Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 273

Thread: Gay Reparations

  1. #181
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Societies choose what they find attractive.
    Do they? Because, I don't think any societies "chooses" what to find attractive.
    I think it is much more heavily influenced by things that aren't decided, and by pressures the pre-exist any society, and at least some of those pressures are biased against homosexuality.

    So you first, support by you think societies choose, especially in a liable way, what is attractive.
    To serve man.

  2. #182
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So you first, support by you think societies choose, especially in a liable way, what is attractive.
    Because what different societies find attractive varies between cultures and across time. Oh, I'm sure I've heard of some attractiveness standards that bridge cultures, such as a semitric looking face, but why wouldn't homosexuals like that too?

    ---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I don't accept the premise that it must be required to be a natural condition. We aren't required to have certain diseases (and have eriadicated a few) but diseases are natural.
    Ok, I'll accept that. Since you say it says nothing about social constructs it really is irrelevant concerning homophobia.

  3. #183
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Ok, I'll accept that. Since you say it says nothing about social constructs it really is irrelevant concerning homophobia.
    It rebuts an argument of yours. So if my response is irrelevant, then your argument is irrelevant as well. So I’ll consider your arguments to be withdrawn from the debate which will render my rebuttal to it irrelevant.

  4. #184
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It rebuts an argument of yours. So if it’s irrelevant, then your argument is irrelevant as well. So I’ll consider your arguments to be withdrawn from the debate which will render my rebuttal to it irrelevant.
    I've already agreed that not every thing must be required to be a natural condition. That says nothing about social constructs.

  5. #185
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I've already agreed that not every thing must be required to be a natural condition. That says nothing about social constructs.
    You directly argued that if it's not required, then it's not natural.

    "Of course it does since even if said society originated with homophobia it was replaced, meaning it is not required to be homophobic, therefore not a natural condition."

    So I rebutted that. And now you've made it clear that you are no longer holding that position. And your claims that I was engaging in various errors was based on your misinterpretation of my argument.

    And if it says nothing about social constructs, it's because you've spent the past several posts on things that don't say anything about social constructs. So if you have something pertinent to forward, let's hear it.

  6. #186
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    @ cowboy.. You are going to have to be more specific. Because what you are saying is not obviously true. Now ibam not personally experianced in foriegn cultures so you will have to show how it os different.
    I think the next challenge for you is going to be to show that it is more fundemental than the force i am pointing out.
    To serve man.

  7. #187
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You directly argued that if it's not required, then it's not natural.

    "Of course it does since even if said society originated with homophobia it was replaced, meaning it is not required to be homophobic, therefore not a natural condition."

    So I rebutted that. And now you've made it clear that you are no longer holding that position. And your claims that I was engaging in various errors was based on your misinterpretation of my argument.

    And if it says nothing about social constructs, it's because you've spent the past several posts on things that don't say anything about social constructs. So if you have something pertinent to forward, let's hear it.
    Right, you have no argument concerning social constructs. So no error.

    ---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ cowboy.. You are going to have to be more specific. Because what you are saying is not obviously true. Now ibam not personally experianced in foriegn cultures so you will have to show how it os different.
    I think the next challenge for you is going to be to show that it is more fundemental than the force i am pointing out.
    I'm not sure what force you're talking about, I thought we were talking about attractiveness.

  8. #188
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, you have no argument concerning social constructs. So no error.
    Well, you're right that I have no argument about social construct because the social construct argument is YOUR argument, not mine.

    But what I do have are rebuttals to your argument regarding social construct.

    And the error I'm referring to is your misinterpretation of my rebuttals.

    So now here's a question. Do you have any arguments that will support that homophobia is a social construct to forward? Or something that will support gay reparations? If so, let's hear it. If not, we are done here.

  9. #189
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'm not sure what force you're talking about, I thought we were talking about attractiveness.
    The force of natural selection to select reproduction, which is inherently biased against homosexuality. (was my point)
    Attractiveness is certainly connected to that, but it is a product of that not a force driving it.

    But your making YOUR case about how societies choose things. Which I think your trying to make attractiveness your exhibit A.
    Which.. is fine, but you have to support how it is different in a relevant way (in relation to your ultimate goal of gay reparations). That the link you showed reflected a clear Heterosexual bias.. seems to prove my point more than yours.
    To serve man.

  10. #190
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The force of natural selection to select reproduction, which is inherently biased against homosexuality.
    While I agree with your conclusion, I don't think that's accurate.

    If natural selection truly had a bias against homosexuality, homosexuals would not exist today as the trait of some members of the species being gay would have been removed from the species.

    While of course reproduction is necessary for a species, it is not true that a species must reproduce as much as possible. Too much reproduction would result in starvation so there is a "not too much and not too little" aspect to a species reproduction and therefore aspects that can limit reproduction can also be advantageous.

    I hypothesize that homosexuality is a "natural" way to limit reproduction (I believe it has been verified that the more children a couple has, the more likely their younger children will be gay - my gay uncle is the fourth born of his family) when needed. Don't know this for a fact but again, I don't buy the notion that natural selection is against homosexuality in some way.

    As far as homophobia, I think it's a variation of xenophobia which is very natural. And this is backed up by the fact that as people become more familiar with gays, the less homophobic they become.

  11. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  12. #191
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    @ mican. I appreciate your point here. I think you are mistaken to equate bias against as equivelent to the conclusion thay evolution would destroy it completly.
    I would say that if there were no bias in evolution against honosexuality then it would represent nearer to half the population. Bias thus bias as i am appealing to is simply a tendancy towards and a tipping of the scale against. Ehich given the scarcaty of homosexuality at all conoared to the total population there appears to be a very clear bias agaist it in a pure selective pressure sense.

    I think one could speak to any recessive trait in a similar sense.

    I think the "against" language i used may cause confusion as well. I am not trying to say that thus homosexuality is less natural.

    My general argument would be that a society of 50/50 homosexualy heterosexual people would naturally develop very different social praxtices than one where it is 99/1 heterosexual. In the latter you would expect small towns to commonly not contain a single homosexual and thus no accomodation could become a social norm.

    Lastly i would here at least accept that honosexuality is a evolutionarily natural limitation to over population.
    I think that has powerful implication if you couple my small town point. Because thatbwould mean that only large societies would even need to be tollerant of homosexuality and that tollerance couls be part of any naturally forming social evolution.

    ..your thoughts?
    To serve man.

  13. #192
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say that if there were no bias in evolution against honosexuality then it would represent nearer to half the population.
    I see no reason to agree with that hypothesis. It certainly doesn't correspond to the theory of natural selection that in any way that I'm aware of.

    If natural selection has a bias against a trait, then that trait should either disappear from humanity or at least become more uncommon as time goes on. I see no indication that the presence of homosexuality has decreased in any species, including humans, over the centuries. If anything, it looks like it's increased nowadays (although I would credit increased visibility of gays more than any natural explanation). But at the very least, the presence of homosexuality in mankind seems to be consistent which indicates that there is no evolutionary bias against iit.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Lastly i would here at least accept that honosexuality is a evolutionarily natural limitation to over population.
    I think that has powerful implication if you couple my small town point. Because thatbwould mean that only large societies would even need to be tollerant of homosexuality and that tollerance couls be part of any naturally forming social evolution.

    ..your thoughts?

    I think personal tolerance is a different issue than evolutionary bias. But I would expect that larger populations would be more accepting of gays because gays would be likely to congregate in larger cities, thus becoming more visible, thus decreasing homophobia as people become more familiar with them.
    Last edited by mican333; August 19th, 2019 at 07:19 PM.

  14. #193
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The force of natural selection to select reproduction, which is inherently biased against homosexuality. (was my point)
    Attractiveness is certainly connected to that, but it is a product of that not a force driving it.
    Wait, ok I think I see where you're going. You're saying homosexuals don't reproduce. Which is wrong and I brought it up before. Heterosexuals don't reproduce for any number of reasons.

    Let's try and separate terms here when we're discussing a homosexual act (which take take many forms) and a homosexual relationship (which also can take many forms).

    I think you're trying to look at the biological constraints to reproduction and are saying that that is a bias against homosexuality, right?

    ---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But your making YOUR case about how societies choose things. Which I think your trying to make attractiveness your exhibit A.
    Which.. is fine, but you have to support how it is different in a relevant way (in relation to your ultimate goal of gay reparations). That the link you showed reflected a clear Heterosexual bias.. seems to prove my point more than yours.
    You brought up attractiveness. I'm saying it's irrelevant as it changes over time. There is no objective beauty.

    ---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say that if there were no bias in evolution against honosexuality then it would represent nearer to half the population. Bias thus bias as i am appealing to is simply a tendancy towards and a tipping of the scale against. Ehich given the scarcaty of homosexuality at all conoared to the total population there appears to be a very clear bias agaist it in a pure selective pressure sense.
    Ok, so in this case you're talking about full-on homosexual relationships, right? Not just any acts or even thoughts associated with homosexuality. It would be hard to argue that that number wouldn't be skewed in a society when homosexuality was not only not condoned but persecuted.

    ---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think personal tolerance is a different issue than evolutionary bias. But I would expect that larger populations would be more accepting of gays because gays would be likely to congregate in larger cities, thus becoming more visible, thus decreasing homophobia as people become more familiar with them.
    Debatable. As homosexuals congregate together for mutual aid and protection so they also become a bigger target. i.e., the Stonewall riots and subsequent riots in San Francisco.

    ---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So now here's a question. Do you have any arguments that will support that homophobia is a social construct to forward? Or something that will support gay reparations? If so, let's hear it. If not, we are done here.
    As to homophobia as a social construct I've already presented it. The type of irrational persecution inflicted upon homosexuals (and still being inflicted) supports gay reparations.

    If you're done, well, buh-bye.

  15. #194
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    As to homophobia as a social construct I've already presented it.
    Claims of prior support is not support.

    In fact, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that homophobia is a social construct. Until you support that argument, it is rejected in this debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The type of irrational persecution inflicted upon homosexuals (and still being inflicted) supports gay reparations.
    Because you say so?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    As homosexuals congregate together for mutual aid and protection so they also become a bigger target. i.e., the Stonewall riots and subsequent riots in San Francisco.
    Which in no way rebuts my statement.

    It seems like common sense to link our society becoming more gay-friendly (legalizing gay marriage, having more gay characters on TV shows, having a viable gay Presidential candidate, etc) with increased gay visibility in our society.

    Whether the increased visibility also makes them an easier target for those who want to harm them doesn't effect that.

  16. #195
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Claims of prior support is not support.

    In fact, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that homophobia is a social construct. Until you support that argument, it is rejected in this debate.
    I'll do better...here's who constructed it:

    Western society constructs heterosexuality as the norm, but this wasn’t always explicit. As sociologist Michael Foucault has shown, the invention of the word ‘homosexual‘ only emerged during the Victorian era in the late 1800s. Queen Victoria wanted to stop male aristocrats from having sex with other men, something that was not openly talked about, but still practised. There was no word for men having sex with other men, and Queen Victoria charged her physicians with studying this phenomenon. Having established a word for this, homosexual, these medical doctors invented a counter-position, that of the heterosexual. Thus it was the will of one woman who established the latter as the “natural” and normative position from which human sexuality was henceforth categorised. This history shows that by its very invention of the word, homosexuality was set up* as the Other of heterosexuality.
    *constructed

    ---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because you say so?
    Because justice demands it.

    ---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which in no way rebuts my statement.

    It seems like common sense to link our society becoming more gay-friendly (legalizing gay marriage, having more gay characters on TV shows, having a viable gay Presidential candidate, etc) with increased gay visibility in our society.

    Whether the increased visibility also makes them an easier target for those who want to harm them doesn't effect that.
    Like I said, debatable. Just as likely the increased visibility comes from hard-won fights from gay activists and their allies rather than any generous change on society's part. Certainly not the current President who continues to pursue his anti-trans ban to the SCOTUS. He is currently the most powerful person on the planet and as my support shows concerning the (arguably) most powerful person ever (Queen Victoria) society is more than willing to go along with these constructs.

  17. #196
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll do better...here's who constructed it:
    Well, that article is about defining the term "homophobia" but it's not about the creation of homophobia (anti-gay sentiment).

    Obviously prior to that era, there were people who didn't like gay people (AKA homophobes) so homophobia existed prior to what you are referring to and therefore you have not identified the construction of homophobia (beyond perhaps the term).

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Because justice demands it.
    Because you say so?

    I mean I am for justice for gays when they suffer injustice but there are multiple ways to address an injustice so just because at times justice is required does not mean that the particular brand of justice that you are advocating is what's needed.



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Like I said, debatable. Just as likely the increased visibility comes from hard-won fights from gay activists and their allies rather than any generous change on society's part. Certainly not the current President who continues to pursue his anti-trans ban to the SCOTUS. He is currently the most powerful person on the planet and as my support shows concerning the (arguably) most powerful person ever (Queen Victoria) society is more than willing to go along with these constructs.
    Well, I'm referring to a societal change that has clearly happened. today's society IS more gay-accepting than in the past and I've amply supported that. Just because we can find current examples of non-acceptance does not contradict my evidence of the current trend.

  18. #197
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I'm referring to a societal change that has clearly happened. today's society IS more gay-accepting than in the past and I've amply supported that. Just because we can find current examples of non-acceptance does not contradict my evidence of the current trend.
    Which, either way, is, again, support for homophobia as a social construct.

    ---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, that article is about defining the term "homophobia" but it's not about the creation of homophobia (anti-gay sentiment).

    Obviously prior to that era, there were people who didn't like gay people (AKA homophobes) so homophobia existed prior to what you are referring to and therefore you have not identified the construction of homophobia (beyond perhaps the term).
    Sure it is. It describes the social construction of what is thought to be normal and not...by a single person. Whose reach and power encountered many others who did not hold those attitudes. And it describes the origin of those attitudes in the modern day. How is where she got the notion (probably from the Bible) relevant? She thought it up and enacted it for reasons and in a manner and scope that had not existed before.

  19. #198
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Which, either way, is, again, support for homophobia as a social construct.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure it is. It describes the social construction of what is thought to be normal and not...by a single person. Whose reach and power encountered many others who did not hold those attitudes. And it describes the origin of those attitudes in the modern day. How is where she got the notion (probably from the Bible) relevant? She thought it up and enacted it for reasons and in a manner and scope that had not existed before.
    So to be clear, you are saying that Queen Victoria made homophobia a social construct. If so, then you concede that prior to Queen Victoria doing that, homophobia was not a social construct (for she couldn't have made it a social construct if it already was one).

    So basically homophobia was originally not a social construct and the Queen Victoria turned it into one. Right?

  20. #199
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So to be clear, you are saying that Queen Victoria made homophobia a social construct. If so, then you concede that prior to Queen Victoria doing that, homophobia was not a social construct (for she couldn't have made it a social construct if it already was one).

    So basically homophobia was originally not a social construct and the Queen Victoria turned it into one. Right?
    No. "in a manner and scope that had not existed before"

    ---------- Post added at 06:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How so?
    Because it is subjective in that it can be changed and requires the social base to remain the same in order for it to be taken as objective.

  21. #200
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay Reparations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    No. "in a manner and scope that had not existed before"
    So you're saying that it was a social construct before Queen Victoria did whatever it is you are talking about?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Because it is subjective in that it can be changed and requires the social base to remain the same in order for it to be taken as objective.
    And this supports that it's a social construct how?

 

 
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reparations In An Obama Presidency.
    By onalandline in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: November 17th, 2008, 11:22 PM
  2. Reparations!
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum History
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2007, 08:30 AM
  3. UK sued for 'reparations'.
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 4th, 2006, 01:30 PM
  4. Slavery reparations? Give me a break.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: August 27th, 2004, 05:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •