Consigliere, this is your best comeback?

Let’s try this again:

What is your definition of “maladaptive coping mechanism”?

What is your definition of “marriage”?

consi:  ...but my opinions about homosexuality are not biblical in the least…

So enlighten us, consi.  Why do you say homosexuality is maladaptive?  And since you haven’t yet answered another question of mine, I will (begging everyone’s pardon) jump threads and ask again- are you against teaching ID in science classes? That thread is here:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/aclu_files_lawsuit_over_intelligent_design/
Oh, and merry saturnalia, all…

Bear with me if you will El, there has been much gin and wine today.  And yepper, that was the best I had.  If we are in a game of one upmanship on witticism, I’ll concede the title now.  If not, this is what you were squaking about:

1) Definition of maladaptive coping mechanism

What I’m getting at is really two distinct issues, so your confusion, and request for a more precise definition is understandable.

a) I mean an abnormal pscyhological response to environmental stimuli after birth.  This is what I meant when I first used the term.

b) I’ve also used the term to refer to an abnormal physiological development, a defect, that has occurred prior to birth.

The two are distinct issues, although I’ve meshed them into the general proposition that gay is abnormal. 

2) Marriage

A state sanctioned union between a man and a woman, in which the couple is typically, although not always, engaged in a sexual relationship, and from which certain societal obligations and benefits inure.

zilch:

I doubt such a simple man as myself could ever enlighten someone as worldly and sophisticated as you.  If you want to know what I think though, here it is. 

Homosexuality is maladaptive because it is not natural.  We are physiologically designed to propogate with the opposite sex. The human species would not have made it this far if that were not the case.  So, if that is the way we’ve been wired, then when there is a derivation from that natural order, whether by choice or by defect, it is an abnormality.  Homosexuality, considered in that context, can be nothing but an abnormality.

Note:

I don’t believe homosexuals rot in hell for being homosexuals.  You seem to have made that jump because you know I believe in God.  You know not whether I am Christian, Unitarian, Muslim, Hindu, believe myself to be God incarnate, or am a member of any religion.  We both will be well served, if you do me the favor of not smacking your stereotypes upon me and I shall return the same favor to you.

Other Thread:

Should I regain an interest in that conversation, I’ll post there.  Shy, I am not.

Regards,

I doubt such a simple man as myself could ever enlighten someone as worldly and sophisticated as you.

Did you hear that, everyone? I’m worldly and sophisticated!  I don’t have to take any of your lip anymore!  I can just rest on my laurels!  I hope it pays the rent, too!

Homosexuality is maladaptive because it is not natural.  We are physiologically designed to propogate with the opposite sex. The human species would not have made it this far if that were not the case.  So, if that is the way we’ve been wired, then when there is a derivation from that natural order, whether by choice or by defect, it is an abnormality.  Homosexuality, considered in that context, can be nothing but an abnormality.

I pretty much thought this was your argument.  I will start right out by agreeing with you (if by “designed” you mean “evolved")- if we weren’t usually wired to be heterosexual, we would not have made it this far.  There is ongoing debate about the possible kin-selection fitness of homosexuality, with gay aunts and uncles dedicating themselves to childcare and whatnot and thus increasing the fitness of their close relatives, but I must confess this seems pretty farfetched to me, and the math is not convincing. 

What seems more likely to me is that homosexuality, insofar as it is genetic, is simply one of those traits, like male nipples, which is a byproduct of our development that is not strongly selected against, and is too complex to be easily phased out.

In any case, I can’t really argue with your characterization of homosexuality as “abnormal”, if by that you mean “deviating from the norm of reproduction”.  However, I do have two problems with this formulation.  One is that it casts the net for “abnormality” pretty far- if homosexuality is abnormal, because it does not lead to reproduction, then so is celibacy for whatever reason, not to mention oral sex, masturbation, and birth control.  This is of course a version of the so-called pathetic fallacy, beloved of Social Darwinists, that what is Natural is Good.  The reductio ad absurdum of this position is that eyeglasses and medicine and pants are abnormal too.

The other problem is that “abnormal” is often perjorative, and you use it in a clearly perjorative sense.  The bottom line for me, as I said above, is: why is homosexuality a problem, if it makes homosexuals happy?  Who cares if it’s “abnormal”?  So is art.

Ironically, in the quote above, where you say derivation I think you meant deviation, but “a derivation from the natural order” is pretty close to my feeling about homosexuality:  like celibacy, art, religion, and weblogs, it’s just another zany way we humans express ourselves, derived and evolved from the natural order.  And if no one is harmed by it, any talk of “abnormality” is content-free.

I don’t believe homosexuals rot in hell for being homosexuals.  You seem to have made that jump because you know I believe in God.  You know not whether I am Christian, Unitarian, Muslim, Hindu, believe myself to be God incarnate, or am a member of any religion.  We both will be well served, if you do me the favor of not smacking your stereotypes upon me and I shall return the same favor to you.

I did not say anything about your beliefs vis-a-vis hell and homosexuals.  I did suspect you of having “biblical” motives.  Sorry if I was out of line- I was just fishing, since you are coy about what you do believe.  I’ll do my best to keep my pigeonholing under control.

I’ve read through the other thread Marriage is in a state of flux.  In that thread, the refutation by Les of somebody who had a similar position as mine was this:

So basically your non-Biblical argument boils down to the idea that nature designed us for male-female relationships so that’s what we should limit ourselves to. Well, OK, but that begs the following question: Are you faithful to your wife/girlfriend? If you are, then you’re making a conscious choice to override how nature designed you to behave. Namely, to have sex with as many women as you can. By choosing to remain monogamous you are violating the natural order.

True.  However, that ignores the fact that there are benefits for doing so. What are the benefits of violating the natural order to engage in homosexuality?  What benefits does that bring to the table?

I’m hard pressed to think of one, unless it means that there are more available women for heterosexual men. But that’s not an advantage to the homosexual man.  That is what makes it so maladaptive.  Coming to grips with homosexuality, whether homosexuality occurs by choice or by defect, has to be excruciating.  That is true, I am told, not only because of cultural gay bashing, but because it complicates the process of coming to terms with one’s sexuality.  It doesn’t make life easier.  It makes it harder.  It stands to reason then that homosexuality is maladaptive. 

If this is occurring because of nature, we need to figure out how to stop it so others don’t have to go through this.  If it is occurring because of choice, we should discourage such self-destructive behavior.

Regards,

zilch:

I was posting again after giving the matter some more thought because I was thinking about clothing as being abnormal.  When I read the other thread, Les’s breakdown was more on point, so I used his.  While I was putting that together you posted, so my post addressed the issues you have, while not addressing you. 

Regards,

What are the benefits of violating the natural order to engage in homosexuality?  What benefits does that bring to the table?

Whose table?  You are still confusing nature with culture.  If gays say they benefit, what business of yours is it to tell them they’re “abnormal”?

Coming to grips with homosexuality, whether homosexuality occurs by choice or by defect, has to be excruciating.  That is true, I am told, not only because of cultural gay bashing, but because it complicates the process of coming to terms with one’s sexuality.  It doesn’t make life easier.  It makes it harder.  It stands to reason then that homosexuality is maladaptive.

Oh? I have gay friends too, and although they have had problems with being gay, being straight is no bed of roses either.  And if something is “maladaptive” because it makes life harder, then a whole lot of things are maladaptive: mountain climbing, community service, celibacy… a rather long list.  The same goes for “self-destructive behavior"- do you mean “not having kids”?  Or do you mean “doing something I think is bad”?

And if, as seems to be the case, being gay is largely not a matter of choice, what good does it do to lambaste them for being “unnatural”?  You might as well criticize spina bifida kids for not being normal.

Who has a problem with being gay- the gays, or you?

Whose table?  You are still confusing nature with culture.

To the contrary.  I’m viewing this as you want me to. That is as an evolutionary defect.  When doing such, if it is a mutation of some sort, we need to know what if any benefits there are to the homosexual. If there are no benefits we must seek to redress the problem. What benefits does being gay, unique unto that sexual orientation bestow upon the individual? I couldn’t think of one and you have not provided any.

being straight is no bed of roses either.

Not the issue.  Going back to the issue:

I have gay friends too, and although they have had problems with being gay

they would’ve choosen to be straight.  We may look at what SS said for an opinion that you and I can’t debate:

If Ray could have been straight he would have been.

You would not choose to be gay.  I would not choose to be.  Ray would not choose to be. So let’s just stipulate that there are no benefits to the individual homosexual by being gay when compared to the heterosexual.

The same goes for “self-destructive behavior"- do you mean “not having kids�??  Or do you mean “doing something I think is bad�??

I don’t mean either.  I mean if we, alternatively, work from the assumption that this is a choice, we look at the effects of this choice.  Let’s go back to Ray.  Ray, if he made the decision to be gay, made a decision that was counter to everything that he proclaimed he wanted and that has made his life infinitely more difficult and likely less productive.  I believe that such a decision, if it is a decision, is akin to cutting your arm with a scissor.

And if,....being gay is largely not a matter of choice, what good does it do to lambaste them for being “unnatural�??  You might as well criticize spina bifida kids for not being normal.

Show me with quotes where I have “lambasted” gay individuals on this thread, please? 

Who has a problem with being gay- the gays, or you?

Both. Accordingly we should not encourage homosexual behavior by sanctioning gay marriage.

Regards,

So Consi, you’re saying that because homosexuality is “abnormal” and does not lead to reproduction, those who have that quality (whether by choice or by fate or the hand of your god) do not deserve the same civil rights.  Tell me, do infertile couples deserve the right to marry even though they’re clearly “maladaptive”?  How about people who are too old to reproduce?

We live in a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all.  We owe it to ALL our citizens to treat them equally, even if they aren’t able to make more of themselves.  That should not be a key criterion for equality.

Oh, and Consi, if you’re not a Christian, I’ll make a $20 contribution to the religious charity of your choice.  I have NEVER seen someone from another faith post here who shared the certainty and bigotry of Christians.  If you’re a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Shinto, you’re the very first one here who has those same prejudices.

Consigliere, thanks for providing the definitions.

A few quick comments on that and your exchange with zilch.

To begin with, the definition you provided for a marriage reflects the very reason why the German Constitutional Court soundly defeated a challenge by the German Bible Belt states to the same-sex civil union enacted a few years ago, constitutional protection for marriage notwithstanding.

When talking about marriage in a legal sense, the lawmakers can indeed narrow or broaden the definition. Being the cynic that I am, they will do whatever suits their personal and lobbyist’s prejudice, which limits the scope of the public debate.

So far, all you have said is that homosexuality is something akin to a mental illness or a birth defect. Apparently you consider it abnormal because homosexuals do not engage in “normal” human reproductive behaviour and homosexuality being bad, it should be not encouraged. I can almost hear you say it should be treated, but you do strongly imply that children should not be raised in conditions that further homosexuality.

In other words, “homosexuality bad, homosexual marriage worse”.

Even assuming that all of this is even pertinent, as zilch said you are quick to point out absurd conclusions when it suits your purpose (incestuous marriage), but you are reluctant to do the same to your own position. At the very least, you should support any program that breeds homosexuality out of the human race, just for starters say sterilization of known homosexuals and raising kids by certified heterosexuals only. There’s more, of course.

The bottom line is that your argument falls apart. If human reproduction is the benchmark to meet, there is already deadwood (no pun intended) amongst heterosexuals that you should focus your attention on, like heterosexual couples opting against reproduction to maintain a standard of living or having outright abortions because of economic hardship. I don’t have the numbers to back it up, but I strongly suspect that addressing these problems with priority would more than make up for any homosexual shortfall. Then there is a chicken-and-egg problem. Homosexuals can reproduce and some do; given the option to marry some percentage would avail themselves of the same options that other infertile couples do.

Finally, by your own reasoning homosexuals are already out of the reproductive equation. I recall you saying that the “choice” to turn homosexual happens very early in childhood; I do not see how legally sanctioning homosexual marriage would “encourage” a very young child to “choose” to turn homosexual.

All told, so far you have failed to made a case that homosexual marriage would harm society (other than offend a lot of people’s sensibilities).

The other point is that in the “slippery slope” argument, examples like underage marriage, incest or pedophilia don’t count because those relationships arguably harm at least one of the participants (or potentially the issue therefrom).  You can’t say the same for same-sex committed relationships between consenting adults.  (And yes, for the same reason I would support marriage among more than two consenting adults, even though those unions are notoriously difficult to maintain the more people you have involved.)

consi, you’re losing the thread here…

I’m viewing this as you want me to. That is as an evolutionary defect.

What?  Did I say this? No.  Go read what I said again, carefully.

When doing such, if it is a mutation of some sort, we need to know what if any benefits there are to the homosexual.

If you want to talk genetics, you’d better go do some hard study first, or there’s no point discussing further.

What benefits does being gay, unique unto that sexual orientation bestow upon the individual? I couldn’t think of one and you have not provided any.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous?  Do I have to repeat myself?  This is pretty tiresome…
OK.  What do you mean by “benefits”?  If you mean differential reproductive success, gays are at the bottom of the barrel, along with nuns, self abusers, etc.  If you mean emotional benefits, that’s for the gays to say, not you.

(zilch) being straight is no bed of roses either.  (consi)Not the issue.

Yes, it is the issue, because your point was that being homosexual doesn’t make your life easier.

(zilch) I have gay friends too, and although they have had problems with being gay (consi) they would’ve choosen to be straight.

How does that follow? Nonsense.  Although there are gays such as Ray who say they would have chosen to be straight, a) most (including Ray) say they had no choice, and b) what makes you think all gays would have wanted to be straight, given the choice? Have you asked them all?

Show me with quotes where I have “lambasted�? gay individuals on this thread, please?

OK-

That doesn’t stop me from telling him and his partner that I think that they have seriously psychological problems that are manifested by finding love in another man’s hairy ass.

That counts as lambasting in my book, or close to it, especially considering that it’s no business of yours.

zilch: Who has a problem with being gay- the gays, or you? consi: Both.

You seem to know more about the gay’s problems than they do themselves.  So far, though, I haven’t heard any testimonials from gays who have benefitted from your wisdom, much less gone straight.  In that sense, you have a lot in common with the anti-gay fundies, no matter what the source of your beliefs.

If the best reasons you can muster against homosexuality are that it is “abnormal” and “doesn’t make life easier”, I hope you are at least fair and are giving the Pope and the Dalai Lama a hard time too.

elwed and GM- yet again, posts cross in cyberspace.  What you said, too.  Nice coverage of the stuff I skimped on.

Zilch, there are more points to be made that neither one of us touched on. Consigliere’s take is based on a number of unstated premises, which themselves are open to question.

Be that as it may, I see his or her position as nothing but a slightly more sophisticated version of the usual fare, sort of like comparing creationism with ID.

Christianity/Religion is “maladaptive” and abnormal.

Its clearly passed by a Meme, its destructive, in many cases causes racism, sexism, in extreme cases causes mass genocide, War, mass relocation’s.

It is an obsession caused by years of brainwashing & kept alive through Cognitive Dissonance.
Its nothing short of the most harmful & destructive disease/Mind Plague ever to infect the human race.
How much more Maladaptive, abnormal can you get than Religion?
It serves no purpose other than spread blatant lies through proselytization of its horrible little Meme, it completely destroys the thinking, reasoning & logical mind of the infected.

So I propose the obvious, Christians should not be allowed to marry nor propagate.

Consi,

Sorry it took me so long to reply.  For the last few days I’ve been off spending time with mine and my partner’s families.  As for the study you asked for the reference for, I’ll have to re-find the original article.  I believe it was in either the BMJ or the Lancet.  I read it a few months back, but I’m not sure what month it was so I have to go over the last few issues of both the BMJ and Lancet, that might take me a little time.  I’ll post up the info when I find it.

I guess it didn’t take me that long to find the article again.  It wasn’t in the Lancet or the BMJ as I originally thought.  It’s actually in Nature, here’s the bibliographic info:

Williams TJ, Pepitone ME, Christensen SE, Cooke BM, Huberman AD, Breedlove NJ, Breedlove TJ, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM. (2000) Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 404(6777):455-6.

Lets see “normal”?

If you were able to take an Island and populate it only with young children whom have zero idea of the world around them, or various religions etc.

Give them a single teacher whom sticks only to what is absolutely known to be factual.

That means leave religion or ANY form of supernatural deities out of the curriculum.
Teach them language’s, mathematics that we are on a planet called Earth, in a Solar system, that the Earth is approx. 4.5 Billion years old, that Dinosaurs walked this planet up till about 65 Million years ago, where Lightning comes from, a basic Science education, Biology, Chemistry and so on.
Teach only what is positively known to be true & factual.

Do you think this civilization will be religious?
If not, then Religion is not “Normal” its a product of ignorance & imaginations of savages passed on through heredity & geographical location.

Do you think this civilization will be religious?

Good question, Nunya.  I’m not so sure that some sort of religion wouldn’t develop, though, depending on the circumstances. Our genetic makeup is way behind our culture- we haven’t basically changed since living in small roving bands of hunter-gatherers. So unlike ants and naked mole rats, the glue that binds our societies together has to be largely in the ideosphere, and religion is a meme that has evolved over and over that works.
We got where we are today, for good and ill, largely because of religion.  Perhaps, given the right conditions, a complex society could evolve without at least going through a religious stage; perhaps not.

Oh, and Consi, if you’re not a Christian, I’ll make a $20 contribution to the religious charity of your choice.  I have NEVER seen someone from another faith post here who shared the certainty and bigotry of Christians. 

I’m interested to see you make a donation to a religious charity to pursue this a bit.  What are YOUR criteria for being a Christian, apart from being bigoted?

I also wanted to give you kudos for your honesty about the fact that the position that given the position that you have staked out, that would mandate endorsement of polygamous relationships.  Although, given my experience, I have no idea why any man in his right mind would want to answer to two wives.  Talk about insanity!!!

El:

so far you have failed to made a case that homosexual marriage would harm society (other than offend a lot of people’s sensibilities).

I’ve stated my position, which is all I intended to do.  You can like it, be offended by it, or be indifferent to it.  I have only to offer that by stating my position that the mens rea to offend you was not there. 

As to your evaluation of my position, I hold no illusions about the mindset of most here, including yours.  I’m not here to convince or cajole you. I’m here only to present another perspective in a cogent manner.  I’ve done that.  To take you to task for not agreeing with me would be a waste of your time and mine, although it might be amusing given that mudslinging would certainly entail.  It’s just that, well nowadays I’ve no desire to roll in the mud unless it with two members of the opposite sex.  Even then, I prefer jello.  

Hey, I’m interested in something you wrote on another topic.  Is there a way to creat a new thread or must I bide my time until a discussion arises in which I can further discuss the matter?

zilch:

That counts as lambasting in my book…

Point conceded.  In my defense, you should hear what he says!!!!! 

Although there are gays such as Ray who say they would have chosen to be straight, a) most (including Ray) say they had no choice, and b) what makes you think all gays would have wanted to be straight, given the choice? Have you asked them all?

Your logic is indeed good here. However, you should know better than most, given your professed friendships, that one of the lines that is most often uttered is “If I had a choice, I wouldn’t have choosen to be gay.”
Which is why I have used it and consider it valid.

As I indicated to El, I doubt further discussion would be fruitful here as you don’t find my presentation persuasive and I find your responses off point and unpersuasive. That aside, I do want to thank you for your time and consideration in discussing this matter with me.

SS:

I appreciate you taking the time to look it up.  Thank you.

Nunya:

Last, but certainly not least.  I am in awe of your ability to find a way to work “brainwashing” and “cognitive dissonance” into nearly every thread.

Regards,

Edit for geekmom:

I also wanted to give you kudos for your honesty about the fact that the position that given the position that you have staked out, that would mandate endorsement of polygamous relationships. 

It should read---I also wanted to give you kudos for your honesty about the fact that the position you have staked out mandates enodorsement of polygamous marriages.

Regards,

Consigliere: I’ve stated my position, which is all I intended to do.  You can like it, be offended by it, or be indifferent to it.  I have only to offer that by stating my position that the mens rea to offend you was not there.

This has the ring of a cop-out to it. The “I was just presenting my opinion” exit line doesn’t work if you don’t make your intent explicit up front. However, whether you deserve it or not, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt.

As far as an intent to offend is concerned, you said a number of things that were calculated to offend me. Implying that I’m offended by you presenting a different opinion than mine could be construed as a veiled insult on your part, too. However, I admit that I started it by questioning that you are a worthy adversary - and I am now sure of it and can let it rest.

As to your evaluation of my position, I hold no illusions about the mindset of most here, including yours.  I’m not here to convince or cajole you. I’m here only to present another perspective in a cogent manner.  I’ve done that.  To take you to task for not agreeing with me would be a waste of your time and mine, although it might be amusing given that mudslinging would certainly entail.

What you seem to imply is that you hold the superior position, but you are charitable towards me by walking away without making me acknowledge that you’re right. You then state that any further attempt of yours to either defend your position or show the flaws in mine would result in mudslinging (presumably initiated by me, but technically that’s open to interpretation).

To quote what you said about Nunyabiz, you’re quite a piece of work, aren’t you? Well, according to dictionary.com:

con·si·glie·re n.

An adviser or counselor, especially to a capo or leader of an organized crime syndicate.

Consi, I could use an extra wife around here, personally.  And yet, on the other hand, I think two men to one woman is a much more natural state of affairs.  When one gets tired, the other one can take over.

My definition of Christian:  do you use the New Testament as a guide and do you believe in the divinity of that Jesus dude?  But you’re equivocating, so I’ll take your non-answer as an admission that you are indeed a Christian.  You could just have easily had me writing out a check to the Scientologists ...

But you’re equivocating,....

I frequent a fundamentalist Christian board and have been proclaimed as a liberal humanist there. I’ve been told there that when I advocate for moderation, I’m leading the flock astray.  In their terms, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I come here and suddenly I am transformed magically into a bible thumping zombie.  Christians don’t necessarily see me as Christian, but you do. 

Btw, I think you have a wonderful sense of humor. 

Regards,