Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

[Colleen Thomas]

Forgive me if I still seem remote, even compacent to this item... But there's a hell of a lot of effort going into this research and what have you... When I still can't work out... "What the fuck does it matter anyway how many people bat for the other team, or why".

The legitimate aim of the research is to understand human sexuality. It has great worth in advancing the life sciences as well as Psycology, sociolgy antrhopology etc. The main thrust of most of the research is simply to help understand humans, how we think, act and behave as we do.

Along with legitimate researchers who are working in the name of science, there are several psuedo scientific groups out there with a political agenda to their research.

It has a lot of significance to researchers in both genetics and psycology. Lesser, but useul application in a lot of related fields. But it will become a highly politicized body of work no matter what the final concensus is.

-Colly

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Damn, I thought for a minute there that Svenska expaned her clothing line.

 

[Guest]

Damn, I thought for a minute there that Svenska expaned her clothing line.

Please explain. P.

 

[champagne1982]

First time attempting to post a poll....tolerate me if it does not work.

amicus

I didn't read this thread. Doesn't anyone but me find it funny that this person, amicus, is asking for tolerance?

 

[smutpen]

Smutty,

I am far from indifferent to the issue. Most work in the field tends towards their being both a genetic and enviormental component to homosexuality. Several studies, including Kinsey & Masters & Johnson postulate that the majority of the female population is at least bi-curious. Feedback on my stories, while highly unscientific, seems to bear that out. I get a lot of notes from straight women who enjoyed my work and find themselves curious. As well as unscientific sampling, my works are wirtten for a female audience and so that may explain women enjoying them even if they aren't bi or lesbian.

In this case, the question is quite loaded. People who don't like gays will twist your result no matter what is found. If for example there was a "gay" gene located. The fundy's would immediatly call for genetic screening before a child was born and if he or she had this "gay" gene, they would call for parents to have some corrective measure taken. If none was avialable they would say a genetic link proves that homosexuality is a disease, a form of genetically inherieted mental illness.

If there is no "gay" gene, then they climb up on the soapbox and start spouting about it being a choice.

Fanatics love absolutes. The idea that you can have a genetic predisposition to being gay or straight and that enviormental factors, working upon that predisposition give you the results is anathema. It isn't clean, or absolute and it gives bigots nothing concrete to rail against or try to have changed.

Scientific results that prove or disprove a genetic factor won't change bigotry or hate. The result can be twisted no matter what, to fit the agenda of those who are homophobic.

The most likely outcome is going to be that homosexuality is a mix of both genetic and enviormental factors. Some people are probably "born" straight and some "born" gay. That is to say the genetic components that predispose you one way or another are probably a combination of dominat and ressive genes, acrosss a wide range of traits, with heterosexual being dominant. Some people will be born with all dominant across the varitey of genetic influences and thus "born" het. Some will have all ressives across that same meliu and thus "born" homo. The vast majority of people will probably have a mix of Dom & ressive traits across the same scale. To those people, enviormental factors will probably heavily influence them.

In a society where homosexuality is accepted or even encouraged, say ancient greece for example, the incidence of homosexuality or bi-sexuality will probably be significantly higher than it is in a society where homosexuality is viewed as abberant. Historically & anthropologically, that is a strong argument for an enviormental component.

A single gene or set of genes that "make" you homosexual or heterosexual is very unlikely. It is more reasonable to believe you are born with a particular phisiological trait set that gives you a predisposition to find either males, females or both attractive sexually. Enviornment and experience then work upon that trait set, building psycological links that will determine the outcome.

It is a much more workable theory than strictly nature or nurture, as it is adaptable to cover a much wider range of possibilities. Should this country become more controlled by the far right and more hostile to gays, you will probably see the incidence of homosexuality in the general population shrink. Should this country become less hostile, it will probably rise. Even if the country swings radically one way or the other abberations will occur. If we make homosexuality a crime punishible by death, there will still be homosexuals. If we make bi-sexuality the law, there will still be straights.

And no matter what you do, there will still be hate. Some people hate based on skin color, as if you can help that. Some hate based on national origin, as if you can help that. Those who choose to hate based on orientation will continue to do so, even if in the end it is proven you can't help that either.

-Colly

Colly,

Thanks. It's good to see that somebody here understands that nature vs nurture is often a false dilemma.

But I'd like to see how fundies would condemn the "God-given" genes; although consistency and logic have never slowed them down much.

And I'd like to see those who wish to discriminate against people for a behavioral pattern to which they clearly can be genetically predisposed reduced to hiding in the shadows like hardcore racists usually have to nowadays, not loudly calling for constitutional amendments to support their prejudices.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Please explain. P.

"gay genes"....'gay Jeans"....bad joke....sorry.

 

[smutpen]

No, no, no. 50/50 odds are random. Period. Population distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it. What the hell do you mean by "even distribution" anyway?

There are plenty of genetic polymorphisms found stable at a handful of percent. In fact, the first conclusion of a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is that the percentage of the population both carrying and exhibiting the trait in question remains constant.

If the twin had either 100% or 0% then you could hypothesize a mechanism for the outcome, but 50/50 is random.

The fact that you, smutpen, have no idea what these statistics mean lead me to believe they were made up in the first place.

I have no idea?

As to whether the stats were made up, you have access to google.

By "even distribution" I mean if a random member of the population were 50% likely to be gay, then we could attach no significance to the 50% likelihood that separately raised identical twins of gays are gay.

You seem to be having trouble seeing past the fifty/fifty statistic.
But maybe I've been misunderstanding you, or explaining myself poorly.

Identical twins raised separately from their gay siblings have a 500% or 1000% greater chance of being gay than a random member of the population. How can you claim there is zero genetic influence on sexual orientation?

There must be some link to explain such a staggering statistical correlation. It cannot be environment, since they were raised separately, so it must be genetic. (Unless studies show a similar correlation in adopted children generally, which would be an environmental factor commonly shared by separately raised twins.)

If the correlation between identical twins were 100% there would be little need for hypotheses.

It's virtually impossible for there to be a 0% correlation in behavioral traits between any two sizable population sets made by splitting pairs of identical twins.

The statistics are quite similar to those you referenced on left-handedness vs right-handedness, and I've seen very few arguments that there is no genetic influence whatsoever on handedness.

I understand that one proposed mechanism for the genetic influence might be that there is a gene for heterosexuality, and someone who gets two recessives is randomly oriented (i.e., orientation is determined by environment), while those with the dominant are hetero.

In fact, this is a "hypothesized [genetic] mechanism for the outcome" of handedness.

This changes the the substance of the issue not at all. It's still an uneven playing field, because straights are condemning gays, in essence, for not sharing their own genetic pre-disposition to heterosexuality.

It's not at all certain that there is just one gene contributing to sexual orientation. The situation might well be more as Colly described.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

Thanks. It's good to see that somebody here understands that nature vs nurture is often a false dilemma.

But I'd like to see how fundies would condemn the "God-given" genes; although consistency and logic have never slowed them down much.

And I'd like to see those who wish to discriminate against people for a behavioral pattern to which they clearly can be genetically predisposed reduced to hiding in the shadows like hardcore racists usually have to nowadays, not loudly calling for constitutional amendments to support their prejudices.

Fundy's believe in original sin. You are born wicked. My guess is that they would go to extrem lengths to "reprogram" any child born with genes linked to homosexual behavior and if the reprograming failed, they would call the child evil for refusing to be indoctrinated. Tis just a guess, but I could also see them spearheading research into a "corrective" measure that could be introduced to a child still in the embryonic stage and then appeal to all parents to "save" their children from a life of degeneracy.

That is one of the pitfalls of research. If there is a gene or set of them that predisposes one to being gay or bi, you can bet they will want a way to stop it. And I can't imagine too many parents choosing not to undergo such a proceedure to make life easier on thier children. That assumes that the religious right gain a strong enough hold on power in the U.S. to make it harder to be gay than it is now, which they seem very close to doing.

-Colly

 

[smutpen]

...That assumes that the religious right gain a strong enough hold on power in the U.S. to make it harder to be gay than it is now, which they seem very close to doing.

-Colly

Depressing, ain't it?

Christian theocracy has been tried before...we call that "The Dark Ages."





-Aaron

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Depressing, ain't it?

Christian theocracy has been tried before...we call that "The Dark Ages."





-Aaron

Oh no, that was Catholic thocracy. Catholics aren't Christians, they are Idolaters worshiping mary & saints & collecting icons

Entering the mind of a fundamentalist, KJ version of course is a trip in convoluted logic and double speak. i know, i was raised a southern Baptist

-Colly

 

[thenry]

Identical twins raised separately from their gay siblings have a 500% or 1000% greater chance of being gay than a random member of the population. How can you claim there is zero genetic influence on sexual orientation?

Aha. I was arguing the interpretation of your statistics and not your point.

Which is to say I was not arguing against a genetic influence, given your statistical example, but against a predisposition toward homosexuality. If anything, your statistics suggest a genetic predisposition toward heterosexuality and away from the undetermined or randomly determined null state (50/50 straight or gay) just like the statistical evidence for right-handed determination.

It's virtually impossible for there to be a 0% correlation in behavioral traits between any two sizable population sets made by splitting pairs of identical twins.

The 0% correlation would be 50/50 odds, meaning the twins have nothing in common. Even if the population of twins in question always exhibited opposite phenotypes or behavior it would mean some factor is determining the influence.

As an aside, a former population genetics teacher of mine showed the class a study of seventy-five years of twin research covering over 5000 lifestyle choices. The only two things to not have a genetic component (meaning 50/50 odds of the behavior in the other twin) were preference toward hot tea and feelings about sleep-overs.

And any genetic polymorphism with >1% frequency in the general population is considered normal.

 

[smutpen]

Aha. I was arguing the interpretation of your statistics and not your point.

Which is to say I was not arguing against a genetic influence, given your statistical example, but against a predisposition toward homosexuality. If anything, your statistics suggest a genetic predisposition toward heterosexuality and away from the undetermined or randomly determined null state (50/50 straight or gay) just like the statistical evidence for right-handed determination.



The 0% correlation would be 50/50 odds, meaning the twins have nothing in common. Even if the population of twins in question always exhibited opposite phenotypes or behavior it would mean some factor is determining the influence.

As an aside, a former population genetics teacher of mine showed the class a study of seventy-five years of twin research covering over 5000 lifestyle choices. The only two things to not have a genetic component (meaning 50/50 odds of the behavior in the other twin) were preference toward hot tea and feelings about sleep-overs.

And any genetic polymorphism with >1% frequency in the general population is considered normal.

I was beginning to suspect that we were miscommunicating.



I consider that an absent predisposition toward heterosexuality amounts to a comparative predisposition toward homosexuality, when compared against the general population.

I didn't state that clearly.

Many people seem unable to comprehend that studies clearly show that sexual orientation is genetically influenced. Usually because they are so desperately determined to not comprehend.

I mistook you for one of them, which you obviously are not.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What all this then?

I feel a bit like the Monty Python police officer walking into the skit with the "what's all this then?" and an argument without logic. Honestly, what's going on here?

Amicus seems to be trying to start one of his troll posts again, but all he's doing so far is insulting people personally without even dipping into politics. I know his old theory about feminism and gays and it's wrong for purely historical reasons rather than biological reasons. We've simply seen too many cases of homosexuality, bestiality, and polyamority in history for his argument to work. He won't care of course, but we all know that. He has a disdain for science and lives for arguments. Remember all the debates with fundys. Liberals get tired of quoting ignored facts, the fundys reveal in the argument. It's the reason so many people here have been focusing on non-sequiturs.

Anyway, into the point itself. It's obvious that many here don't understand genetics. The few who do, I congratulate you, especially Colly. In genetics, a genotype that causes a phenotype that kills a person before they can reproduce is common. It can take form in an unfortunate pair of recessive or dominant (in the case of dwarfism) genes or perhaps in a defect. Hemophilia, the sickle cell that many Africans get, and various other-life-threatening diseases crop up again and agian because the pairing from a carrier rolled up that trait. So, assuming there is a homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual gene out there. And assuming that people can only be hetero or homo and that they will only mate with fellow heteros or homos so that the homosexual gene can only crop up by recessive gene pairing then gay kids will still be born from perfectly hetero parents. This is just how genetics work.

Moving on, I believe also that environment also plays an effect on how many homos are out to be counted, how much opportunity they get to explore their sexuality, how curious they are allowed to get, and where pleasure is allowed to be got from. These factors will effect the statistical levels to a point where the genetic component is apparently invisible because of what they allow and forbid. If it is a stoning offense to be gay, there will be few out gays. If men are allowed to screw everything included a sheep as they were in the dark and middle ages (as long as the church officials didn't know) then things would be mixed up that way too. If people are sent through an experimentation phase before adulthood (read college), you will see more people changing their minds about sexuality. Also, another point, sexuality when you get to the nitty-gritty is a pleasure experience and thus is rated against other pleasure experiences. If a woman has had unfulfilling encounters with men and then comes four times in a night with a woman, they will tend to explore the greater pleasure more, especially if the guilt is not very high. Similarly a man who has had little luck with women and gets multiple jollies in a row with men, they will tend towards that road. Chasing pleasure is one of the most human aspects and will affect sexualities nearly as much as genetics will.

Also the most important reminder about genetics is that it is all a probability map in the higher function orders. Especially on things like personality. Like Richard Dawkins said, "just because one's genes vie for one thing doesn't mean the person has to obey them." If someone is apparently genetically gay, doesn't automatically mean he will be dating a flock of boys. He may resist it at first or dismiss the genes and date women. He may even with an environment where it's not an option, raise a perfectly happy family and only sometimes wonder why he imagines Brad Pitt going commando. Or he could simply be non-sexual, one of those rare people who don't often lust and control it, like priests who aren't secretly pedophiles or those lost hermits in New York. As is said, the future is always unwritten.

That was all the genetics portion, now for just a single call against homophobia. Who cares if homosexuality is genetic or not? Who cares if it is a choice or a burden? Who in fact, cares if homosexuality can only be caused by secret alien experiments in Pluto? It's not as if homosexuals are hurting anyone. From what I've seen, homosexuals have been kinder people than heteros, they have gotten in less fights than heteros, they have killed less people than heteros, they've treated me with more respect than hetero people treat me. They've done nothing to offend me nor have they forced me on the table and told me to spread my cheeks. Overall they have kept out of my home and have not tried to recruit me into a homosexual lifestyle. Fundamental christians on the other hand, have come into my home, have stalked outside every single one of my public schools (including elementary) to recruit youngsters, have made legislation to affect me personally, have been rude to me, have bloodied me up, and have threatened me, my family, and friends. My sympathies are thus a little tipped in favor of the homosexuals. Don't know why. Must be because I'm a commie liberal who always has to resist the latest conservative movement. Yeah, that must be it.

In conclusion, there is historical precedent which makes a genetic argument though not scientifically proven, at least logically conceivable. Also, the environment factors are a little more complex than a historically inaccurate perception of feminism. Finally, I can predict Amicus's response to this long thread (ha ha, you liberals. All these attacks...why don't you grow up?...Ayn Rand said...Think of how you look...All will be revealed when the death star is opeational...etc) and well, I don't really care. If he wants to bring out the genetics argument or the history argument fine, we can all debate, but if he wants to camp like a troll under a bridge or a DC sniper in a trunk then there is nothing we can give him that he does not already have.

Amicus a quote for you:
Rosencrantz- Why then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your mind.
Hamlet- O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams (Hamlet 2.2)

Do us all a big favor and go troll and flame-bait somewhere else. Find some infinte space and go claim it as your kingdom. When you want to stop being the token asshole of the forum, ruining everyone's moods because you don't understand the community, feel free to come back. Until then, go and write your little book with the little friends in your little mind.

-Devil out (or is that out ?)

 

[smutpen]

Oh no, that was Catholic thocracy. Catholics aren't Christians, they are Idolaters worshiping mary & saints & collecting icons

Entering the mind of a fundamentalist, KJ version of course is a trip in convoluted logic and double speak. i know, i was raised a southern Baptist

-Colly

:sigh:

I know.

Catholicism had its drawbacks, but I think it was slowly tending, with Mary and the saints, back towards the good old days before the rise of inherently intolerant patriarchal monotheism.

Ahh, the good old days. When nobody was ever burned at the stake for calling Inanna Ishtar, or even Astarte.

When sophisticated, intelligent people could believe in and revere the gods as sacred symbols of the values of culture, and not as independently existing beings, witrhout being reviled by anyone but a few pious bleaters whom everyone usually ignored.

The Protestant Reformation succeeded for many reasons, probably mostly the ambition of the German princes and the invention of the printing press.

But I think it also harnessed the violent, virulent old sickness that afflicts so many males; the jealous, insecure need to totally subjugate women that fueled the Old Testament revulsion with any hint of a feminine aspect of diety.

Also, unsurprisingly, a major component in Islam.


Time to change my profile quote.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

:sigh:

I know.

Catholicism had its drawbacks, but I think it was slowly tending, with Mary and the saints, back towards the good old days before the rise of inherently intolerant patriarchal monotheism.

Ahh, the good old days. When nobody was ever burned at the stake for calling Inanna Ishtar, or even Astarte.

When sophisticated, intelligent people could believe in and revere the gods as sacred symbols of the values of culture, and not as independently existing beings, witrhout being reviled by anyone but a few pious bleaters whom everyone usually ignored.

The Protestant Reformation succeeded for many reasons, probably mostly the ambition of the German princes and the invention of the printing press.

But I think it also harnessed the violent, virulent old sickness that afflicts so many males; the jealous, insecure need to totally subjugate women that fueled the Old Testament revulsion with any hint of a feminine aspect of diety.

Also, unsurprisingly, a major component in Islam.


Time to change my profile quote.

The real problem with religion, Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Judaism, et al, is that religion does not encourage critical thinking. All religion boils down to faith and faith by its nature is something you accept without proof. If you could prove it, you wouldn't be taking it on faith.

While having faith, in no way precludes you from being an intelligent, rational, even critical thinker, it does force you to make an intellectual compromise. Some people can make that compromise easily. For others it leads them down a slippery slope to an almost slavish anti-intellectualism.

It might surprise some here to learn I am a christian, a southern Baptist in fact. My faith is a matter of intellectual compromise, but I refuse to let my faith destroy my skeptical outlook or critical thinking abilities. My disdain of fundamentalists is pretty well documented here.

Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is found chiefly in Deuteronomy & Leviticus. This set of scripture as commonly refered to as Moses's law. And they are pretty specific. But if you look at this set of scripture, it becomes apparent that any form of sexual activity that isn't likely to result in a new little Jew is prohibited. There is a reason for that and I don't think it's because god reached down and said so. I think it has a lot more to do with the jews of the time being a martial people and living on land taken by force from other tribes.

Even today, in Isael the Arab population is growing much faster than the hebrew population. When you are locked in a death struggle that looks to last for generations it only makes sense to encourage people to produce the next generation of warriors pronto. Sex that dosen't lead to a baby is bad because you are in a breeding war as well as a shooting war. In the time when war was an atrociously bloody, upclose and personal affair, and significantly more leathal than it is now, you had to have a big pool of manpower to draw from.

Warfare has changed. Life expectancy has changed. Societies have changed. For fundamentalists of all stripes, the good book, be it the Bible, Koran or Talmud has not.

I apologize for the long discourse to get back to the matter at hand. Fundamentalists are basically trying to live in the modern world, with a code that is 2000 years or so out of date. It is doubtful that Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or John ever forsesaw the science of genetics. Just like there is no biblical prohibition against abortion or stem cell research, these things simply were too far in the future to be speculated upon. Advances in science force them to jump through hoops to make today fit into the framwork of laws written in the far past. Thus abortion is murder, I have no biblical prohibition against abortion, but I do have several against murder. Stem cell research is also the product of murder, as it takes cells from an embryo. Going out on a limb, cloning is an attempt to create life, which is a power reserved only to God. The rationalizations are endless.

Homosexuality is bad, says so right here in the book. It's easy, not delivered in a a parable or open to interpretation, and so it's easy to make that fit into today. If genetic research proved conclusively that there was a genetic component to being homosexual, then your average fundy would be lost. He or she would have to go to the parson and ask what it means.

Basically leting someone else do your thinking for you.

It is the hope of many liberals & homosexuals that a proven "natural" component to being homosexual would force people to be more accepting of it. I think they are living in a dream world, myself. Those who hate based on orientation will simply find a rationalization to keep it bad. They formed their own "disciplene", Creation Science, to explain away fossils, geology, discoveries in earth & planetary science, etc.

I do not doubt they would find a way to explain away anything beneficial in such research, while at the same time trying to find a way to use that research to keep people from "becoming" homosexuals.

The reformation was sparked primarily by corruption within the Catholic church. One result is that most protestants at the time had to lean heavily on scripture or face being burned at the stake for heresy. That bread an extremely heavy reliance on the literal word of the bible as the literal word of god. The people of the time weren't extremely literate, but if you take your bible and read to them the scripture that says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, they can understand that. Even the slowest of them will have to wonder how a Bishop or Abbot, with secular holdings that rival the great noblemnen of the day can be bound for heaven. And if the aren't....

By using the literal word of the bible, those who wished a reformation were able to continually put the church in delimas where it took great leaps of rationalization and sometimes papal bulls, to explain the contradictions in what the word says and what the world knew. The fruits of that tactic come down to us today as fundamentalists who believe the whole bible is the literal word of god. Never mind that they can't read hebrew or Aramaic, never mind that their KJ 1611 is just a translation, it's real. God wrote it.

I sometimes wonder if the men who lead the reformation could see where it has brought us, would still be so certain reform was needed. Even if it was, I wonder if they could not devise a tactic other than making the literal words in the bible the intransmutable word of god? It's interesting to ponder.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

"Round up the usual suspects..." From a Bogart/Bergman film, I think, Casablanca...about a man named 'Rick' who was ambivalent to Nazi politics and the free French in World War two North Africa.

There is no fault directed at an individual who takes a 'position' on an issue, we all do it.

One, in a free society, has the right to take any position on any issue, Religious Fundamentalism or Homosexuality or anything else.

One even has the right, again only in a free society, to take to a soap box and advocate that position.

The consequence of advocacy is often disagreement by others who have differing positions.

Literotica was recommended to me about a year ago by the webmaster of another site who did not appreciate the controversial nature of my poetry and the explicit nature of some of my prose.

Even though I do not read 'Erotica' per se, I did discover some very talented writers here and was pleased by the number of 'reads' generated and the amount of feedback I received in the first few months on the site.

I did not even look at the forum sites until just a few months ago.

The 'authors forum' seemed caught up in the politics of a Presidential election, which is fine, 'tis the season. After reading for several weeks without commenting, I realized the site was not one of debate and discussion, rather, a site manipulated by a handful who expressed a very secular political opinion.

Just as in Fundamentalist religion, this 'elete' group of posters seemed to tolerate no opposition and banded together to attack anyone with a different view.

It still remains that way. Cloaked in a self righteous veil of certainty concerning social/political issues, this core of 'progressive populists' feels free to excoriate,demean and speak in pejorative personal terms to any who dare disagree.

The flaw innate in adopting a 'relativistic, non-absolute' code of ethics and morality, is that one cannot defend such a position in, 'absolute terms' as that would contradict the basic faith of the movement, that there is 'no absolute truth' no 'universal code of ethics applicable to all'.

The other aspect of this 'moral superiority' expressed by the 'progressive populists' is that they never defend a position, only attack those who dare disagree.

At the mere suggestion that perhaps the century long feminist movement may have not been a good thing in all aspects, they all joined hands and like vultures, swooped down, ripped and shreaded and deposited globs of offal on their intended prey.

A final note about 'science' and scientists. I watched several hours of the NASA channel the other evening, including several panels of scientists from NASA, JPL and the agencies at Cape Canaveral and the Johnson space center.

As a whole, these folks appeared to be intensly myopic, doing their 'science' in an environment of exclusion to all else. Not a bad thing as science requires total focus.

However...when these 'science types' ventured out of their fields, and attempted to comment on the 'wider' scope, they were, for the most part, woefully inadequate and misinformed. They also tended to apply scientific method to non science areas not subject to experiment and observation.

By the way, the Cassini/Huygens probe arrival at Saturn is due to be televised on June 30th.

Amicus Veritas

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas....interesting and thoughtful post.

I have a question for you, if I can word it in such a way as to be understood:

Do you accept the possibility that a consistent, rational, logical, non contradictory, non faith based code of ethics and morality
exists or even can exist?

An 'Universal, absolute' morality for all humanity at all times?

amicus

 

[thenry]

It still remains that way. Cloaked in a self righteous veil of certainty concerning social/political issues, this core of 'progressive populists' feels free to excoriate,demean and speak in pejorative personal terms to any who dare disagree.

Amicus, I do not see why you complain if a group of people inhabit a defined piece of property, fence it with their conceptions, and defend it to their satisfaction. After all, it is a fundamental right.

 

[amicus]

Gee, and all the while I thought Literotica was a 'community' of writers of differing POV.

Silly me.

 

[Guest]

thenry -

Apparently some believe it isn't a fundamental right.

If you can stomach it, I would suggest reading through the entire thread "The Feminine Mistake" begun by amicus. (Not the thread "The Amicus Mistake, begun by me - )

It will probably give you better insight as to character, logical arguments (or lack thereof) and actual factual information presented by many of the posters on this thread.

(Most of whom gave up on that other thread because it became a pointless argument.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"Round up the usual suspects..." From a Bogart/Bergman film, I think, Casablanca...about a man named 'Rick' who was ambivalent to Nazi politics and the free French in World War two North Africa.

There is no fault directed at an individual who takes a 'position' on an issue, we all do it.

One, in a free society, has the right to take any position on any issue, Religious Fundamentalism or Homosexuality or anything else.

One even has the right, again only in a free society, to take to a soap box and advocate that position.

The consequence of advocacy is often disagreement by others who have differing positions.

Literotica was recommended to me about a year ago by the webmaster of another site who did not appreciate the controversial nature of my poetry and the explicit nature of some of my prose.

Even though I do not read 'Erotica' per se, I did discover some very talented writers here and was pleased by the number of 'reads' generated and the amount of feedback I received in the first few months on the site.

I did not even look at the forum sites until just a few months ago.

The 'authors forum' seemed caught up in the politics of a Presidential election, which is fine, 'tis the season. After reading for several weeks without commenting, I realized the site was not one of debate and discussion, rather, a site manipulated by a handful who expressed a very secular political opinion.

Just as in Fundamentalist religion, this 'elete' group of posters seemed to tolerate no opposition and banded together to attack anyone with a different view.

It still remains that way. Cloaked in a self righteous veil of certainty concerning social/political issues, this core of 'progressive populists' feels free to excoriate,demean and speak in pejorative personal terms to any who dare disagree.

The flaw innate in adopting a 'relativistic, non-absolute' code of ethics and morality, is that one cannot defend such a position in, 'absolute terms' as that would contradict the basic faith of the movement, that there is 'no absolute truth' no 'universal code of ethics applicable to all'.

The other aspect of this 'moral superiority' expressed by the 'progressive populists' is that they never defend a position, only attack those who dare disagree.

At the mere suggestion that perhaps the century long feminist movement may have not been a good thing in all aspects, they all joined hands and like vultures, swooped down, ripped and shreaded and deposited globs of offal on their intended prey.

A final note about 'science' and scientists. I watched several hours of the NASA channel the other evening, including several panels of scientists from NASA, JPL and the agencies at Cape Canaveral and the Johnson space center.

As a whole, these folks appeared to be intensly myopic, doing their 'science' in an environment of exclusion to all else. Not a bad thing as science requires total focus.

However...when these 'science types' ventured out of their fields, and attempted to comment on the 'wider' scope, they were, for the most part, woefully inadequate and misinformed. They also tended to apply scientific method to non science areas not subject to experiment and observation.

By the way, the Cassini/Huygens probe arrival at Saturn is due to be televised on June 30th.

Amicus Veritas

Nasa & the JPL should be focused. I find it comforting to know that they are out of their depth in the wider word of how thier information might affect things.

With the exception of privately funded experiments Nasa & Jpl are engaged in pure research. They make their facts avialable to everyone. Planetary scicence, astrophyisics, and a lot of Macro & micro systemic relations were all theoretical until Nasa began supplying data to work those theories on.

Black holes were theortical. The stuff of movies & science fiction novels, until Cyg X-1 was discovered. I, for one, prefer scientists who are apolitical, with no agenda other than to discover new things and increase the volume of man's knowledge.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Oh now don't do that!

LOL!

I have him on ignore so I don't HAVE to read his posts!

(The thread is much more entertaining without!)

But as to the scientific slam?

I would hope their focus is on their craft. We need these quality professionals. Gifted people, many of them geniuses, they've taken their skills far ahead of most who occupy this planet.

Any graduate student knows in order to become a master of their field they must leave other things behind. Doctoral studies programs are very narrow and quickly force tunnel vision upon their participants.

(It's ok if they aren't aware of some things happening in the everyday world.)

 

[Liar]

At the mere suggestion that perhaps the century long feminist movement may have not been a good thing in all aspects, they all joined hands and like vultures, swooped down, ripped and shreaded and deposited globs of offal on their intended prey.

Ok, you just posted your POV with a lot of fancy words. I'm gonna post mine in much simpler ones.

I didn't participate in that debate very much, but here's vhat I remember, group dynamic wise: You posted a controversial and mildly confrontational debate post. You got in reply, a handful of knee jerk reactions (it happens, I've had worse, get over it), but the morepart of the initial replies were serious objections to the arguments. This, of course, was in your eyes nothing but left wing feminist propaganda, and was not met on your behalf with nothing but demeaning scorn, or simply . Thus shit hitteth fan.

In this thread you started with a ridiculous question, ridiculous because it was provided with no background al all, and one that noone in here knows the answer to. I still don'tget what the purpose of that question was if not to make people do this:

cheers and chopsticks,
#L

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen Thomas....interesting and thoughtful post.

I have a question for you, if I can word it in such a way as to be understood:

Do you accept the possibility that a consistent, rational, logical, non contradictory, non faith based code of ethics and morality
exists or even can exist?

An 'Universal, absolute' morality for all humanity at all times?

amicus

That's a deep one.

My own code of ethics isn't faith based, but neither is is at all times rational or consistent.

I would say off hand that a universal code of morality and ethics can not exist, unless it were conciously worded in tremendously vague terms.

I just don't see that many absolutes in the world. Killing is wrong. Yet soldiers kill, police offers kill and we often find them to be heros.

Cannibalism is abhorent, yet sailors marroned in life boats during the age of sail were known to eat the flesh of their dead comrades and for most, there was no stigma attached, no legal action taken.

Torture is awful, yet the spanish inquisition used it often and to the people of the time it wasn't bad, the intent was to save the sufferer's soul for eternity in glory, even if it meant destroying their fleshly body.

In a world without absolutes, a universally consistent, logical, reasoned, non contradictory and non faith based morality would, in my opinion have to be immorality personified. Survival would have to be the highest order in such a paradigm, with all other considerations subservient to that one. Personal happiness would have to be next. Social constructs would have to fall far down the list, as they tend to be contrary to 1 or 2 or both.

I guess one could be done, but it would seem closer to immorality than morality.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Thank you Colly...nice up front reply...

You said..."In a world without absolutes,..."


Perhaps that is my stumbling point with most...I do not comprehend how others can state, "There are no absolutes"

Aristotle's axiom, (see I do quote other than fictional authors), his assertion that A is A. A thing is what it is, tied with an almost Geometry based expansion of that axiom, including the corollaries of B and C...ad infinitum, proves in logical terms that, 'Reality exists.'

In my perception, most everything in reality has absolute existence.

We use our senses to perceive that existence, our minds to categorize and store the information and language to communicate that knowledge to others.

A 'rock' is a 'rock'...with progress we can know more and more about the rock, but..it remains a 'rock' absolute and unchanging to all and for all time.

Absolute and Universal. Without that basic acknowledgement, the human mind rebels and seeks solace in 'faith' in order to maintain sanity.

Acquiring knowledge is not an easy task, extending that physical knowledge of reality into the metaphysical is even more difficult.

I guess if it were easy, everyone would do it.

regards and thank you again...amicus