51. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #195682 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I guess a binary either-or model of sexuality is a tidier and more easily grasped one than a continuum model. Biological sex itself is pretty much a binary characteristic, though there are a tiny number of exceptions, and I suspect that this distinction is fairly deeply ingrained in our evolved brains and serves as a natural starting point for our conceptions of other sex-related phenomena.

On logical grounds one could say that by taking both ends of the spectrum you are implicitly including the middle as well. After all, we generally think about sexuality in terms of sexual acts, which usually focus on a member of one gender not of both. A sexual preference only comes into play when you examine the rationale behind such acts.

But then again we also think of many other continuum-based differences in binary terms. Race for instance - it is perfectly unremarkable to talk of "blacks" "whites" "orientals" and so forth ("yellows" would technically be the proper equivalent, but that sounds rather racist these days in a way the other two do not) but in reality the dividing lines are far more blurred than with sexuality. The term "mixed race" is far more unrealistic than "bisexual" because at least bisexual can be strictly defined as combining two similarly well-defined concepts - in reality everyone is "mixed race" because "races" are in no way discrete entities.

I suspect it has something to do with the human tendency toward neatness, schematisation and systemisation.

Nevertheless, in the case of sexuality I am loath to abandon the binary model entirely. The evidence we have of human sexuality suggests a continuum of behaviours, but that could be explained in several ways. It could, for instance, be that there is an underlying biological sexuality which is inborn and binary - either homo- or hetero-, but this can be altered and modified to some extent by cultural conditioning. Thus someone might be biologically homosexual but de facto bisexual or even heterosexual. Whether such an individual would exhibit precisely the same reactions on a biochemical and psychological level to same-sex and opposite-sex attractions is a question I cannot answer, but I suspect there may well be differences in the mechanisms involved. If such a model were accurate it would not mean that bisexuality is less real or authentic than the other options, merely thanks to different mechanisms.

Alternately bisexuality could be an awful lot more closely linked to biology, and different levels of bisexuality might be inborn and immutable, perhaps but not necessarily linked with different degrees of gendered brain states. There could be some cultural fine-tuning on top of such a model too of course. The precise means of disentangling the two influences is a puzzle I will leave to scientists working in the field, because I cannot easily conceive of how it might be done.

One consideration to bear in mind when deciding on how much emphasis to give to continuum versus binary models as thought aids however is the numbers involved. Returning to the example of biological gender mentioned earlier, the tiny numbers of intermediate intersex individuals in the human population means that it makes more sense to see gender as a binary thing. Likewise, if you take chirality (handedness) then that too works better on a binary model because the numbers of ambidextrous people are tiny compared to either right or left handed people (even though there is a massive disparity with dextrals outnumbering us sinistrals nine to one). Moreover, there is a continuum of handedness - some right-handed people are much more adept with their left hand than others, but still routinely use the right for delicate tasks etc., and can train to improve their sinistral skills. Were it shown that individuals with bisexual tendencies are much rarer than either homo- or heterosexuals then again a binary model makes more sense.

Continuing the handedness analogy, a right-handed person might very well choose to try writing with his left hand once in a while - to see what it's like or how good he is with it. His left-handed fellow might even be forced by overbearing religious authority to conform to societal norms and write with his right hand all the time. Does this make them any less dextral and sinistral respectively? Replace right and left with straight and gay, and writing with same or different sex partnerships, and does the example look much different? Perhaps, but an intimate understanding of the brain physiology behind each phenomenon would be required to say for certain.

Having ruminated on the matter, however, I should probably declare that my own experience leads me to consider that entirely straight or entirely gay individuals are very much out there. Probably in great numbers. When I was growing up I was exposed to hardly any evidence that homosexuality existed at all. I think I only really came to understand that there was an alternative to heterosexuality when I was about 15 or 16. Nevertheless, throughout my childhood and my adolescent years I was always possessed of a strong conviction that all this heterosexual lifestyle rubbish simply wasn't anything to do with me and never would be. I wasn't willing to admit to myself or the world at large that I was gay for a long time, but I was certainly keen to deny that I was straight.

It is just possible that I slipped into exclusive homosexuality through sustained personal self-definition, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195479 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 am

I think the dear Reverend Dark has outdone himself with the queasiness-inducing invented deities this time. A truly remarkable example of the art.

I'm off to scrub my mind out with bleach now...

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195474 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 9:45 am

Designoid - It was pretty much Richard's term for things that look designed but aren't necessarily designed. He contrasted it with simple things like rocks on the one hand and designed things like watches on the other (I can still remember the colourful plastic trays). They show complex features which we would normally associate with design, but could have arisen without it through natural selection or an analogous process.

Basically "designoid" is a sub-category of "complex" and "designed" is a sub-category of "designoid".

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195468 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 9:34 am

Richard himself coined the term "designoid" in his Growing Up in the Universe series. Might that have the appropriate nuances?

Maybe "constructed"? or "operational"? "mechanical" sounds too human-contrived, but possibly an alternative backformed adjective might be coined? Machinic? Mechanismal? Organoid? Fungent?

55. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195389 by Cartomancer on June 18, 2008 at 6:44 am

*Blushes with tremendous embarrassment*

I really must learn to keep my acid tongue under control in public places. I hope no offense was taken - certainly none was intended. Actually, the more I read this story the more elegant a demonstration of the power of rational thought it seems. And eleven publications at 27 - that just makes me horribly jealous!

56. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195094 by Cartomancer on June 17, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Don't be an apostate... re-discover how awesome Jesus Christ is

In order to be an apostate one actually has to have been a part of the religion in the first place, and in order to rediscover something one actually has to have discovered it in the first place. I'm sick of this pathetic assumption among moron theists like yourself that everyone must have started out in their silly little cult of the magic sky goblin and atheism is therefore the abandonment of it. Many of us have never believed in your or any other brand of theistic nonsense at all and merely laugh at the narrow-mindedness of its world view.

But yes, Oystein Elgaroy, wonderful story - a textbook case of reason and rationality winning out in the end. He could well be the poster-boy of the New Atheism if he didn't look like one of those faces in children's activity books that you can turn upside-down and see a different face the other way up...

57. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194907 by Cartomancer on June 17, 2008 at 11:50 am

Well, the fact that identical twins don't both exhibit the same sexual orientation is fairly strong evidence that orientation is not entirely genetic, though that doesn't mean that there isn't an important genetic factor (and since most twin studies DO show a much higher incidence of identical twins being of the same orientation than fraternal twins, some genetic component is very likely). The phenotypic effects of the gene could be triggered by something else, say a hormone surge in the womb, but that doesn't mean the gene doesn't do most of the work. I'm sure someone with a greater knowledge of genetics could enlighten further.

But a similar upbringing does not necessarily always result in very similar personalities for identical twins. Child development is not entirely a matter of inputs. Sure, there will be some similarities, but often (especially if the parents are keen to encourage individuality, like mine were) the twins will consciously try to diverge from each other, or define themselves with reference to but in opposition to one another. I must say I grew up with a hyper-sensitive appreciation for sameness and difference, and an overactive tendency for self-examination and self-definition, and I generally attribute it to that. When I was finally comfortable with my sexuality, at age 22, it slotted into the overall "equal and opposite" identity framework that we had constructed very nicely.

58. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194628 by Cartomancer on June 17, 2008 at 5:32 am

Apologies for generalising but I was under the impression that gay people of both genders broadly speaking assumed one sexual "role" or the other. I can understand in that context how brain structure as described here or proposed hormonal factors would explain male receivers or female givers but I still haven't seen anything that would explain both opposites

It's a common assumption, especially among straight people, that being active or passive in the sexual act must necessarily be a gendered phenomenon - that active participation fits with a masculine personality and passive participation fits with a feminine one. Now, I can see where the assumption comes from - it's firmly rooted in our culture - at least here in the west, where it stems from graeco-roman ideals of masculinity founded on Hippocratic medicine and Aristotelian science. Granted, cultural factors have a powerful effect on the erotic imaginations of individuals, and for a gay person who is thoroughly imbued with the "penetrative = masculine, receptive = feminine" model, it can and does form the basis for a sexual identity.

But there are many more gay people who are not influenced by the graeco-roman model, and do not associate passive participation with a feminine role (and dress and behave accordingly). Thus to say it has a biological component is probably going too far here. In my own experience it has been impossible to tell whether someone prefers the active or the passive role ("top" or "bottom" in modern parlance) based on how traditionally masculine or feminine their behaviour is. I've met several incredibly masculine men who only enjoy the passive role, and plenty of screamingly camp ones who are entirely active. In fact most people seem to be versatile and will try both "roles" - in my case based on mood but others can be entirely amenable to either, or choose based on the partner they are with. As with all things sexual, and particularly all things imaginative, it's far from binary.

To be honest there is a whiff of the patronising about the traditional model, which suggests that somehow we are trying to ape heterosexual relations and set the male-female interaction up as the ideal for our own activities. It's also rather patronising to straight people too I would imagine, assuming as it does that traditional masculine and feminine traits are somehow prescribed simply based on possession or lack of a y chromosome. Why can't straight men, for instance, enjoy "feminine" behaviours, or even passive sexual gratification, if they want to?

59. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194033 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

And Cartomancer, why would I come up with anything new? If the truth is the truth, why would it change? It seems to me that science is changing all the time and finding falicies w/ past theories and developing new ones. Which one is the truth? The one that steadfastly doesn't change or the one that changes daily?

Mutability has little or nothing to do with the truth. Statement of that which is, as discerned through reliable epistemological methods, is how we determine which theory is the truth. Funnily enough science has been doing this for hundreds of years...

But the main reason you should try to come up with something new is because we have all got thoroughly bored of your old material by now. It doesn't hold up under intelligent scrutiny and it never did, but more importantly than that it is so unbearably tedious and repetitive. You are here, after all, purely for our entertainment - You're clearly not here to learn, because if reasonable argument worked on you then you would not be a ridiculous delusional theist, clinging to the childish imagined certainties of a brutish age and pretending that a magic goblin in the sky tells you what to do.

As such, might I suggest you take up juggling or ventriloquism or conjuring as a side-line? This stand-up comedy routine with its quirky child-like characters is all very well, but you've died on your feet and should really try to make the act more appealing. I advise against mime (though it would have the advantage of rendering you gloriously silent), but a well-executed contortionist act might impress - given your propensity for twisting the evidence and avoiding the questions you might well be a natural.

So no, we're not laughing at your pathetic "journey", because the humour value has long since passed its sell-by date. But if you want to come up with some novel and interesting silliness to show us then we would be more than happy to laugh at you until the cows come home.

60. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #193932 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 8:17 am

I've just depressed myself even further.

I tried a google search for "papers on homosexuality research" to see if I could locate the stuff I had read in response to epeeist's question. The first site listed was an odious little operation called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. I am guessing that the nation involved is the good old benighted US of A.

http://www.narth.com/index.html

What I found on their website is a group whose modus operandi should be immediately familiar to those of us here who have seen ID groups in action. They seem to be disingenuously clothing themselves in the borrowed mantle of science in order to promote their obviously faith-based nastiness. Observe a selection of the following from their "position statement":

We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality...

...Respect for diversity, however, requires teaching about all principled positions. We live in a multi-cultural society where tolerance for differences is essential. And when homosexuality is discussed, it must not cross the line into lifestyle advocacy. Ultimately, sexual lifestyle decisions hinge on matters of deeply held values. Schools should respect the right of families to convey their own social values to their children...

...Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development...

...Psychotherapists around the world who treat homosexuals report that significant numbers of their clients have experienced substantial healing. Change has come through psychological therapy, spirituality, and ex-gay support groups. Whether leading married or committed celibate lives, many report that their homosexual feelings have diminished greatly, and do not trouble them as much as they had in the past...

...Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality. Research shows that gay teens are especially vulnerable to substance abuse and early, high-risk sexual behavior. It does far more harm than good to tell a teenager that his or her attractions toward members of the same sex are normal and desirable. Teens in this position need understanding and counseling, not a push in the direction of a potentially deadly lifestyle.

I am roundly sickened by this tissue of lies, misrepresentations and barely-concealed faith-based prejudices. I had no idea that the forces of ignorance were so sophisticated and barefaced in their tactics in this field. Note the familiar "teach the controversy" line? The appeals to facile postmodernistic "we must respect all principled viewpoints" drivel? The "no transitional fossils" style "there is no scientific evidence" line? And most of all the constant references to some unspecified "spiritual" dimension, the true nature of which they are not keen to disclose for fear of appearing to be the religious front they actually are.

Don't get me started on the disgraceful stuff they have insinuating a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Why is it that these subhuman monsters never present the case the other way round? Why do they not stand up for people's "right" to convert from heterosexuality to homosexuality, since they clearly believe it to be possible in the other direction? What of those straight people who would much prefer all the fun of a rampantly promiscuous gay lifestyle? Human rights issue? Purely secular advocacy group? No religious or moral agenda? Pah, don't make me laugh...

This is precisely the kind of dishonest outfit we should be speaking out against. Surely there must be something that can be done about such a blatant and hateful misrepresentation of science and society?

61. Only a Theory

Comment #193894 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:44 am

t's very similar to medieval Catholicism -- anybody ever read a history of the papacy? Do most Popes really believe or even care what they are saying? No, it's all about retaining economic power by exploiting the habits and ignorance of the masses.

That's a very simplistic marxist "conspiracy theory" view of history I'm afraid. Generally you don't find educated elites who "know better" trying to oppress and keep the "uneducated masses" ignorant purely for their own selfish gain. Almost always the oppressors are just as wound up in the system as the oppressed, and subscribe to the same notions. The medieval papacy is a case in point. Sure, it was as corrupt and self-serving as any political organisation will be, but most of the people involved in church bureaucracy did genuinely believe most of the doctrinal points they professed to believe. Theologians laboured long and hard with no trace of cynicism or scheming to write their doctrinal works, and the university system supported their endeavours - to the twelfth or thirteenth century mind theology was an important and legitimate science with the greatest of practical benefits for mankind. Didn't stop the hypocrisy of course - which is why the church became obsessed with managing scandals and limiting their impact - but most hypocrites are not cynical manipulators either, rather, they genuinely value the virtues they openly profess, but can't help diverging from their own ideals because such professed virtues are unattainable.

As for the Discovery Institute and American right-wing politics, sadly I have to conclude that an awful lot of them really do believe what they say they believe as well.

62. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193882 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:32 am

a "phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions" and "a pot-pourri of lies".

I never knew that there were so many glass houses in the Vatican, or such a ready supply of stones...

63. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #193869 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:15 am

I must say this is not surprising, research has pointed in this direction for a while now. But it is still nice to have more information and more studies confirming the pattern - and exploring the phenomenon in greater depth. Somebody should tell Iris Robinson MP and her entourage of catholic witch-doctors about this...

Though, I must say, my own experiences mirror these findings very well. My identical twin brother and I have always had somewhat different responses to stressful situations. My life has been ruled to a great degree by fear, anxiety, depression and various phobias. My heterosexual brother on the other hand generally responds with anger, dynamism, activity and restlessness. In this I am much more like our mother, while he is more like our father.

It is perhaps no accident then that, in dealing with the stresses of leaving home for university, Gavin took up three new martial arts (shorinji kenpo, aikido and Okinawan kobudo) while I developed three new debilitating phobias (sociophobia, catoptrophobia and gerontophobia - socialising, mirrors and getting older). I had not, until recently, considered that this might be partially due to differences in brain function associated with sexual orientation.

64. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193866 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

Oh dear. Same old nonsense, different day. I'm beginning to understand why Steve had his little sabbatical from debating credulous theistic morons - they really don't come up with anything new at all, do they? Arguing with them is like sorting the post. Prime mover argument? that goes in this little Aquinas-shaped box with these well-worn refutations. "What happened before the beginning of time?" that goes in the Conceptual Misunderstandings hopper. "Jesus makes more sense than Muhammad?" Where was Dr. Personal Subjective Response's pigeonhole again?

It almost makes me want to abandon the site too. But given that I haven't got any real friends and all I do is post snide comments and references to obscure twelfth century theologians I'm not sure I'm that badly affected. Carry on gentlemen, as you were...

65. Only a Theory

Comment #193859 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 6:44 am

They are saying that science has limits based on what humans can conceive of. That is worrying to me.

I've probably misunderstood the gist of what you're saying, but that sounds like a truism to me - surely we are limited in what we can eventually understand about the nature of the universe by... well, by our inherent capacity for understanding ("conceiving" if you will). It's just possible that our evolved brains are capable of understanding everything that there is out there, but I sure wouldn't like to bet on it. Surely there must be some things about reality queerer than we are able to suppose?

Did you mean that the ID hacks are saying science should be limited based on what we understand about the universe now, or what we understood two millennia ago, or on what unimaginative people are capable conceiving without putting any effort into it, or something like that?

66. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #193564 by Cartomancer on June 15, 2008 at 8:21 pm

What I think we really need is not necessarily more scientists in politics, but more politicians who know and are honest about the limits of their understanding, and are willing to seek good advice when they go beyond it. We cannot expect politicians to be specialists in everything they are to make decisions on, but we can expect them to understand the procedures for making good decisions that are well informed by evidence. They should at least try to get a basic understanding of the issues at hand, and certainly consult experts who know what they're talking about.

67. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192861 by Cartomancer on June 14, 2008 at 4:52 am

That is why I believe that those who wish to exclude the voices of faith from the public square are so profoundly wrong. I am not arguing for a theocracy, nor that specific religious views should always prevail. But if societies do not draw on the wisdom of the religious traditions, then their debates on their future will be impoverished and ignore what is important to millions of their citizens.

Well, I disagree profoundly that you positively NEED religious traditions to come up with pearls of wisdom that can benefit society. In fact most religious wisdom (at least the kind the rest of us would call wise) is generally either self-evident or stolen from secular philosophy anyway. But that aside, Blair has it completely wrong: if we want to draw on the wisdom that religious traditions have to offer then the method we must use to do so is not faith but reason. With faith all we do is cling blindly and irrationally to whatever we have inherited, be it good or bad. Faith has no intrinsic mechanism for discerning the wisdom from the foolishness, and when you're working with this kind of material, there's an awful lot of foolishness indeed. Reason, on the other hand, gives us a basis for knowing that genital mutilation, homophobia, gynephobia, willful unscientific archaism, executing those who disagree with you and so forth are unwise, but compassion, tolerance, turning the other cheek and their like are beneficial.

But, were I to extend a perhaps unwarranted generosity towards Blair, I might say that, in his own deeply misguided way, some of his aims are not entirely different from those of our own dear Richard Dawkins. Both, I think, are concerned about the negative impact of religious conflict in the world, and therefore want to do something about it. Blair's methods are short-sighted and counter-productive however: palliative care at the most, which honours the disease and further entrenches it, where Richard seeks a cure for the condition.

68. Godless

Comment #192314 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Fatherhood... shudder. And there was me thinking that being a homosexual spared me from acquiring that particular incurable sexually-transmitted condition.

I wonder why gay parents would want to go along to Rick Warren's megachurch in the first place? Not feeling ostracised enough already? And Fathers' day isn't even a christian festival!

It really does surprise me that there are still openly gay people out there who believe in all this asinine religious nonsense. Especially after most of the world's major churches, and all of its major mosques, have done their utmost to dissuade gay people from joining in. Surely the cognitive dissonance must get a bit much?

Then again, most of the gay people I have ever met are quite irredeemably stupid - and we all know about the positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity!

69. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192307 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Wow Cartomancer, first on the bill at a Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris gig!

I'm guessing that this is a reference to something the fake richard_dawkins said in a post that has now been removed. If only the sentiment were true, but until Richard (the real one) or Sam decide to start giving papers on medieval intellectual history, or I ever get round to writing that bestselling "New Atheist" book, sadly very unlikely to happen.

Still, it's a nice thought...

70. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192304 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Aww, somebody got the hint! See, all these atheists about - must be more intelligent than the populace at large!

71. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192271 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Atheism good. Work good with people who write clever and knows science an stuff. Religion for dumb folks with rocks in head. Tee hee...

Said a spokesman.

Actually, I think it's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw that greater intelligence, or at least a greater ability to question accepted truths and think things through, would lead to proportionally greater incidence of atheism. What should be stressed however is that this presupposes a modern scientific culture which has actually discovered enough about the universe to show that god, in point of fact, does not exist. Unless one's intellectual abilities enable them to independently formulate the arguments that have come down to us from Hume, Spinoza, Darwin, Einstein, hordes of anthropologists and scholars of comparative religion, Bertrand Russel and many others, it is extremely unlikely that they would reach the conclusion that god does not exist however much independent speculation they engage in. In fact, when theistic explanations were the only explanations in town, independent thought generally had the opposite effect and drew intelligent people to religion. Men like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus and Ockham were phenomenally intelligent in their own ways (Just reading Scotus makes my head spin), but they lived in a time where nobody had figured out what we know now and the most advanced cosmological texts available were Ptolemy's Almagest and the Timaeus of Plato. Likewise, most of the cognoscenti of late eighteenth century Europe and America were deists. Science is cumulative, that must be borne in mind.

Were I given to speculation, I can well imagine that most or all of these men, had they been born in twentieth century England (on, say, June 13th 1983, to pick a significant date at random from the ether) would have ended up as atheists.

72. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #191995 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

Oh dear, Artful is back to his old metaphysical dualism line again. Move on folks, nothing to see here...

73. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191977 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 8:15 am

Well, His Dark Materials is a very good example of the sort of thing you might suggest to someone who likes fantasy fiction and is also an atheist. Or perhaps the writings of Mark Twain, or the poetry of Lucretius. What about House, that American medical drama starring Hugh Laurie as an atheist physician? Or even Pharyngula, which is nothing if not entertaining despite having a strongly factual slant. Admittedly it's not a huge range of cultural products, but then again it's only comparatively recently that atheism became a prominent phenomenon in American society, and in Europe it's so ubiquitous that it's mainstream.

I don't think anybody is saying "you must read this if you are an atheist" or "you can't read this if you're religious". It's merely a suggestion for something other people might like based on their expressed atheistic world view, not an index librorum prohibitorum that defines True Atheist Literature and prevents you from reading anything else. Straight people can enjoy gay fiction, gay cinema and even gay bars (which is more than I ever managed) but it would be silly to suggest that these things are not primarily enjoyed by a gay audience, or to feel uneasy that they are being recommended to one.

Admittedly there is a slight difference in that atheism is something one can subscribe to or reject, whereas homosexuality is inborn to a great degree. Thus the act of recommending atheist literature and approving it can be seen as akin to proselytising. But that's a question of image manipulation, not of the actual intent behind doing something like writing a list of prominent fiction with an atheistic slant.

The problem is not, I think, in the act of writing lists of recommendations but in actually finding enough material with an overtly atheistic slant to put on them.

74. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191929 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 6:12 am

There's a great finnish saying "matters of taste cannot be debated"

Originally a Latin proverb as it happens: De gustibus non disputandum est. Unless it entered both Finnish and Latin from proto-Indo-European, but that seems unlikely.

75. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191927 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 6:06 am

I think the issue of "recommended atheist reading" lists, or music lists, or of "atheist culture" in general is not a particularly problematic one. Again the parallels with gay people are instructive. Homosexuals, like atheists, actually share very little in common beyond their one defining feature - same-sex attraction on the one hand, non-belief in gods on the other. In order to construct any kind of "culture" out of either of them you have to exaggerate the narrowest and most surface-level aspects, co-opt stereotypes, make numerous entirely arbitrary decisions and, in the end, will emerge with a highly artificial and pretty unsatisfying social construct. In the gay world this is usually artificially low-brow (Madonna and America's Next Top Model), in the atheist world, artificially highbrow (Spinoza and evolutionary biology)

But does that mean it is entirely worthless? I don't think so. I find myself thinking "well why are there specialist gay bookshops and so forth if they don't appeal to some widespread need?" Have lots of gay people been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they're a good idea when they're not? I think the answer is that people often feel the need to explore and identify with these aspects of their character in some way. It's not "I'm gay / an atheist, and therefore I must like these books and this music" but rather, by dint of being gay or an atheist, these books and this music have some pertinent relevance to my life - a greater relevance than they perhaps would to a straight or a religious person. I see no problem with recommending such works to others.

76. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191916 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 5:31 am

The statement that it is child abuse to teach 'absolute truth claims that cannot be substaniated [sic] by evidence' is of course itself a statement that cannot be substaniated [sic] by evidence - and is therefore a self contradictory one.

Not only can it be substantiated by evidence, time and time again it actually HAS been substantiated by evidence. I think we have had rather a lot of evidence for this over the last several thousand years. But let's not worry about history eh? I think the tragedy of this particular fourteen year old Afghan suicide bomber is very good evidence to substantiate the claim. As are the hundreds of other children being primed to do what he did. Or you could ask one of the many child psychologists who work with victims of religious child abuse (or any other kind of psychological child abuse) for some more evidence.

If this boy's vile religious indoctrination was not responsible for his self-harming behaviour, I would like to know what on earth you think was?

77. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191911 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 5:13 am

A modest proposal eh? What that it were Swiftean satire!

I really do wonder what "academic freedom" has to do with "the family" too. Surely it should be teaching unions and academic publishing houses who agitate for legislation on academic matters? I think it would be a much more profitable endeavour to pass a law requiring all pressure groups with "family" in their name to replace it with "unreconstructed right-wing patriarchal bigotry" instead. The Louisiana Forum on Unreconstructed Right-Wing Patriarchal Bigotry. There, much better.

78. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191660 by Cartomancer on June 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

But many psychological studies on the mental health effects of frightening children HAVE already been undertaken. Just ask any child psychologist. I think it's a fairly unremarkable fact that repeatedly threatening children with horrible punishments is very damaging to their development. The point is that religious teachings have always gone under the radar as far as this is concerned thanks to the undue respect religion wishes to claim for itself in our societies.

As such this petition is not trying to substitute democratic vote for psychological study, it's trying to remove unthinking hypocrisy from the way we deal with mental health issues. I think it is a very appropriate too for the purpose.

79. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190707 by Cartomancer on June 9, 2008 at 12:25 pm

a background in the soft humanities where empiricism and evidence form little or no part in the subject

Have to disagree on that one I'm afraid, at least as far as historians are concerned. Empiricism and evidence are pretty much the core of historical analysis - what we generally lack are precision and mathematical modelling. Our evidence lends itself to less firm, more speculative conclusions, but it is still evidence and still empirically analysed.

80. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190196 by Cartomancer on June 8, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Um. No we don't. We have no written Constitution.

Technically we do. We just don't have it all written in the same place. The constitution of the United Kingdom is spread across all the various parliament acts, succession acts, common law decisions etc. that bear on constitutional matters. If there wasn't something we could refer to, how do you imagine we would know how our government was actually supposed to work?

81. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190188 by Cartomancer on June 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm

It never ceases to amaze me just how different the political rhetoric is across the World Pond. If the leader of a political party were to say those sorts of things in public over here then his voting base would dry up quicker than you could say "raving nutcase". Just ask Tony Blair.

He actually said words to the effect of "I think my religion is better than anyone else's" in the context of leading a nation which prides itself on being inclusive and tolerant of all religious minorities. Unbelievable!

I did notice, though, that at one point he was about to say "judaeo-christian" again, but stuttered and said "christian" instead. What are we to make of this I wonder?

82. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190026 by Cartomancer on June 8, 2008 at 8:44 am

Yeah, or we could do something that might actually help instead...

83. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189874 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

This is one of the most strident "belief in belief" rants from the "I'm an atheist but" crowd that I have read in a long while. As has been said previously, it conflates disdain with intolerance and lack of respect for a belief with lack of respect for a person. I should also add my voice to those decrying his description of Richard's tone, grasp of theology and, amazingly, grasp of science. As one who studies medieval theology as a part of my doctoral research, I have found no instance in which Richard either misrepresents a theological point, or would benefit in making his points from greater knowledge of one. Theology as narrowly defined is medieval fan fiction plain and simple.

I think that the more disdain for religion exhibited by the young, the better our societies will be. The battle we are fighting is to knock religion off its pedestal and strip it of the automatic deference it assumes it is entitled to from believer and nonbeliever alike. Disdain is the perfect, perhaps the only, weapon we have to do this.

I do think there is a wider generational thing going on here though. In fact I recognise it from my own experiences. The older, parental, generations of atheists from the 60's, 70's and 80's seem much more imbued with the idea that tolerance trumps everything and raising one's voice in strong opinion only leads to trouble. Perhaps this is the inevitable conservatisation of the elderly, or perhaps it reflects a certain disillusioned former idealism - they are, after all, the people who saw the final nails in the coffin of marxism, the flowering of capitalistic exploitation and, in Britain at least, the political ravages of she-who-shall-not-be-named. I am sure an historian of late twentieth century culture would be able to speculate more effectively than I.

The younger generations of atheists who grew up in the eighties, nineties and the new millennium however have their idealism intact, or their minds unskewed by the experiences of their parents. Their first experiences of major global fear are 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, not the cold war and the cuban missile crisis. Their experiences of "authentic" religion are not jolly bumbling old anglican vicars but vicious frothing imams and loathesome televangelists. I think they probably see the truer picture.

As I say, I have experienced this myself. My own father treats me in much the same way as the author of this article treats his children whenever my fervent disdain of the religious comes into the conversation (and at 24 years of age that does feel rather patronising!). Perhaps an awful lot more of these people remember what they were told as children by their atheistic parents, in a time when society was much more overtly religious. Perhaps many more of them had religious parents.

Is there some kind of atheist generation gap? Do strongly-held opinions in one's children always seem suspect to their parents? It would be an interesting sociological study to carry out...

84. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189760 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 7:36 am

Boswell was certainly the standard work on Medieval homosexuality for a long time, but unfortunately, as with KJ Dover for the Classical world, his writing has been superseded in the intervening two and a half decades.

Worse, he assumed rather too much on a questionable interpretation of evidence. One of his main methodological ideas was that expressions of passionate friendship in medieval societies could be taken as evidence for underlying sexual desire, rather than just as a classicising literary trope. This is still a contentious point and it is very difficult to reach conclusions on the matter either way.

Though it is still highly possible that, as Boswell speculated, our good friend St. Anselm of Aosta (then Bec then Canterbury - he of ontological argument fame) was a great big homo who spent his waking hours dreaming about what was under the novices' cassocks.

He probably didn't try to oppose the anti-gay legislation of the council of 1102 for that reason however, Boswell was muddled there.

I would advise consulting more modern works as a valuable corrective to Boswell. In particular "The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by Mathew Kuefler (Chicago, 2006) is an up-to-date contribution which specifically addresses Boswell's main thesis that christian doctrine was not the fundamental reason for medieval homophobia, but that it was instead introduced into christian cultures from other sources.

85. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189748 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

atheists are the New Homosexuals

Want to be considered stylish, sophisticated and interesting by all your friends, but not too keen on sexual intercourse with members of your own gender? Ever yearned to be despised by christian fundamentalists the world over but couldn't stomach even a kiss with the hot boy across the road? Well now there's an answer - Atheism! It's the new homosexuality, and it's easier, quicker and cheaper than the old one too. No expensive skintight clothing with studs and sequins on it! No outrageous entrance fees to sweaty nightclubs in Vauxhall! No additional personal grooming requirements! In fact it could even save you money!

All you have to do is stop believing in gods. It's so simple, even a child can do it!

And it's entirely backwards-compatible with the previous version too! So if you still have a hankering for Sondheim lyrics, sing the numbers from the Rocky Horror Picture Show in the shower and spend far too long staring at topless pictures of Mitch Hewer, you don't need to change a thing! In fact you're probably an Atheist already...

86. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189743 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 6:03 am

Gruppenfuhrer Appleby:

I'm afraid that your appeal to the fact that there have never been societies which exclusively condone homosexual relationships is entirely irrelevant. Such a society is theoretically possible and therefore a valid subject for ethical speculation. As has been pointed out your argument from majority practice means nothing here - we are not discussing the historical circumstances that have led to past ethical codes. We are discussing the ethics themselves from a detached, logical, rational standpoint - we are being moral philosophers here, not historians of ideas.

I have, it seems, entirely failed to bring you out of your knee-jerk thinking. You are still assuming that the method to use is one of privileging the majority practice, giving it a free pass to validity, and expecting everything which differs from it to make account of itself to the majority. That is nothing less than setting the majority up as the moral arbiters of society - it's sanctioned ochlocracy, methodological mob rule.

Your language makes this assumption crystal clear. You keep saying things like "well if we permit zoophilia then we have to permit homosexuality too". Implicit in that statement is the assumption that heterosexuality gets its automatic free pass (it gets "permitted" by default) and either that homosexuality and zoophila are equally divergent from the "norm" or that homosexuality is a divergence and zoophilia is further divergent still. Implicit in this is the assumption that divergence from the norm is ethically suspect, and the further one diverges the more suspect one becomes. Finally it carries the assumption that divergence is a simple linear metric - i.e. that it is not possible to diverge in different and non-comparable ways but that all divergence is condemned in exactly the same manner.

I would put it to you that this is a deeply flawed, highly archaic, and incredibly bigoted way of thinking. Such a way of thinking could only be condoned by someone sat in ochlocratic privilege as a member of the powerful societal majority. I am curious, Appleby, as to just how much a part of the societal majority you are. My suspicion is that you are a straight, able-bodied, middle-class, male of caucasian descent from an urban area of the United States of America. You are probably under 35 and of roughly average income for your age. The only thing that marks you out as different from the majority of your society is that you are an atheist. Is this correct?

I had hoped that by reversing the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" in your words (and to emphasise what I had done by swapping "zoophilia" for "necrophilia" as well) I could get you to stop and think how this issue could be viewed from the opposite side of the fence. From my side if you will. I had hoped that you would see the prejudices implicit in your words and that this would be the beginning of a learning experience whereby you could work towards abandoning those prejudices and arguing from rational grounds. I can see now that you are too strongly attached to those prejudices to see this however, which is a terrible shame I think.

What we must in fact do when discussing sexual ethics is set out our reasons for permitting or proscribing any kind of sexual behaviour at all, and then apply them consistently to all sexual behaviours, however commonplace or rare those behaviours are. That's how a rational, logically-based ethical system works, and it's the only way to avoid blatant hypocrisy. The only relevant criterion I can see in this case is harm (taking, as I do, the issue of consent to be an issue of harm). We permit harmless sexual acts and proscribe harmful ones.

87. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189671 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 12:15 am

If you feel there are valid reasons to prohibit bestiality, then it can be argued that you also need to reexamine your position on homosexuality, which is why I find prohibition of bestiality hypocritical. Now, in societies where only heterosexuality is recognized as "acceptable behaviour" (reminder: you think bestiality is "unacceptable"), this problem does not arise.

If you feel there are valid reasons to prohibit necrophilia, then it can be argued that you also need to reexamine your position on heterosexuality, which is why I find prohibition of necrophilia hypocritical. Now, in societies where only homosexuality is recognized as "acceptable behaviour" (reminder: you think necrophilia is "unacceptable"), this problem does not arise.

I will keep on pointing out the prejudices inherent in your language to you until you desist from them you know.

88. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189586 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Sort of like the FSM, but presumably more human.

Not necessarily. You are a homosexual after all, and, as the learned Professor Appleby has taught us, there is apparently no functional difference between that and having sex with an ontologically significant pile of animated italian savouries...

89. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189473 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 10:23 am

Why do I find myself sat here with my legs crossed tight and a grimace of pain on my face when I read this article?

90. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189450 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 9:58 am

Manitowoc? What kind of a stupid name is that? I think I'm beginning to understand why you just nick our place names - I would too if that's the best I could come up with on my own.

I wish I could have been at the committee meeting that decided that one:

Councillor A: Well, all the houses are built and the plumbing put in, that just leaves the small matter of what we're going to call the place
Councillor B: We've had three suggestions so far sir.
A: Really? And what are they Sebastian?
B: Well, the first one is New Kent
A: Hmm, that's ok, but I think we need to get away from stealing English place names. We are a different country now remember - new flag and everything. Besides, we don't have any cathedrals or dole scroungers yet, and Tilbury power station is on a different continent.
B: Ok then, well the second name is Wen Tenk
A: That's just the first one with the letters rearranged isn't it?
B: I think it is. Not very imaginative your average puritanical homesteader sir. It's a problem for open community consultation on decisions like this.
A: Well what's the third name?
B: Manitowoc. Though to be honest I think the man who came up with that one was just throwing up his lunch and our stenographer accidentally wrote down the noise he made.
A: Sigh, this isn't an auspicious start for our new land of freedom and opportunity is it?
B: So we're going with Manitowoc then?
A: It'll give the sign painters a laugh at least, keep up community morale.
B: Sir, do you think that when our descendants start colonising other places and replacing the natives there'll be a New Manitowoc someday?
A: Who knows Sebastian, who knows? I hear those fellows in the Fertile Crescent are getting uppity again, someday there might be a New Manitowoc on the outskirts of Baghdad...
B: Oh that is a good one sir, you really are a clever old blighter
A: What did I tell you about not using the British slang any more Sebastian...?

91. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189435 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 9:20 am

Taunton is a town in England (it is the county town of Somerset, where my family now live). It is not a port however, being nowhere near the coast.

92. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189393 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 7:14 am

Wow, it seems that half the population of the British Isles was born in Gravesend like me (to a long line of dole scroungers and cinque port pilots so my mother tells me, though distantly related to AJ Ayer). Oh the glorious view from Windmill Hill of crumbling Tilbury power station across the river! The dilapidated majesty of the defaced pocahontas statue by St. George's Church! The spine-tingling thrill of the King's Farm Estate with its delightful burly young men in cheap sportswear! Home of Cheryl Baker from Buck's Fizz and nobody else worth talking about! Do say hello to my aunty Mildred if you happen across her while out and about.

As for humanist's unfortunate Erith roots, I can only offer my deepest sympathies. The superlative radio comedienne and one-time president of the British Humanist Association Linda Smith, who is sadly no longer with us, was also from Erith. She once said Erith is so unpleasant that it isn't actually twinned with another town, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham.

93. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189384 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 6:48 am

I think we might accidentally have found a wonderful new in-joke in Steve Zara's wife - the putative hypothetical person who doesn't exist.

"You go tell that to Steve Zara's wife"

"As I was saying to Steve Zara's wife the other day..."

"But what would Steve Zara's wife think of your arguments?"

"I believe the entire universe was created last thursday by Steve Zara's wife, who then gave us all false memories. I want this version of events given equal time in schools"

94. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189382 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 6:44 am

At last, we have an answer. Thank you.

You too are of the opinion that there is no ethical difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Which brings us right back to where we started - with the issue of unreasoned gut-feeling dislike. I would suggest to you that this feeling is an unhelpful one, not least because of the impression it gives other people of you, and you should try at some point to address it rather than leaping automatically to its defense. Yes, it's an authentic feeling you have, that's not at issue. But it is not a helpful or virtuous feeling and so should be downplayed or excised if you can manage it.

95. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189373 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 6:25 am

Four hours later and, to our great surprise, Commandant Appleby has failed to answer my question. Again.

Now, many posters on this site would tell me that his repeated refusal is good grounds to leave the issue be and stop discussing it any further. They're probably right. I'm a stubborn bugger though, so I shall persist. Maybe Steve Zara's wife can counsel me as to the wisdom of this course of action later...

Appleby. Please please please tell us all whether you believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are ethically equivalent to one another. If so why, if not why not.

Not that hard is it?

So far what you have said is that one can lead to children while the other one cannot. While this is a difference, it is not an ethical difference.

You have also said that people's ethical systems change and vary across the world. Which is true, but immaterial. We are talking about our own ethical system, which we base on logic, evidence and argument - that is why we consider our own ethics to be superior. Unless you are willing to advocate absolute moral relativism as the only viable ethical doctrine then you must admit this and engage in the arguments rather than trying awkwardly to wave them away via such irrelevant distractions.

The only indication I can find of your views is the following:

This is hypocrisy in my book. How you pick up your magical pen and draw the magical line between hetero/homo and bestiality is beyond me. I've presented a spate of cogent arguments, both scientific and ethical, as to why that line is as imaginary as a sky god.

I shall ignore the fact that your arguments have all been fallacious rather than cogent and focus on my point. Here you seem to be saying that you too see homosexual and heterosexual orientations and activities as ethically entirely equivalent. And that you see zoosexual activities and the zoophile paraphilia itself as entirely equivalent to both.

Is this the case or not? I will repeat my question in great big capital letters below and will continue to repeat it until I get an answer:

DO YOU THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND HETEROSEXUALITY ARE ETHICALLY EQUIVALENT OR NOT? IF SO WHY, IF NOT WHY NOT?

96. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189289 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 12:31 am

It's a city? I just assumed it was a county, like real Kent is. They can't even get that bit right...

97. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189284 by Cartomancer on June 6, 2008 at 12:04 am

Procreation. It's the one thing in nature that heterosexuality is known for (imagine if we thought it was wrong and outlawed it) that homosexuality and bestiality do not have. On that basis, from an ethical standpoint, is it inconceivable that they be considered aberrations that can be acted against since we are conscious beings who are capable of making that decision?

And, if all this while, you assumed homosexuality or bestiality to be equal to heterosexuality in any and every way, I think you'll see that you're wrong. And procreation, I would say, *does* matter.

For a start, you've just gone back to the naturalistic fallacy you so decried a while ago. Is there any consistency to your position, or are you, as Al-Rwandi suggests, simply clutching at any straws in the jar for some shred of rational clothing with which to conceal your scabrous homophobic bigotry?

Next point. Heterosexual intercourse is not the only way in which procreation can be achieved in humans. Artificial insemination is actually extremely easy.

Thirdly, just because procreation can occur because of heterosexual intercourse, why does that make it more natural than homosexual intercourse? Procreation does not occur from blowing one's nose, does that make blowing one's nose less natural than heterosexual intercourse? Does that make masturbation less natural than heterosexual intercourse? I, as a homosexual, have inborn instinctive tendencies to be attracted to, form bonds with, love, have sex with and appreciate the beauty of members of my own gender. This is a part of my biology as much as the possibility for procreation is a part of yours.

So, not only is your naturalistic fallacy a silly argument, it doesn't even work in this case. And of course I was not claiming they are the same in every way. Obviously one involves two members of the same gender, the other two members of different genders. What kind of a pathetically self-evident point is that? What I was saying is that there is no moral or ethical distinction that can be drawn between the two, and they are both just as valid.

Next...

Or you could answer my question. That'd make a nice change...

98. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189271 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 11:46 pm

It's not really about the norm. It's about what is "right". Nature might urge us to steal, cheat or rape to get ahead, but being conscious, we choose not to do it. In the same way - and I was just wondering - could homosexuality and bestiality, ethically, be considered "wrongs" to be acted against? You certainly seem to think the latter is wrong. And many parts of the world think both are.

We do not care what people think in many parts of the world. The opinion of people in many parts of the world has never been the standard by which ethical behaviour is judged. "Is stealing a loaf of bread wrong? Just let me ask a random sample of people from many parts of the world and I'll get back to you on that". What we want to see is a good argument for why something is wrong based on logical examination of the premises and evidence as to the implications. What we really want to see is whether YOU think homosexuality is wrong and why. I repeat again, please answer my question: Set out for us whether you think heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally and ethically identical, if so why, and if not why not.

To say that heterosexuality is wrong... well, that's just silly for obvious reasons.

The reasons being that you are heterosexual and don't want to answer to the same standards as everyone else yes?

99. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189266 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 11:32 pm

One other thing I'm wondering about is this. If our consciousness gives us the ability to "go against" certain natural tendencies i.e. to do instead what is "right"; can it be argued that homosexuality and bestiality are aberrations in nature that we should use our consciousness to act against? Do (conscious, human) homosexuals and bestials in fact, *have* a choice in the matter?

One other thing I'm wondering about is this. If our consciousness gives us the ability to "go against" certain natural tendencies i.e. to do instead what is "right"; can it be argued that heterosexuality and necrophilia are aberrations in nature that we should use our consciousness to act against? Do (conscious, human) heterosexuals and necrophiles in fact, *have* a choice in the matter?

Homosexuality is caused by exactly the same things heterosexuality is caused by. They are two equivalent variants of exactly the same thing, and precisely as "natural" as one another. Talk of "aberrations" is unscientific, unhelpful and deeply offensive. Zoophilia has a completely different cause from either of the other two. Either you are entirely ignorant of the biological , social and psychological research carried out into this field over the last fifty years or are being willfully obtuse.

100. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189263 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Do you equate bestiality as equal to homosexuality, ethically? Arguments for and against have been presented for hundreds of posts now so I suggest you catch up on them (I suspect you don't) before replying to this.

I have explained my position clearly. If an act is harmful then it is ethically suspect. Heterosexual acts are not harmful, zoosexual acts generally are. There is no equivalence. In particular I must stress that heterosexuals are capable of emotional bonding and mutual reciprocation, zoosexual behaviour does not exhibit this element and this if it is engaged in exclusively is very likely to harm the individual by reducing their ability to form such bonds. At best it is a bizarre form of masturbation, at worst animal cruelty and self-harm. Such is the state of our understanding.

I would also object in the strongest possible terms to your implication that I have not read the previous posts. I have read all of them, it took me hours, and I have found nothing in your repeated claims that stands up to scrutiny.

Now ANSWER MY QUESTION and don't resort to another ill-conceived filibuster or cast aspersions: Do you consider heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse to be equivalent in an ethical sense, and if not why not?

We may as well outlaw food, then. Anti-homosexual legislation by the way, can and is, enforced in many parts of the world.

Theoretically a government could outlaw food, yes. But eating and heterosexual intercourse are not equivalents. Eating is necessary for individual survival, heterosexual intercourse is not. A successful prohibition of heterosexual intercourse would not even legislate the end of the species, since artificial insemination is a perfectly viable alternative these days. And besides, we are perfectly at liberty to legislate the end of the species if we wish to.

As for the enforcement of anti-homosexual legislation, this is all legislation about homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation. That cannot be detected effectively apart from through acts, and nowhere, as far as I am aware, criminalises orientation. Since you used the term "homosexuality" I assumed that you were referring to the orientation.

think it is relevant. What would you say if inter-species relations is also found to be present in nature? Would you then accept bestiality as equal to homosexuality?

Inter-species intercourse has been found to be present in nature. That still does not make heterosexuality and zoophilia at all equivalent - one is an orientation, the other a paraphilia. And the ethical position on them is different because one is harmful and the other is not. How many times must we repeat this? Please do not try to snare me into your naturalistic fallacy, it won't work.

I know. I coined the term (as a noun). Refer: Comment #188318 by Appleby

I said that you had coined the term. And technically it's a nominalised adjective rather than a noun. My point was that perfectly good terminology exists for the phenomenon and the coining of new terms is therefore superfluous and unhelpful.

It nonetheless still needs to be demonstrated (scientifically) before being accepted as unequivocally true. From mere "observation", one might think male homosexuality is harmful (at least to one partner).

What else is scientific evidence-gathering but observation? Observation can be direct or indirect, rigorous or cursory. It does not have to be "mere". Implicit in my remark was that sufficient observation would take place, and determining whether an animal has been harmed by something is not a difficult procedure. It is not contentious that sexual activity with animals often harms them. This has been demonstrated time and time again. I do not know why you insist that this has yet to be demonstrated - the evidence is plainly apparent.

And I find the second part of the sentence particularly offensive. I have observed rather a lot of male homosexual intercourse and trust me, it does not look harmful to either partner. You are simply assuming that it must be because you do not want to participate in it as the passive partner yourself and are trying to come up with silly ex post facto justifications are to why you do not. Heterosexual intercourse looks and is just as harmful.

Well the obvious answer is offspring (pretty Darwinian, if you ask me). I'm also not saying its necessarily a valid argument; but it's something bestials could use to support their case further.

The ability to produce offspring does not make one act more "legitimate" than another. That sounds suspiciously like a catholic natural law argument to me - hopelessly teleological and prescriptive. Furthermore, you're talking about this in the context of bloody Zoophilia! How is the fact that, were the act to take place with a human female, conception might occur, relevant to the ethical status of zoosexual intercourse? We're rating things as ethically sound or not depending on how far they diverge from some arbitrary situation are we? Not a leg to stand on there, not at all...

Addressed in: Comment #188909 by Appleby

Addressed, but not very well. All you say there is "what if it later turns out that zoophilia has a biological basis"? Well what of it? What if it turns out later that evolution by natural selection does not occur, god exists and the moon is made of cheese? What good does speculating about theoretical future counterfactuals do us? The current state of understanding is that zoophilia is a paraphilia, not an orientation. Until we have contradictory evidence, it is incumbent upon us to go along with that conclusion, because that is what the evidence says.

How would you feel if bestials said that about homosexuality and heterosexuality?

If a zoophile said that then I would heartily agree with them. All positions must be examined and analysed, however frequent, common or close to one's own experience they are. Nothing should be taken for granted or taken on the authority of tradition or common use. I would then make the case as to why homosexuality and heterosexuality are harmless, mutually beneficial and helpful phenomena, whereas zoophilia is harmful and can cause problems. In short, I would set out the case I set out for you earlier.

I'm of the kind who is willing to accept the evidence anywhere it takes me. Even if it means stripping gays of their rights as they once were (not that I want this to happen). Unless you feel that objective evidence *must* agree with your desires or our ethics.

And if it means stripping straights of their rights? Would you be willing to go there?

Perhaps you are the kind of person who would go where the evidence takes you. I have little solid reason to doubt it and I don't think anyone here is any different. What I do think is different, however, is your understanding of what the evidence is and where it does lead you. So, how about you put forward your actual position on the issues at hand, giving your reasoning. You can do this by answering my earlier question. Set out for us whether you think heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally and ethically identical, if so why, and if not why not. I look forward to your answer.