Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

barbadosadvocate.com ^

[donmeaker]

You state:
It is regrettable that you apparently choose to disengage from intelligent discussion and debate.

You overestimate yourself. Because you have longer wind than I has no bearing on the correctness of your position, and you can footnote from now to Friday, I will not be convinced.

[donmeaker]

You state:
It is regrettable that you apparently choose to disengage from intelligent discussion and debate.

You overestimate yourself. Because you have longer wind than I has no bearing on the correctness of your position, and you can footnote from now to Friday, I will not be convinced.

[donmeaker]

You state:
It is regrettable that you apparently choose to disengage from intelligent discussion and debate.

You overestimate yourself. Because you have longer wind than I has no bearing on the correctness of your position, and you can footnote from now to Friday, I will not be convinced.

[Lucky Dog]

”I figure that happy people are of benefit to society. To the extent that happy people do not harm others, they may make themselves happy. Happiness is to be experienced, not debated.”

Heroin addicts are “happy” as long as their supply of heroin is uninterrupted. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority of these addicts contribute no benefit to society. In fact, if anything, they are a drain on society’s resources producing a net detriment both to society and themselves, personally.

May I suggest, rather than “happiness,” that contentment arising from an inner peace in knowing that a “virtuous,” “well examined” life has been “lived well” is more of a benefit to society and the individual. (You may construe my meanings of the words “virtuous,” “well examined,” and “lived well” in the same context as those words used by Greek philosophers or in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as you choose.)

[Lucky Dog]

”You state:
It is regrettable that you apparently choose to disengage from intelligent discussion and debate.

You overestimate yourself. Because you have longer wind than I has no bearing on the correctness of your position, and you can footnote from now to Friday, I will not be convinced.”

My assertion concerning your apparent withdrawal from intelligent discussion and debate had nothing to do with my estimate of my own abilities. It was, rather, an observation based upon your comments such as “you bore me” and a lack, in all but one case, of your willingness to provide dispassionate factual support or logical rationale for your assertions.

You are correct that volume does make “correctness.” However, I believe that your statement that “…and you can footnote from now to Friday, I will not be convinced,” is more correctly worded, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already got my mind made up.”

[donmeaker]

no, the subject statement "Homosexuality serves no useful purpose" is meaningless.

Definition of useful? to whom? If you deny the wishes of persons, you suck yourself into a collectivist trap. Who decides what is useful to them?

Logic begins with postulates. If you begin with a meaningless postulate, you get bogus results.

Never argue wrestle in the mud with a pig. It frustrates you, and the pig likes it.

[Lucky Dog]

If we can agree on some common definitions and add some delimiters for what you are terming meaningless,” I think it is possible a fruitful debate may ensue. Of course, such will be case only if we agree to debate dispassionately, using facts and logic with these agreed upon terms.

What say you?

[donmeaker]

Ok. Meaningless is a "fact" to which you can not attach an ordinal number, such as temperature, length, mass, ectera.

[Neever]

I'm afraid that you are terribly wrong. Homosexuality is a dangerous trend in society. It erodes morality and leads to the breakdown of societal barriers.

Further, because it is almost universally touted by liberals, it has found a home amongst the socialists. Thus, it furthers the liberal socialist agenda. The AIDS population, most of which is homosexual, puts a strain on the resources of hospitals. We end up paying higher prices for this abhorrent behavior.

Homosexuality is liberalism at its most depraved. Conservatives should not welcome it into its ranks.

[Lucky Dog]

“Ok. Meaningless is a "fact" to which you cannot attach an ordinal number, such as temperature, length, mass, ectera.”

Sorry for the confusion. In the interest of brevity, I, perhaps, was too cryptic. In my earlier post, I was querying on what definitions you would propose for the debate topic: “homosexuality serves no purpose” to make it other than “meaningless” in your estimate. Additionally, I wanted to know what additional phrases you thought should be added to narrow the topic sufficiently for “meaningful” debate.

I suggest that we not limit ourselves to continuous range variables such as you have proposed. I would suggest we add the use of attribute data, as well, in order to be able to use Poisson and binomial distributions in addition to the Gaussian that would be most the likely use for the data type you have proposed using. Additionally, I further suggest that we consider using a Liekert Scale for quantifications in less than obvious situations for other quantifications.

[Lucky Dog]

If you have not already done so, review Post 131 for a consolidation of reasons supporting your contentions

[donmeaker]

I would suggest that ordinal numbers are not necessarily continuous, though I confess, my examples were all near continuous (mass is in some contexts, a quantum effect)

Throw in the Cooper-Harper scale and Spearman ranks and We can do some analysis.

oh yes, and the fractional derivitives and fractional integrations.....LOL

[Lucky Dog]

As a degreed engineer with two professional engineering certifications, currently earning a living as a professional statistician, I will not object to any correctly applied, valid, mathematical analysis for which the following conditions are met:

1. The underlying data is accurate and precise (in the metrology sense) or…

2. In the case of statistical inferences, for which the data is previously agreed upon (between us) as valid (in the mathematical sense) for the dimension under examination and repeatable

3. Any conclusions/statistical inferences posited from statistical techniques such as regression, logistic regression, ANOVA, ANOM, etc., be to an identified, and previously agreed upon (between us), confidence level/interval appropriate for the data under examination.

I assume that you would be amenable the same conditions.

However, you still have not addressed the subjects of definitions you would propose for the debate topic: “homosexuality serves no purpose” to make it other than “meaningless” in your estimate nor any additional phrases you thought should be added to narrow the topic sufficiently for “meaningful” debate.

[donmeaker]

How about this: Homosexuality can be a path that allows horribly abused people to work, love, and hope.

We can discuss income before and after homosexual relationships, prozac or other antidepressant use before and after homosexual relationships.

Ok, take hope out of it. I don't know how to quantify hope.

[Lucky Dog]

“How about this: Homosexuality can be a path that allows horribly abused people to work, love, and hope. “

”We can discuss income before and after homosexual relationships, prozac or other antidepressant use before and after homosexual relationships. “

”Ok, take hope out of it. I don't know how to quantify hope.”

Let me attempt to clarify for debate purposes and my own understanding your proposal:

I presume that you are proposing for debate purposes that your referenced “path’s” statistically significant existence would qualify as a “useful purpose” for homosexuality.

Unfortunately, I am confused as to several of your terms and their clarity as well as their potential purpose in a debate.

For example, one such term is “horribly abused people.” Presumably, you are referring to sexual abuse. However, as people can be “horribly abused” with physical and mental torture having nothing to do with sex, it is an important definitional distinction to establish. Without such distinction, one could posit in counter to your proposal that most, if not all, of the survivors of Saddam Hussein’s tortures are capable of work without resorting to homosexual behavior.

Similarly, it is important to establish the abuse victim’s circumstances during the abuse, i.e., pedophilia versus adult rape or sexual battery, etc. Again, it can be reasonably posited that most adult female rape survivors return to work without resorting to homosexual behavior.

Another equally important issue is your proposed exclusion (by omission in your terms) of homosexual behavior practitioners who have not been abused. According to my research, significant percentages of homosexual behavior practitioners, engage in this activity with no history of any “horrible abuse.” Excluding this group is statistically inappropriate to drawing any inferences and would skew any conclusions to the point of uselessness.

Unfortunately, I am also unclear on your proposed metrics for verifying the statistically significant existence of your proposed “path” that could allegedly qualify as a “useful purpose of homosexuality.”

Concerning “horribly abused people” and work: Is your proposal to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of “horribly abused people” who do not engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one as a measure to attempt a proof of existence and usefulness of this “path?” Alternately, are you proposing only to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job versus the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and do not have a job as a measure to attempt a proof of existence and usefulness of this “path?” Alternately (again), are you proposing to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of non-abused homosexual behavior practitioners who have a job or lack one? Alternately (yet again), are you proposing to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of heterosexual behavior practitioners who have a job or lack one?

Concerning “horribly abused people” and income as a measure: Your proposed basis of comparison is equally unclear. As some homosexual behavior practitioners begin at an age where neither they nor their heterosexual peers have any significant income, you would have to be more specific and exclusive if this measure is be a valid comparison of any sort. Additionally, the mere existence of a correlation, should one even exist, does not establish causality. You would need to establish a rigorous “control group” methodology to even begin to infer an element of causality.

Concerning “horribly abused people” and prozac or other medications as a measure: Your proposed basis of comparison is also unclear. As homosexual behavior practitioners may have other aliments (and sources for those ailments other than abuse) that these medications treat, you would have to be more specific and exclusive if this measure is be a valid comparison of any sort. Additionally, as with the income example above, the mere existence of a correlation, should one even exist, does not establish causality. You would, again, need to establish a rigorous “control group” methodology to even begin to infer an element of causality.

Concerning “horribly abused people” and “love” as a measure: While you conceivably could measure this dimension (and hope, for that matter) using psychometric survey techniques, there are other problems. Are you measuring “brotherly” love (phileo), “sexual” love (eros), “compassionate” love (agape), parental love (filial), love of money (philaguria), etc? I am afraid that this proposed metric is too problematic for inclusion in debate.

Finally there is perhaps the most important issue lacking in your proposed terms. That issue is the potential “costs” (I am using the term “costs” in all senses, not just financial) or detriments in contrast to benefits of your proposed “path,” if it exists in a statistically significant manner, at all. Mere existence does not, in, and of, itself, establish this “path’s” usefulness as a purpose for homosexual behavior. Generally speaking, something is “useful” only if its “costs” or detriments are exceeded by its benefits. Without including potential “costs” or detriments of your proposed useful purpose, it is equivalent to advocating that a mugger slashing a victim’s carotid artery serves the “useful purpose” of alleviating a victim’s hypertension without considering that the treatment “costs” the victim his life. It also ignores that diet, exercise and perhaps, medications do so at a much greater benefit and lower “cost” to the victim.

Please refine your definitions and add some for “homosexuality,” and “useful purpose.”

[j higgy]

Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture
Homosexuality has become quite the conversation in the news and media these days. From homosexual marraiges to whether or not homosexual couples can adopt, this situation is becoming very conotroversial in politics and the media. The biggest discussion about homosexuality has been going on for years and it is whether or not homosexuality is caused by biological factors or by enviromental factors. I believe that homosexuality is influenced by strictly the enviroment. Homosexuality is a sexual preference and by saying that I mean it is a choice. The majority of the reason I believe homosexuality is caused by the enviroment, is because of my religion; Christianity. In the bible, God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. For some reason, one is a male and one is a female. God knew that if he put two women or two men, that there would be no way to continue on the human race. In Genesis 35:11 God says, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." To be specific I take the part out where he says,"Be fruitful and multiply," which also means, have sexual intercourse and have kids to multiply the amount of people on the earth. It is very hard to have children or even get pregnant, if two of the same sex commit in homosexual acts with eachother. Another verse where the bible states very plainly about homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, it states,"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." This verse recognizes homosexuality as a sin and more importantly a perversion of the gift of sex which God gave to mankind. Homosexuality is caused by lust, which is very much a choice and can be controlled. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 it says, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." All of these sins in this quote are all sins of the world and we are supposed to set are selves apart from the worldly ways and set our standards by what the Holy Bible says. Sex is God's idea and its purpose is not only for procreation, but also for recreation and the development of a deep relationship between man and woman. Nothing is wrong or dirty about sex when it is engaged in the bonds of marriage as the Lord commanded in the Bible. Some of the issues facing the world today are not talked about in the bible, but homosexuality is, and through this we know that it is wrong and can be prevented. Another reason I believe homosexuality is influenced by the enviroment is because of other issues that proclaim to be caused by nature. Lets just say there is a family, and alcoholism runs throughout the family. To be classified as an alcoholic you have to have drank alchohol. You also have to be addicted to alcohol and drink it in excess habitually. If you do not take a drink of alcohol, then you will not be an alcoholic, and therefore not have the disease of alcoholism. Proving that if you have a gene that causes alchololism to run through the family, it can be stopped by not drinking. This totally relates to homosexuality. If homosexuality is passed down as a gene, then you should never be able to turn away from homosexual ways. On the other hand if you never commit a homosexual act than you will not be considered a homosexual, regardless if you have the "gene" or not. Being called a homosexual or an alcoholic is because of the actions we commit, not because of the genetic dispostion which supposedly caused it. Therefore we associate homosexuality as being a choice, if you have the gene to do something or be someway, you can make the choice to not do it or be that certain way. You choose your lifestyle.