying to hump other males thinking they were the mate.

How this works in humans I have not a clue, but perhaps at the basic level we really are that primitive and a slight alteration in genetics will result in homosexuality or bisexuality. If this is the case, and I don't think you are "gay by choice" - that is a completely ignorant statement, then homosexuality is a serious problem to humankind at large, and should not be promoted further than that.

 

[arildno]

That's a bold statement. Prove it.

Oh, perhaps I'm wrong, then?
Do heterosexuals use contraceptives in order to produce babies?

 

[DM]

Oh, perhaps I'm wrong, then?
Do heterosexuals use contraceptives in order to produce babies?

Oh dear... is that your argument?

Truly weak.

 

[DM]

then homosexuality is a serious problem to humankind at large, and should not be promoted further than that.

Totally agree.

 

[arildno]

Oh dear... is that your argument?

Truly weak.

No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

If that had been their main motivation, pregnant women, for ecample, would have been singularly unattractive to have sex with, since you cannot impregnate here again for about a year's time.

 

[arildno]

What we know for a fact is that there is a gene that is responsible for homosexuality. I've read a study on this done on the fruitflies I believe where they've altered a gene and the affected male fruit fly was trying to hump other males thinking they were the mate.

How this works in humans I have not a clue, but perhaps at the basic level we really are that primitive and a slight alteration in genetics will result in homosexuality or bisexuality. If this is the case, and I don't think you are "gay by choice" - that is a completely ignorant statement, then homosexuality is a serious problem to humankind at large, and should not be promoted further than that.

What serious problem?

 

[cronxeh]

No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

If that had been their main motivation, pregnant women, for ecample, would have been singularly unattractive to have sex with, since you cannot impregnate here again for about a year's time.

Well if its not about reproduction, id like to hear your theory on why we have males and females, and why the only difference between male and female is in the last pair of chromosomes which subsequently represents the reproductive system

 

[arildno]

Well if its not about reproduction, id like to hear your theory on why we have males and females, and why the only difference between male and female is in the last pair of chromosomes which subsequently represents the reproductive system

Mainly, sex is about tension-release, i.e, removing social tensions within a population (this is how it is among other primates, in particular among our closest relatives, the bonobos).
To have a low level of social tension is important in order that those young who are born can be expected to reach adulthood themselves.

 

[cronxeh]

If you extrapolate the genetic variation we having today - particularly homosexuality and bisexuality, in future nobody knows what the effects will be. We may end up with a completely new species. Turn off your logical mumbo jumbo and think for a second. Imagine the segregation of humankind into several species, each of which doesn't produce a healthy offspring. Forget healthy we may even end up with cases where male and female can no longer mate, because they simply became different species (like breeding horses and donkeys to produce a mule. And mule is very infertile - only like 1 in million there is a fertile mule (hinnies) - you want this scenario for humans? You know how much that will cut down the 7Billion population ?)

 

[vanesch]

Furthermore, you ignore the dynamical utilization of a bisexual population (which is what you find among other primates):
The main function of sexuality from a Darwinian point of view is for primates to keep the level of social tension within the group on an acceptably low level (this is important in order to have safe enough environment for the growing young)
However, the willingness to switch between reproductive modes and non-reproductive modes has a nice regulatory effect as well:
In times where there is great need to get new individuals (for example, after a devastating plague), more reproductive sex is engaged in, whereas at times where the population level needs to be stabilized, more non-reproductive sex is engaged in. [...]

I can up to a point agree with what you write, but it didn't have anything to do with my point. I'm not talking about non-reproductive sexual behaviours, in the same way I'm not talking about the desire to eat apples or to sing.
What I AM claiming is that the REPRODUCTIVE unit which is, from a Darwinian standpoint, the best adapted to the (early) human situation, is the monogamous 1man 1woman cell. What those men and women do ELSE, sexually or not, doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't lead to reproduction. This is simply a consequence of the fact that raising kids is expensive and takes a long time (several years). It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the very old tradition of marriage in several human cultures. Given the fact that the human male is physically stronger than the female on average, he will mostly NOT accept the matriarchal solution, for the simple reason that he would loose out on genetic transfer. I can do the calculation if you want. The 1man-1woman reproductive unit is the one that allows both most to be sure that their expensive investment on offspring raising will have high rentability.

 

[arildno]

If you extrapolate the genetic variation we having today - particularly homosexuality and bisexuality, in future nobody knows what the effects will be. We may end up with a completely new species. Turn off your logical mumbo jumbo and think for a second. Imagine the segregation of humankind into several species, each of which doesn't produce a healthy offspring. Forget healthy we may even end up with cases where male and female can no longer mate, because they simply became different species

What are you blathering about?
Don't bother posting if you can't deal with facts.

 

[arildno]

I can up to a point agree with what you write, but it didn't have anything to do with my point. I'm not talking about non-reproductive sexual behaviours, in the same way I'm not talking about the desire to eat apples or to sing.
What I AM claiming is that the REPRODUCTIVE unit which is, from a Darwinian standpoint, the best adapted to the (early) human situation, is the monogamous 1man 1woman cell. What those men and women do ELSE, sexually or not, doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't lead to reproduction. This is simply a consequence of the fact that raising kids is expensive and takes a long time (several years). It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the very old tradition of marriage in several human cultures. Given the fact that the human male is physically stronger than the female on average, he will mostly NOT accept the matriarchal solution, for the simple reason that he would loose out on genetic transfer. I can do the calculation if you want. The 1man-1woman reproductive unit is the one that allows both most to be sure that their expensive investment on offspring raising will have high rentability.

But the 1man-1woman situation is NOT present in what we know of matriarchal cultures.
The fact that aggressive, patriarchal cultures have killed off matriarchates cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a GENETICALLY INHERITED TRAIT towards that particular form of social organization.

 

[DM]

No, it is not.
It shows that straights engage in sex primarily because it feels good, not because they are motivated by a desire to produce children.

I fail to understand you. Has it ever occurred to you that homosexuals practice sex for the sake of pleasure as well? Has it also occurred to you that most homosexuals are aware of being subject to NEVER having a child of their own?

Sex is mainly practiced for pleasurable reasons, let it be for heterosexuals or homosexuals. There's no way you can prove that homosexuals practice sex for reproduction purposes only.

 

[DM]

What are you blathering about?
Don't bother posting if you can't deal with facts.

He's discussing the aftermath of YOUR facts.

 

[arildno]

Sex is mainly practiced for pleasurable reasons, let it be for heterosexuals or homosexuals. There's no way you can prove that homosexuals practice sex for reproduction purposes only.

I said that homosexuals would engage in REPRODUCTIVE sex mainly for the sake of procreation.

 

[DM]

I said that homosexuals would engage in REPRODUCTIVE sex mainly for the sake of procreation.

All sex is REPRODUCTIVE! (heterosexuality) I said that homosexuals do not engage in reproductive sex mainly for the sake of procreation but for PLEASURE, just like heterosexuals.

[EDIT] In homosexuality, sex is practiced for pleasurable reasons.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm going to have to order those I TOLD YOU SO stickers and pins. I have a pretty good feeling I'ma start using them soon

 

[arildno]

All sex is REPRODUCTIVE! (heterosexuality)

Fellatio? Hmm..
Sex with a woman after menopause?

In homosexuality, sex is practiced for pleasurable reasons.

I haven't denied that.
I said that if homosexuals choose to engage in reproductive sex, then their motivation will more be to actually procreate, rather than experience a pleasure (which, for them, is decidedly inferior to the pleasures they usually seek out).

 

[vanesch]

But the 1man-1woman situation is NOT present in what we know of matriarchal cultures.
The fact that aggressive, patriarchal cultures have killed off matriarchates cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a GENETICALLY INHERITED TRAIT towards that particular form of social organization.

It is because in the case of heavy investment in offspring, a matriarchate is slightly less optimal.
Imagine we have 10 males and 10 females in a matriarchate on terms of "equivalence". Let's say that one of the males is Fred and we will do Fred's calculation. Let us assume that each female has 20 kids, 2 from each male. So Fred has 6 kids somewhere. If he's nice to all of them, he invests 1/60 of his efforts in each of them, he's investing 1/10 of his efforts in his 6 kids, who have 50% of his genetic material. Now that means that Fred is investing 5% of his effort in his genetic material (1/10 and 50% genetically related).
Of course overall, if Fred and the other males invest the same in the kids, what Fred is doing for the others, the others are doing for Fred, so his kids would get just as much survival attention as if he'd care exclusively for them. BUT: Fred can now decide to care LESS for the kids, and concentrate on other things like living longer himself. This will only slightly affect the survival change of his (and the other) kids. This ends up in all males getting very uninterested in investing in the kids, and is the result of the fact that his investment counts only for 5% of his genetic material in the next generation.
Females only care about their own kids and hence always invest in 50% of their genetic material.
Another reason why males don't like matriarchate is when having kids is not without risk for the female. They don't want the mother of their kids to take risks to put to the world kids of OTHER males, because if she dies, their own kids lack a mother.

 

[DM]

Fellatio? Hmm..
Sex with a woman after menopause?

You know exactly what I meant.

I said that if homosexuals choose to engage in reproductive sex, then their motivation will more be to actually procreate, rather than experience a pleasure (which, for them, is decidedly inferior to the pleasures they usually seek out).

Even though they're homosexuals? Sure that the predominant motive to have reproductive sex would be to procreate - just like you say - but just who would accept and permit this? And when you say having reproductive sex to procreate, are you referring to procreating only to go back to homosexuality with the baby? To satisfy procreation in the homosexual world? 90% - if not 100% - of homosexuals actually adopt a child as opposed to procreating in reproductive sex.

 

[cronxeh]

Apparently engineers think they know it all

Please, do not get excited. This is only sarcasm

 

[arildno]

It is because in the case of heavy investment in offspring, a matriarchate is slightly less optimal.
Imagine we have 10 males and 10 females in a matriarchate on terms of "equivalence". Let's say that one of the males is Fred and we will do Fred's calculation. Let us assume that each female has 20 kids, 2 from each male. So Fred has 6 kids somewhere. If he's nice to all of them, he invests 1/60 of his efforts in each of them, he's investing 1/10 of his efforts in his 6 kids, who have 50% of his genetic material. Now that means that Fred is investing 5% of his effort in his genetic material (1/10 and 50% genetically related).
Of course overall, if Fred and the other males invest the same in the kids, what Fred is doing for the others, the others are doing for Fred, so his kids would get just as much survival attention as if he'd care exclusively for them. BUT: Fred can now decide to care LESS for the kids, and concentrate on other things like living longer himself. This will only slightly affect the survival change of his (and the other) kids. This ends up in all males getting very uninterested in investing in the kids, and is the result of the fact that his investment counts only for 5% of his genetic material in the next generation.
Females only care about their own kids and hence always invest in 50% of their genetic material.
Another reason why males don't like matriarchate is when having kids is not without risk for the female. They don't want the mother of their kids to take risks to put to the world kids of OTHER males, because if she dies, their own kids lack a mother.

Well, I don't know where you've gotten this from, but it is proven wrong by history.

The ancient culture of Crete was most probably matriarchal and lived perfectly well (the males included) until the Dorian invasion crushed it.
It was, from what archeology bears witness a very low-aggression high society.
Similar tendencies was present in the Great Mother cultures in the rest of Europe.

There exists today a few matriarchates scattered about, notably one in the mountain vales of China.
This is also a very low-aggression society; the males seem quite happy with it.

 

[arildno]

.
To satisfy procreation in the homosexual world? 90% - if not 100% - of homosexuals actually adopt a child as opposed to procreating in reproductive sex.

Because as the situation happens to be today, adoption is a much simpler alternative.
Cultural attitudes depend on what options happens to be available, and change accordingly.

 

[arildno]

vanesch:
Your problem with the calculation is that you assume that the drive towards procreation is working on the individual level.
That is a totally unevidenced hypothesis.

 

[DM]

Because as the situation happens to be today, adoption is a much simpler alternative.

I disagree. Adoption is in actual fact a very complicated process.

 

[Entropy]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

Well, I understand where you're coming from. But that's the whole point of governments, to pave roads. If the government didn't intervene, druken bastards would be able to come home and beat children without commiting a crime. You would have thousands of eight year olds born into poverty stricten families working legally in textile mills. And less than half of the kids in the country probably woundn't being going to school, seeing how the government wouldn't force their parents into making them go. If the government couldn't tell parents how to raise their children, we'd be set back a whole century.