Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Defender of Truth]

You don't get to justify prejudice, bigotry and injustice by calling it "evolved."

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I'm not justifying it by blaming it on evolution, I was asking how it was possible according to the evolutionary worldview of morality. I was asking for a demonstration that it was consistent with the moral evolution model.

In the days when humanity traveled in bands of a few dozen people, 'different' meant 'probably trying to kill you and steal your food'

Can you verify that different meant probably trying to kill you and steal your food? I can think of a lot of animals different than us, including insects, and most of them don't pose a major threat.

Good answer, by the way. Coherent.

Another question I had about your response was this: why did the fact that the minorities were dangerous (which I would still like you to verify, since minorities aren't usually prey, but are preyed upon) instigate our evolution so that we would believe it was morally wrong to be a minority. We should learn from them and obtain their power, then kill them. If minorities are so powerful, we should have developed the feeling that it was morally good to be a minority, since the more powerful the species is, the more of a chance it has at surviving.

A snake fleeing from an owl would just as soon switch places, don't you think? I do, since as soon as it escapes it turns around and preys upon a mouse. Every species desires power, I don't understand why one would discriminate against a minority simply because it possesses power.

Also, why wouldn't we develop the feeling that homosexuality is morally wrong since they can't reproduce? The more babies, the more opportunity for strong and intelligent people.

But there's still plenty of people who grow up without much exposure to the minority (in this case homosexuals) and thus still trend towards the inherent and often subconcious belief they are somehow a threat to them.

Okay... What about people who are exposed to the minority, why do they still think it's wrong? I'm speaking specifically about people who are gay but think it's wrong.

[ChaosBorders]

Can you verify that different meant probably trying to kill you and steal your food? I can think of a lot of animals different than us, including insects, and most of them don't pose a major threat.

Different human groups. We've long been by far one of our own greatest threats. When one tribe encountered another, a very typical response was fight and the winners carried off the losers women after killing the men.

Good answer, by the way. Coherent.

Thank you. But your next paragraph indicates I was not entirely clear on one part.

Another question I had about your response was this: why did the fact that the minorities were dangerous (which I would still like you to verify, since minorities aren't usually prey, but are preyed upon) instigate our evolution so that we would believe it was morally wrong to be a minority. We should learn from them and obtain their power, then kill them. If minorities are so powerful, we should have developed the feeling that it was morally good to be a minority, since the more powerful the species is, the more of a chance it has at surviving.

I don't think I was clear on this part. Different equaled morally 'bad' due to the potential of a threat. Minority equaled different. Minority also usually just happened to equal weaker. In this view the majority would view themselves as 'defending themselves' against a tribe that also happened to be weaker than them. This hypocritical attitude can be seen throughout the cycle of racism throughout history, one example being the view that they had to keep the slaves in check cuz' otherwise there was no guarantee they wouldn't rise up and kill all the white people in their sleep. Utterly ridiculous but it's the primal fear of the people who are different than you. And historically it's often been a justified fear if you were the one who ended up in the minority. (Even now it can be seen in our approach to foreign policy. Muslim extremists managed to kill a few thousand people. Our response was to invade a couple of countries and cause at minimum a hundred thousand civilian deaths in the name of 'defense'.)

A snake fleeing from an owl would just as soon switch places, don't you think? I do, since as soon as it escapes it turns around and preys upon a mouse. Every species desires power, I don't understand why one would discriminate against a minority simply because it possesses power.

Irrational fear that 'power' will be used to cause you harm. And people tend not to view things that they think will harm them as being morally 'good'.

Also, why wouldn't we develop the feeling that homosexuality is morally wrong since they can't reproduce? The more babies, the more opportunity for strong and intelligent people.

Some people do, actually. I think that's historically been one of the main arguments against homosexuals getting married.

Okay... What about people who are exposed to the minority, why do they still think it's wrong? I'm speaking specifically about people who are gay but think it's wrong.

In this case it probably depends upon their upbringing. If they were raised in an environment hostile against homosexuals, then even if they are a homosexual they may still have developed negative attitudes against homosexuality. If they've been raised to believe there is a choice then they're doubly screwed because they don't actually have one and may not be able to accept this, leading to self-hatred, repression, and an inability to support their fellow homosexuals in opposition to their family or social group.

[Defender of Truth]

one example being the view that they had to keep the slaves in check cuz' otherwise there was no guarantee they wouldn't rise up and kill all the white people in their sleep. Utterly ridiculous

Actually, I don't think it was utterly ridiculous. There were others also, such as Prosser's rebellion, and Brown's rebellion.

Some people do, actually

Yeah, that's my question. Why did only half of the people evolve the sense that homosexuality was wrong? Why wouldn't everyone, since homosexuals cannot reproduce?

[Defender of Truth]

Something else just came to mind. In this situation there are those who evolved a feeling that homosexuality is wrong, but as humans got to know homosexuals, they realized they weren't so bad, so some do not think it is wrong.

So we have some people with an evolved feeling that homosexuality is wrong, and some others with a feeling that it is okay. The ones who think it is okay (people A) think those who think it is wrong (people B) are mistaken. I'm supposing people A would like it if people B got past their evolved feelings of morality. The reason people A want people B to do this is for the betterment of mankind. To live in peace and harmony, no discrimination of minorities.

But if people A think it is okay for people B to lay aside certain feelings of morality, then why can't someone lay aside other feelings of morality as well. And again, why can't people B lay aside their feelings that homosexuality is wrong, and also lay aside their feelings that murder is wrong.

[ChaosBorders]

one example being the view that they had to keep the slaves in check cuz' otherwise there was no guarantee they wouldn't rise up and kill all the white people in their sleep. Utterly ridiculous

Actually, I don't think it was utterly ridiculous. There were others also, such as Prosser's rebellion, and Brown's rebellion.

Those are exceptions that prove the rule. There were only a few rebellions in the entire history of slavery, and I doubt the casualties even hit the thousands. (I'm not even sure they hit the hundreds). But the possibility was used to justify oppressing millions of slaves.

Yeah, that's my question. Why did only half of the people evolve the sense that homosexuality was wrong? Why wouldn't everyone, since homosexuals cannot reproduce?

They didn't. A few decades ago the number was way more than half. Just like the numbers against african americans were far higher. Our culture has become more tolerant though as we have integrated more with minorities and realized different doesn't actually mean 'bad'. This tolerance is then further promoted and propagated and the number willing to stand against the ideals of freedom, equality, and toleration begin to decrease. I would be amazed if more than a third of our population are against gay marriage and the like a generation from now. Two generations and I doubt it'll even be a quarter.

And regarding the issue of not reproducing, some people realize that gay people of their gender means less competition for themselves, that some people who are heterosexual also cannot reproduce, and other little things like that which make the lack of reproduction of homosexuals either a plus for them, a non-issue, or something that would seem outright hypocritical to demean them for.

[Defender of Truth]

Our culture has become more tolerant though as we have integrated more with minorities and realized different doesn't actually mean 'bad'.

It wouldn't be the "different" that was bad, it would be the "infertile" that is bad.

some people who are heterosexual also cannot reproduce

Yeah, some. I'm guessing 5-15% (I just did a quick google search, not supported, but the numbers are irrelevant anyway). The percentage of infertile homosexual couples are 100%

which make the lack of reproduction of homosexuals either a plus for them

For them, but what about the species. It would be better for the species if people were producing more people, because the species would be more powerful and intelligent.

Those are exceptions that prove the rule. There were only a few rebellions in the entire history of slavery, and I doubt the casualties even hit the thousands. (I'm not even sure they hit the hundreds). But the possibility was used to justify oppressing millions of slaves.

Okay.

[cnorman18]

You don't get to justify prejudice, bigotry and injustice by calling it "evolved."

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I'm not justifying it by blaming it on evolution, I was asking how it was possible according to the evolutionary worldview of morality. I was asking for a demonstration that it was consistent with the moral evolution model.

"Moral Evolution"? That strikes me as an oxymoron. Perhaps my perspective is biased, but I don't see a lot of evidence for the existence of anything that could be called "moral evolution," and I surely don't see how anything like the gross stereotyping and ignorant bigotry that leads to discrimination against homosexuals could be related to "moral evolution" any more than slavery or the modern bigotry against Muslims is.

In other words, hatred and discrimination against gays has nothing whatever to do with actual morality, but with some people's twisted and peremptory prescription of "morality" which is actually anything but.

For my money, the blackest mark on the "moral evolution" of the human race took place within living memory, from 1933-1945 in Eastern Europe. Never before in human history has an entire nation's resources been devoted to the systematic and total destruction of an entire people. In 1933, the largest and most significant Jewish community in Europe was in Poland, with more than 3 million Jews. By 1950, the Jewish population of Poland was under 45,000. 98.5% of the Jews of Poland were exterminated, and millions more were murdered in Russia and all the nations of Europe. Ever seen Fiddler on the Roof? That entire culture and way of life was murdered. It exists no more.

Tell me again about "moral evolution." Do you have room in your worldview for "moral DEvolution"? That seems to me a much more realistic idea.

[Defender of Truth]

Do you have room in your worldview for "moral DEvolution"?

Never heard of it. Can you explain it?

[Defender of Truth]

"Moral Evolution"? That strikes me as an oxymoron. Perhaps my perspective is biased, but I don't see a lot of evidence for the existence of anything that could be called "moral evolution," and I surely don't see how anything like the gross stereotyping and ignorant bigotry that leads to discrimination against homosexuals could be related to "moral evolution" any more than slavery or the modern bigotry against Muslims is.

I don't see a lot of evidence for the existence of something that could be called "moral evolution" either. I'm arguing against it.

People claim that our sense of morality is something that evolved; for instance we evolved the feeling that murder is morally wrong because if we didn't have that feeling, we would just kill and kill until we were extinct. They claim it was something to promote our survival.

But if it was, why are we losing the sense that homosexuality is wrong? Since they can't reproduce, I don't understand why we would lose our evolved sense that it's wrong. According to the model that we evolved our sense of morality, we should feel that it is wrong to be homosexual.

[ChaosBorders]

Our culture has become more tolerant though as we have integrated more with minorities and realized different doesn't actually mean 'bad'.

It wouldn't be the "different" that was bad, it would be the "infertile" that is bad.

Except the issue here is that though some might use it as a reason, it's a much less motivating factor than difference. From an evolutionary perspective, for most men it is actually a good thing when other men are not procreating because it means less sexual competition for themselves. As such, though infertility can be viewed by a negative as some, for most it is a non-issue or even a plus.