Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Starlight]

How he thinks promoting homosexuality will help society survive, when it's clearly an evolutionary 'dead end',

Gay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit.

[lilpixieofterror]

Gay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit.

Do you have any idea how expensive that procedure is? From what I could find, it is 300-500 dollars, per attempt (success rate is only around 10-20%). So right there, you're looking at 5,000 dollars as a max cost, per child. That isn't counting having to find somebody to carry your baby too (which might have cost attached there too). How many people are going to be able to afford that much, per child? I'm guessing not very many; correct? Sorry, but you're really not thinking this though all that well, are you?

[Leonhard]

Gay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit.

So what you're saying that maybe, someday, in the far future, gays and lesbians will be selected for? I doubt it, since there's more heterosexuals than gay couples, and gay men don't appear to be sperm donors any more frequently than straight men.

[lilpixieofterror]

So what you're saying that maybe, someday, in the far future, gays and lesbians will be selected for? I doubt it, since there's more heterosexuals than gay couples, and gay men don't appear to be sperm donors any more frequently than straight men.

Even than, he seems to ignore that it could end up costing a boat load of money and you may never get anywhere. There isn't too many people that have thousands of dollars to drop on a procedure that might not even work (success rates are about 10-20%, with a cost of 300-500 dollars each try). The men would also need to find a women willing to carry their baby for them too (that could also end up costing a bundle too). It might be a good option for some rich gay folks, but I'm afraid it really wouldn't be much of one for most of them.

[Leonhard]

Even than, he seems to ignore that it could end up costing a boat load of money and you may never get anywhere. There isn't too many people that have thousands of dollars to drop on a procedure that might not even work (success rates are about 10-20%, with a cost of 300-500 dollars each try). The men would also need to find a women willing to carry their baby for them too (that could also end up costing a bundle too).

I guess, in principle (for the sake of charity here) you could imagine a streamline, automated, impregnation booth... even then I don't think it'd select for gays more often than straights, or even comparably.

[lilpixieofterror]

I guess, in principle (for the sake of charity here) you could imagine a streamline, automated, impregnation booth... even then I don't think it'd select for gays more often than straights, or even comparably.

We can imagine all kinds of things. I just find it amusing that Starlight seems to ignore that dropping thousands of dollars, for a procedure that might not even work, isn't going to be much of an option for most couples to begin with (gay or straight).

[Leonhard]

We can imagine all kinds of things.

We'd definitely have to market the impregnation booth like the Polaroid camera. "Press the button, wait a moment, and out comes the baby. Press again if you don't like the first one."

[MaxVel]

Gay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit.

That seems more than somewhat irrelevant to the claim that homosexuality arose via natural selection, and confers a survival benefit on society, and is therefore moral and something we should actively support through legislation and social approval.

[Starlight]

That seems more than somewhat irrelevant to the claim that homosexuality arose via natural selection, and confers a survival benefit on society, and is therefore moral and something we should actively support through legislation and social approval.

Sounds like a pretty wacky argument, and isn't one I've ever seen any gay-rights advocates make.

[MaxVel]

Sounds like a pretty wacky argument, and isn't one I've ever seen any gay-rights advocates make.

See my post #460 above.

AFAICT that's pretty much the outcome of Tassman's view of morality. The moral values we have are a result of natural selection: societies and groups that hold these values tend to survive better. So what is moral is what has survived the process of natural selection.

You argued that homosexuality is (now, or soon) no barrier to reproductive success - so on that level it must be 'normal' and therefore 'moral' as well. Right?

[Starlight]

AFAICT that's pretty much the outcome of Tassman's view of morality. The moral values we have are a result of natural selection: societies and groups that hold these values tend to survive better. So what is moral is what has survived the process of natural selection.

In my estimation natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

I'm pretty sure I recall from the 20+ page thread on morality in Apologetics that Tassman and I were in fairly strong agreement on the subject of morality. We both held the view that morality is primarily about treating others well. In a post there that he Amen'ed I said "I, like most other secular people these days, simply use the words "good" and "right" to refer to benevolent actions and the words "wrong" and "evil" to refer to malevolent actions". He can obviously speak for himself though.

You argued that homosexuality is (now, or soon) no barrier to reproductive success - so on that level it must be 'normal' and therefore 'moral' as well. Right?

Homosexuality doesn't seem to be all that much of a barrier to reproductive success. I've seen D.E. ranting on a regular basis here about things being 'dysgenic', but I don't pay it much attention. I don't see a connection between reproductive success and morality, other than to make the general comment that if any society was too malevolent that it would probably wipe itself out due to infighting among its members, but I don't think that was the angle you were going for.

[Leonhard]

Sounds like a pretty wacky argument, and isn't one I've ever seen any gay-rights advocates make.

No but I do see many handwave a pseudoscience story about how the trait could have arisen through natural selection, and why its therefore a normal part of the genepool. I don't know if its an attempt to appeal to Natural Law people by some sort of naturalistic fallacy, but I do see it now and again, especially in conversation with people.

[Tassman]

What do you mean "end of story"? You didn't address what I said at all. So you state what is the current legal status; that doesn't mean it is therefore equal. If that logic worked then when there was only opposite-sex marriage one could have responded to complaints of inequality by saying "That's the current legal status/definition. End of story." How is that reasonable or relevant to the question of whether it's equal?
The current state of the law is unequal. If all 50 states issue same-sex marriage licenses, that state of the law will be merely differently unequal.


I was talking about a moral right, which is being violated by that part of the Civil Rights Act. The existence or absence of that law is irrelevant. My position is that the moral right does indeed include a broad freedom of choice, and whether you are choosing friends or choosing whom to buy to or sell from makes no difference.


Your "above" didn't address what I said at all.
You merely state something the Civil Rights Act does.
That has nothing to do with what equality before the law means.
It does nothing to show whether that that law is (un)just or (un)equal.
It does nothing to show whether the absence of that law would be a state of inequality before the law (As I have shown, it isn't.)


Indeed. That's my point. You didn't care about Darth's reasoning or analysis. You evidently rejected what he said not based on Darth's reasoning or analysis, but based on his being an authority or not. As if the proposition should be accepted or rejected based on Darth's position of authority, rather than from any reasoning or analysis. If reasoning and analysis is what matters, then whether Darth is in a position of authority doesn't matter.

You are using a lot of words, in itself the sign of a woolly argument, to express personal views which in my opinion are largely irrelevant to the matter under discussion. The issue is one of civil rights, i.e. the right to full legal, social, and economic opportunity extended equally to all citizens regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. And this includes marriage. AFAIC this is all that needs to be said, the rest seems to be a rather frantic attempt to create problems where none exist.

[Tassman]

No it isn't assuming any such thing. Things can be abnormal and still have a function. Reproduction is a byproduct of the pairing our species typically engages in, and more often than not, the non-transitory pairings ends up in reproduction. The vast majority of human pairings are opposite-sex within the reproductive years, therefore the "normal" expression is fertile opposite sex pairings.

Certainly opposite sex pairings are far more common, but they are not universal.

Homosexual pairings are abnormal.

Homosexual pairings are less common but, according to mental health professionals throughout the world both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

They exist so what are you going to do about them; stone them or integrate them into society? I suggest the latter.

Infertile pairings are also abnormal.

So are you suggesting we ban them

But, please remember that "normal" and "moral" are not the same things.

Given that we have evolved as social animals, morality is about conforming to the rules of right conduct as determined by a given society based upon our evolved predisposition of altruism and reciprocity.

Along that line, Homosexual conduct itself is also abnormal because it can never truly approximate the complete spectrum of human opposite-sex sexual behavior. It can approximate sexual arousal and stimulation as well as social bonding, but can't complete the "normal" trifecta with reproduction.

Which is an abnormal use of the tongue. Again, abnormal can still serve a function though.

Cunnilingus and many other non-reproductive sexual practices are commonplace and not abnormal in any sense; they promote close and loving relationships essential for content, fulfilled couples and the healthy raising of emotionally healthy children.

Again, abnormal from a "purpose" standpoint.

But it's abnormal to do so from a sexual function standpoint.

No, sexual behaviour serves many purposes including the cementing of closely bonded relationships.

[Leonhard]

Homosexual pairings are less common but, according to mental health professionals throughout the world both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality.

They wouldn't exactly use the word "normal" when describing it, though that might be what they do in sex ed. Its a value laden term which they tend to shy away from. What they say is that its possible to lead fulfilling life as a homosexual, and that it does not impair your ability to live such a life.

Given that we have evolved as social animals, ...

Evolutionary morality is as much a pseudoscience as evolutionary psychology. Just so stories abound, but no data.

Again you are assuming that the only purpose of marriage is for the specific purpose of reproduction

If humans didn't reproduce, we wouldn't have sex. Therefore the end goal of sex, is reproduction. Because humans are the only animals capable of abstract intellection, this allows us to assign purpose to sex, above and beyond its natural inherent purpose. For example sex can also as a secondary goal help unite a man and a woman, to make them stay together and suffer through the hardship of having a child. What's wrong is seeking the secondary purpose, in denial of the primary purpose, which is basically voluntarily breaking away from your human nature.

Marriage is built around sex. Its the solemn promise for two people to stay together, to be able to have children.