101. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189235 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Unless you are completely disregarding the emotional aspect of an intimate relationship (which I find to be horrifically tragic) then I don't see how a heterosexual relationship is more "legitimate" than a homosexual one.

But even if you do completely disregard it, why would one be any more "legitimate" than the other? What does "legitimate" even mean in this context?

102. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189233 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I also noticed Steve Zara's highly amusing post:

As a gayer, I really feel the need to comment.

We are all likable, every one of us. However, we aren't really human, you know. We have evolved something called "gaydar" that allows us to find others of our kind. We also age faster, with one straight year being about 4 or 5 gay years, especially when one is in one's 20s. 40 is positively ancient. We also have a strange biological need for metallic elements, which can only be satisfied by the placing of metal structures through the skin (usually earlobes, but often more intimate places).

Although not quite human, we have some morals. We know what we do is repulsive - after all, what we really want to do is write musicals and bitch about boy bands, but the urge to be naughty is too strong.

We also like Appleby. All of us. Those who say they don't are simply repressed Appleby-likers. So you had better watch out Appleby - we are good at disguise. Just when you think you are safe, one of us will "run" (mince) after you screaming (we always scream) "give us a kiss, big boy"!!

There. I hope that has cleared up a lot of misunderstandings!

I seem to be a very poorly evolved member of the species. My gaydar is virtually non-existent, so much so that it is almost blind without internet-based mechanical aids to help me out. Those don't help much either ("well he's probably straight and just on here for a laugh..."). I didn't realise that my best friend and beloved was gay for three years, despite the fact he had come out to everyone else and was living with his boyfriend. I had to be taken quietly to one side and told about Elton John. Furthermore I seem to have no affinity for the metallic elements whatsoever, though I do want to write musicals all the time and bitch about boybands. Well, about how unfair it is that they don't sleep with me anyway. And since my twentyf..mumble...mumble birthday is coming up in a week's time I am currently feeling the accelerated ravages of gay middle age creeping up on me with unreasoning terror. Being surrounded by pretty, bouncy young eighteen year olds all day does not help matters here, though it does, admittedly, provide me with a tantalising distraction.

My dress sense is apparently terrible as well. Usually I mooch around in grubby track suit bottoms all day. I own one pair of shoes and nothing made of leather with studs on it. And I don't really have female friends either. And until recently I didn't know who Blondie was and couldn't name more than one Madonna song (though I could sing it all the way through in both English and my own Latin versions).

But yes, there does seem to be an irresistible urge to return to the Appleby File despite my more rational faculties suggesting that it is a blatant waste of time. Go on, give us a kiss big boy...

103. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189224 by Cartomancer on June 5, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Well well, the great slow dance of the universe continues as usual. I come back after two far from pleasant days of giving evidence at an industrial tribunal (with a renewed vehemence to my hatred of smug lawyers) and I find that our learned friend the right reverend Appleby has continued to repeat his tired old discredited pseudo-arguments unabated.

Most of this is the same old mashed-up gruel of confused thinking we're used to. I did note some things though:

I don't equate sex with animals as equal, ethically, to sex with women.

I shall assume there is an implicit male standpoint in this, i.e. that you are talking about heterosexual intercourse. I would just ask for a clarification here - do you equate homosexual intercourse as equal, ethically, to heterosexual intercourse? If not, why not?

The difference is, heterosexuality is the status quo (we can't outlaw it).

Oh what a pitiable lack of imagination you have! We could outlaw anything we chose to outlaw. We might not be able to enforce such a decree (we couldn't really enforce anti-homosexual legislation, only make prominent examples) but we could certainly pass one.

Also, being a part of the "status quo" is not a distinctive feature of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is also a part of the "status quo" ("state which is"), and always has been. Male and female animals have been enjoying the sexual company of their own genders since they had genders to enjoy. My sexuality has just as fine a pedigree as yours. What you mean, I think, is that heterosexuality is more prevalent than homosexuality. Which is true. But entirely immaterial to anything we are discussing here.

The point is, even if you can demonstrate that sex with a particular animal or type of animal is harmful, this does not imply that sex with other types of animals is equally harmful or even harmful at all. So "harm" cannot be used as an argument to deny bestials their rights.

For a start the term "zoophile" is the correct one. "Bestial" is simply an adjective meaning "beastly" or "animal-like". It has no implicit sexual content, and in everyday english has a rather forceful negative implication. Historically it has always been a very strong term of abuse. "Bestiality" has come, in vernacular parlance, to refer to zoophilia as well as animalistic behaviours generally, but the coining of a backformed adjective in this specific sense is unnecessary and superfluous.

Secondly, who here but you is trying to divorce the issue of harm from the issue of permitting zoosexual acts? It is the only issue involved, as I have said several times before, and the consent issue is merely a subdivision of the harm issue - most non-consensual sexual acts are, by their nature, overwhelmingly harmful. That's the bottom line here - the acts involved. We do not, and have never, legislated on the personal preferences and orientations of individuals, only the acts they commit. To do otherwise would be to have thought crimes, and even medieval canon law did not have those. The psychological evidence we have marks out zoophilia as a paraphilia rather than an orientation, and its precise classification qua psychological condition is a matter for scientific evidence to decide. On the legal issue the only thing we must decide is whether the act involved harms the animal or the perpetrator or both. If it does, it should be prohibited, if it does not, it should be permitted. I am of the opinion that most zoosexual acts generally do cause harm to both animal and perpetrator, though as I say there are some which might not (masturbating over squirrels is the one I keep giving). The harm caused is something that can quite easily be ascertained from observation. There is no mysterious arcane trickery to this procedure.

they might argue they have some legitimacy in at least coupling with the "opposite" sex, unlike homosexuality.

Why is copulation with the opposite sex any more legitimate the copulation with the same sex? Why would it have greater legitimacy? If anyone were to use that as an argument they would simply not have an argument, so why do you bring it up at all? Sounds an awful lot like unreconstructed patriarchal assumptions by fiat again.

And finally:

all we're talking about is the probable legitimacy of bestiality as an acceptable sexual orientation. You don't like the implications that may have on homosexuality because you're steeped in political correctness and mindless obedience to the dictates of modern Western society.

Again, it should be emphasised that zoophilia is not a sexual orientation at all but a very unusual paraphilia. As has been said before, the implications are exactly the same for both homosexuality and heterosexuality - THE MOST COMMON FORM OF BEHAVIOUR DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET A FREE PASS TO UNEXAMINED ASSUMPTIONS OF LEGITIMACY. But what is really interesting in this sentiment is the amusing way you are pretending to be progressive and liberal by in fact being reactionary and conservative. Yours is the uncritical obedience, but it is to medieval western values rather than modern ones, and you are steeped in political incorrectness of the very worst kind which you wear as if it were a virtue.

104. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188314 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Oh, I'm not saying that I think the case is a valid one, but it certainly does have some interesting features. I'm more interested in the human sexual psychology aspect than the moral and legal permissiveness aspect though.

105. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188309 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Actually, I figured I might as well do some quick reading on the subject of zoophilia since it is under discussion. Wikipedia unfortunately, but a fair introduction for someone who knows nothing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

As expected the consensus of psychologists is unclear as to how the phenomenon should be categorised. The idea that there might be a non-sexual, relationship-oriented aspect is interesting. There appear to be arguments on the part of some zoophiles themselves that it is possible to form mutually beneficial and, to some extent, reciprocal partnerships with certain animals. I don't want to rule the idea out in theory, though I find it difficult to imagine how such a relationship could be in any way equivalent to a loving relationship between two adult human beings. Perhaps I simply don't have the experience to judge - I've never seen such a "relationship" with an animal in action before. To be honest I've never had a reciprocated romantic relationship with another human being either, but I have observed them at a distance. This is where zoophilia might just be distinguishable from things like necrophilia and object sexuality - obviously a corpse or a fence does not have an emotional response, but an animal? Maybe there is some small possibility there? It's not a black and white issue. Whether we can be certain about what an animal is thinking or feeling is another matter entirely of course.

As with all Kinsey statistics, his estimates are doubtless massively exaggerated. And although no statistical evidence exists for the numbers of those who would consider some kind of mutually fulfilling emotional sexual relationship possible with an animal, it seems unlikely that there are more than a handful.

Obviously the health, harm, and consent issues are paramount in determining our treatment of zoosexual acts - whatever the origin of the phenomenon it is the degree of harm caused that should be the operative factor in our moral judgements. I do think the expressed distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a helpful one, but I am not entirely sure that it is possible to ignore the consent issue, and I am uncomfortable with this talk of animals expressing consent "in their own way". If there really is no harm to anyone at all however, I cannot see any reason to disapprove.

Interesting this challenging of unexamined societal assumptions stuff isn't it?

106. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188291 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm

This really is a turn-up for the books. Appleby actually seems to be making a case for the acceptance of zoophilia as a normal and fully equivalent form of sexual behaviour to both heterosexual and homosexual orientations. We started out with gut-reaction expressions of uber-conservative dislike, and now we're on to loony postmodern apologies for some of the most alternative lifestyles imaginable. Strange fish, strange fish indeed...

So you, Appleby, actually deny that the ability to form emotional bonds is important in human relationships do you? That base sexual gratification is all we should take into account? I wonder how this putative girlfriend of yours feels about that? If that really is your position then why did you spend so long trying to argue against the merits of homosexuality? You seem to be rather inconsistent in your assertions, not to mention entirely dismissive of the masses of psychological evidence which shows that the formation of emotional bonds is very important indeed in human psycho-sexual behaviour, especially where the rearing of children is concerned.

And the differences between humans and other animals are actually fairly unequivocal to scientific scrutiny. The very definition of a species is a group of animals which can interbreed, and since the extinction of the early hominids from which we are descended several million years ago, homo sapiens has very much become a genetically distinct species. However "apelike" a disabled human being might look on the surface, the genetic and physiological differences are huge. I might recommend caution in your phrasing at this point too, since your paragraph on your experience of this unfortunate supermarket worker looks dangerously indicative of underlying racist convictions. Surely you must be aware of the long history of vile "black people are closer to apes" rhetoric that has been deployed by bigoted racists over the centuries? And the fact that you're discussing a mentally handicapped woman purely as a sex object doesn't help matters either.

I wonder, I really do, why you persist in equating homosexuality with zoophilia. Heterosexuality bears just as much similarity to zoophilia as homosexuality does. What I suspect is that you are working from a horrendously outdated and logically fallacious assumption that heterosexuality is "normal" and therefore everything else must be of the same kind because it diverges from the norm. It's your inability to see that the behaviour which occurs with the highest frequency does not automatically get a free pass to validity again.

Why should YOU as a heterosexual be allowed to adopt children, whereas a woman who derives her sole sexual pleasure from masturbating over squirrels be denied this opportunity? See how silly the question looks when phrased from this perspective?

107. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188225 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 11:43 am

There's no getting away from the fact that we have genetic mother and father roles built in, though of course this varies from person to person.

Yes, there's surely a genetic component in there somewhere, but is it necessarily the case that only males have the "father" role programmed in, and females only the "mother" role? Might it not be very likely that humans are inherently adaptable and equally capable of turning their hand to either role - or both if required? Surely it's a much better survival strategy to have all the options available and fill in what is needed where necessary. Furthermore, is it actually necessary that "roles" be distinguished in the traditional sense at all? Why should one parent be nurturing and caring and appreciative, while the other is stern and disciplinarian and proud? My parents were certainly nothing like that - both seemed equally caring and equally stern, it was impossible to fit them into the traditional categories.

Might it even be the case that, with two different male or two different female role models available, a child would get a more rounded appreciation of the diversity of that particular gender, and be less ready to stereotype its members? Might they not grow up more tolerant in general? And the other gender? Well, what good are preconceptions anyway? If the child is to have meaningful relations with that gender they will soon learn what is what. I can't honestly say that I evaluate the behaviour of all the females I meet on the template of my mother - that all sounds like a very nineteenth century (specifically Freudian) take on human psychology. Surely we're more sophisticated in our understanding of child social development than that?

108. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188200 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 10:42 am

ts not necessarily an issue of worrying about sexual orientation. Its whether or not a child is better off having one male and one female as parents, all other things being equal. I think this is a fair line of enquiry.

enquiry yes, but in a properly dispassionate scientific manner without assuming what the conclusion will be in the first place. There is no good prior reason to assume that parents of mixed gender will be better - it's just as likely that they'd be worse before the evidence is in. Fortunately all the evidence we have gathered points to no appreciable differences.

109. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188165 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:40 am

Funny, I thought the homosexuals were all kept on that street near Westgate.... You know, because they are happier there.

Ah yes, the Paradise Street ghetto. Well, you're right of course, but I generally avoid the place because I don't like being sleazed at by lecherous sixty year olds in leather trousers. The only good thing about it is that the quiz machines in gay pubs are invariably set to the lowest difficulty settings, so you can clean up quite easily. I've never had to buy drinks at the Admiral Duncan in London with my own money, because you can just get all the money you need from the trivial pursuit game on the Itbox machine...

110. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188161 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:35 am

And while I'm essaying on the subject (the Bodleian still hasn't received its copy of the new Corpus Christianorum edition of Alexander Nequam's Suppletio Defectuum et Carmina Minora, which is why I'm not doing much) the whole gay bar thing is an interesting cultural phenomenon, though rather easily explained for two reasons.

Firstly, it's somewhere you can go to meet people who might be amenable to your romantic advances. Or to find casual sex if you'd prefer that. Given that it's not easy to tell who is gay and who isn't in mainstream society, it's a necessary way of improving the odds and avoiding disappointment - it takes out one huge hurdle to coupling. If a straight male knew that 95% of the women he met in his day to day life were lesbians then he'd probably want somewhere he could go to meet straight women too.

Admittedly we have the internet for that these days too.

The second reason is getting less important, but was massively significant in the past - quite simply that it was somewhere you could go and be open about who you were in a supportive environment. It's still like that in many places in the world, but as mainstream society is now much more tolerant this is less necessary.

As for whether gay people prefer the company of other gay people or not, you can't generalise. The gay "scene" forms the social backdrop for some, but others do not like it one bit. Most gay people hang out with their heterosexual friends much more than they go to specifically gay venues. For my own part I find gay "culture" and the scene terribly vacuuous and shallow, and since I only have one gay friend, who does not live in the same city as me, I invariably go to such places alone. For me they are a necessary evil in that I am unlikely to meet prospective boyfriends in any other way. But others love such places, and all power to them because of it.

And there are, of course, vast numbers of gay people in the world who have no access whatsoever to gay venues or services.

111. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188146 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:17 am

See, we can have a sensible discussion without shouting and name-calling after all!

You know... one thing I like about homosexuals is that in my experience, they're more intelligent than heterosexuals.

Far be it from me to dissuade you from that rather pleasing stereotype, but you clearly haven't been to the Love Bar on King Edward Street in Oxford on a tuesday night...

112. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188143 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:08 am

Sexual orientation is apparently too sensitive an issue for rational discourse.

Yes, it is a sensitive issue. But not too sensitive. And it is incumbent on all of us to measure our language so as to reduce the degree of hostility it might meet. Your biggest problem in this regard is that all of your counterfactuals and speculations are phrased in a manner which accords entirely with archaic patriarchal prejudice. "what if we do find some problem with homosexuals?", "what if there is evidence that blacks are less intelligent than whites?", "what if women are less capable than men?"

If you really are approaching the topic from the standpoint of dispassionate scientific enquiry, and following the arguments to their logical ends, then it might be better to use counterfactuals which run against the accepted prejudice. I have been trying to suggest these for some time now in order to bring home how silly and offensive your speculations sound. It would do an awful lot to reduce the friction you are causing here.

113. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188140 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 9:03 am

Disagree. It is a children's rights issue. Children should have a right to be placed with a loving, nurturing family wherever possible. Whether the family is heterosexual or homosexual is secondary.

I think I didn't explain what I meant very well.

Of course the rights of the child are paramount. That goes without saying. But nobody is arguing, or even capable of arguing, that we shouldn't do what is best for our children. Nobody would stand up and say "the children's rights do not matter".

Thus the issue here is entirely one of whether we allow gay people the same rights as straight people. The fact that doing so will alleviate the suffering of millions of children lends powerful moral weight to the argument, but it's an argument that stands on its own logical merits too. I was saying that even if it didn't alleviate any suffering at all it would still be the right thing to do.

The "suffer the little children" line is all too frequently invoked to imply that gay parents are inferior to heterosexual ones but, grudgingly, better than nothing. I think that is counter-productive.

114. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188137 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

Naah. Still on sabbatical

Oh well, as with Commodus it looks like I'll just have to take to the arena myself again.

Shame, I saw myself as more of a Hadrian figure really. Or failing that Heliogabalus...

115. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188129 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 8:49 am

Actually, the main argument for allowing gay adoption is a gay rights argument. Phrasing the question in any other way is implicitly offensive and patronising, given the masses of convincing scientific evidence that there is no difference in parenting ability between gay and straight couples.

It is a given fact of reality that sexual orientation has no impact on parenting ability. There is thus no good reason to prevent people of a particular sexuality from parenting. We live in a world where there is a massive surplus of needy children, and so as a stopgap political measure some campaigners were able to use the conditional "well it's for the children's benefit because it'll mean more of them have at least some kind of parents, which is better than care" line.

We do not need that sop now. Even if there were no surplus - even if there were so few children available that couples had to fight tooth and nail to adopt them - there would still be no reason to deny gay couples the same adoption rights.

The assumption that it's just being permitted to help out in a crisis, because it's better than nothing, is a dangerous and implicitly homophobic one, and one which needs to be abandoned.

116. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188112 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Ooh, you're in trouble now Appleby, Zara has entered the fray.

Ask him about the biological origins of homosexuality. Go on. I dare you!

I feel like Commodus at the Colliseum all of a sudden. Now where did I put my gladius...

117. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188097 by Cartomancer on June 3, 2008 at 8:14 am

Still dancing are we?

I see our friend Appleby has had another few pages to repeat his own tired non-arguments and ignore the points of everyone else on the thread. Oh, how far from Sir Humphrey he falls...

Right. I'm putting my special magic education hat on now, and turning to words of as few syllables as possible in order to try to enlighten you as to the differences between the various sexual practices in which humans have been known to dabble.

As I said before, origins are strictly immaterial to the moral judgement of acts. But knowledge of what leads to different behaviours is illuminating and can help people to understand them better and bracket them in their minds accordingly. First of all, there is lots of evidence that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both biologically determined - probably something to do with hormonal conditions in the womb at vital stages of foetal development. All the evidence points to a perfectly standard biological origin resulting from evolutionary processes (whether as a target of selection pressure or a side-effect of other things). Now, the same cannot be said for other sexual predilections. Zoophilia, Necrophilia, Object sexuality and so forth are all exceedingly rare conditions. Homosexuals amount to about 5% of the male population and 0.7% of the female population of the world respectively, but people with the other conditions have a negligible statistical presence, certainly less that 0.01%. Furthermore the origins of these conditions are thought to be psychological rather than biological - usually triggered by childhood experiences and other mental health problems. The most convincing reason why they belong in a different category is that the people who exhibit them have a hetero- homo- or bi- sexual orientation as well. They're somewhat equivalent to a preference for young, smooth, cute men rather than hairy, muscular, older ones, or for blond haired boys rather than brown - though obviously extreme in their deviation from the mean. As such it very much is a category mistake to assume that they are of the same stuff as gender-based preferences.

I would also like to strongly repeat the point that homosexuality is NOT solely about sexual gratification. It is about forming loving, mutually supportive relationships and families too. That is the biggest and most profound difference, and one which you entirely ignored the last time I mentioned it and every time it has been raised since. I shall be charitable and assume negligence rather than outright mendacity.

But as I said, the moral implications are not derived from the naturalistic fallacy. The characteristic we use to determine whether a form of sexual behaviour is acceptable in our society is whether it causes harm. This can be harm to the practitioner as in masochism, but usually it is taken as harm to others. I shall repeat this because it is at the crux of the issue: we determine the acceptability of a sexual behaviour based on whether it causes harm.

Concensual adult human sexual relations generally do not cause harm, so we let them pass. Zoophile activities, on the other hand, often do. In the modern world we understand that animals are capable of suffering and psychological harm, and sexual abuse can often cause this. Usually the perpetrator will not be harmed physically (though there have been cases of people dying from being buggered by horses and the like), but the animal will. Your own example of the cat is one which I cannot see being harmless, because a cat is just the wrong size for human penetration and will almost certainly be killed by it. Now, if it is possible to achieve one's sexual kicks without harming said animal (masturbating while watching squirrels for instance, or perhaps even the oft-reported but never admitted to practice of encouraging one's dog to administer fellatio) then no harm is caused and we tolerate the behaviour. The line is not "who or what do you want to sleep with?" but "are you causing harm by doing so?".

Of course, if one cannot get sexual pleasure in any way other than fantasising about animals, there is usually underlying psychological and social harm. Such an individual may well be unable to form relationships with other human beings and achieve happiness in such a relationship. If this causes them no distress then fine, let them be, but if they are unhappy about it then clearly it is a harmful sexual behaviour and should be treated for the well-being of said individual.

Consent is an important part of the harm metric. If there is no consent then psychological harm at the very least can be assumed. Even though animals cannot give consent, they can still judge whether an action will be harmful to their well-being and still suffer psychological consequences. Since there is no accurate way to read their judgements (and since their mental awareness is not always capable of imagining the consequences of their actions) we are left with no choice but to assume their refusal. As for the fact we kill animals without their consent, yes we do. But not all animals indiscriminately and only when we have a reason to do so which trumps our reason to leave them alone - i.e. the need for food. And we still try to keep them humanely and kill them in as humane a way as possible. The desire for sex is not nearly a good enough reason to harm animals, the need for food most certainly is.

Right, I hope that has cleared that one up for you.

As for the adoption issue, again, it's a very simple one. The question we need to ask about any prospective parent is not "what are your sexual preferences?" but "can you look after this child?" In order to deny ANY individual (and it is on an individual basis, not a group basis, that the decision must be made) the opportunity to adopt or foster, one has to make a case that they are unfit to parent. That means a logical link must be drawn between an aspect of the individual's behaviour and their ability to parent. The calculation can be made in no other way.

I put the question to you afresh, in the hope that the elementary logic will become apparent: what impact does a parent's sexual behaviour have on the upbringing of a child? Why does it matter one whit what the parents get up to in the bedroom? They're not having sex with the child, and they're certainly not teaching the child their own sexual behaviour, so what does it matter? Find me one shred of evidence - one jot, whit, speck or smidgen of evidence - that there is any negative impact at all to being raised by gay parents. And don't go off on that silly "but they won't learn about separate gender roles if they don't have parents of mixed gender" nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that they won't, and more to the point no evidence to suggest that maintaining archaic, societally approved gender roles is at all helpful. It's unfounded gut-feeling speculation, and unfounded gut-feeling speculation is not good enough. It wouldn't be good enough if there were no evidence at all, but we have absolute mountains of positive evidence whether you like it or not. Pretty much every country in western Europe has had gay adoption for a while now - it's the norm, no harm has resulted, and plenty of benefit. Why is it so difficult for you to get this into your head? Why do you persist in pretending that the jury is still out when the decision came in as a resounding yes years ago?

As for your previous question - yes, I do think that allowing gay adoption is an improvement on not allowing gay adoption. It's obviously an improvement because it results in loving homes for a greater number of otherwise needy children. That's the bottom line here.

118. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187864 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Here we go with the ever-popular stychomythic exchange format again...

Because this is the status quo. Why should we assume something is wrong with (natural) heterosexual parenting just because things that are natural are not necessarily right?...When you propose something radical or new, I think it is fair to substantiate it rather than appeal for it to be accepted by default.

Why is the status quo so important? Why is what we have now to be valued over the improvements we may well be able to implement? When slavery was the status quo people used similar arguments. When the oppression of women was the status quo people used similar arguments. Why let the baneful forces of conservatism and inertia still our hearts and make us satisfied with what we are when we could be so much more? And besides. we have argued for it - convincingly. Society at large, both homo- and heterosexual, made the case. We now have gay adoption and there have been no negative consequences at all. In fact, it is now the status quo and to repeal it would be to change things again, so stop talking about it as if it were only a theoretical possibility rather than an established and well-evidenced fact of modern life. Something like 11% of gay men and 20% of gay women in this country now have children.

Can this be extended to say, people who practice bestiality? Are they also equally fit to be parents until proven otherwise? If not, why not? What exactly is your criteria there?

Criteria is plural, the singular is criterion by the way. And zoophilia is very different from heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is an orientation largely caused by biological factors, whereas zoophilia is somewhat pathological and of psychological origin, or so the studies tell us at the moment. Nevertheless the origins of the conditions are immaterial - concensual heterosexual sex does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality routinely does. There is also the consent issue, and more importantly the presence of loving, mutually reciprocated emotional bonds can be detected in heterosexual people, which is not the case with zoophiles. As such we deem heterosexual behaviour acceptable, just like the normal homosexual behaviour we are used to, whereas zoophile behaviour does not fulfil these criteria and thus we prohibit it.

Do you as a homosexual, by the way, think you are superior in some way to those who practice bestiality?

I don't like the use of the term "superior" in a generalised context like this. I consider my sexual behaviour to be harmless to others, whereas that of a zoophile is not, but that's the only value judgement I feel entitled to make - and it's not really a value judgement so much as an evidenced conclusion. Do you as a heterosexual think that your behaviour is "superior" to that of a homosexual or a zoophile, and if so what do you mean by this term?

But they are only "just as good" or "better" based on certain criteria and it does not rule out the possibility (however negligible you think it is) that this deviation from the status quo has long or short-term ill side-effects. My position was that given I can't be sure and that the lives of children are at stake, I'd rather not expose them to the possible risk and go with the tried-and-tested parenting of heterosexuals

Only based on certain factors? Yes, the relevant factors. That's why those factors were chosen for study. Funnily enough research into factors irrelevant to a question rarely takes place. Again, why should deviation from the mean (for it is not the status quo, as if that term had a precise meaning in this context) have any relevance to whether a behaviour is deemed acceptable or not? Furthermore, yes you can be sure. You can be as sure of this as you can that there is no god and evolution is a fact. There is masses of evidence out there and more is cropping up all the time - all of it saying the same thing. It is only through prejudice or willful ignorance that you can ignore the facts. All the science points in this direction, which is why gay adoption is now legal and thriving - wake up and smell the coffee!

Do they really think that their homosexuality is completely immaterial in terms of effects on the adopted child? Do they factor in what the child (who lets say is heterosexual) might want or prefer?

Do they really think that their heterosexuality is completely immaterial in terms of effects on the adopted child? Do they factor in what the child (who, let's say is homosexual) might want or prefer? Why should the sexuality of a child have any bearing on the sexuality of its parents? I didn't get to choose the sexuality of my parents and nor did you. No - my parents were straight. My twin brother is straight too. Would we have had to flip a coin for it? The wishes of a child are irrelevant, only the likelihood they will be well looked after - and there is no difference on that score between parents of any sexuality as a group.

Gay adoption might in fact, deprive many straight parents from adopting the children of their dreams. And let's not pretend parents aren't picky about the kids they adopt (gays included).

This is palpable rubbish as even the most cursory glance at the statistics will show. There have ALWAYS been more children available for adoption and fostering than people willing to take them on, and the discrepancy is only widening. And what has pickiness got to do with it? The interests of the child are the important thing here, not the predilections of the parents...

This sounds a lot like when some black people cry "discrimination!" at being denied certain things in the hope that others will be intimidated into giving it to them. If you examine my arguments objectively, you might begin to see that it's not necessarily homophobia talking but rather a reasonable demand for convincing evidence given the issue and what is at stake (the lives of children).

No, what I am saying is that you cannot simply assume that one side is motivated by an unspoken agenda, and is thus being disingenuous, while the other side in the debate is, by default, immune to the same suspicions. Of course I don't believe that straight people only want to repeal gay adoption laws because it massages their egos, but to make such a claim is equally as ridiculous as claiming that gay people only want to adopt because it massages theirs. Unevidenced suspicion should fall on all parties equally or none at all.

If you then ask me to consider that all heterosexual parents with adopted children are also a risk, I think that once again is being disingenuous.

Which is precisely my point. You are uncritically assuming that one side needs to examine its position while the other side does not. We have had our consciousness raised to the fact that there is more than one sexual orientation that wishes to raise children - the old certainties have been thrown out the window and everyone needs to reassess their position on rational, evidenced grounds. There is no evidence that either side puts children at risk - even though there is lots and lots of evidence out there - so there is no logical reason to condemn either side.

but there are still many issues to be sorted out before children (we are talking about children here) are routinely handed over to them for adoption. To me, it's something different and requires further investigation before I change my stance from "preferably heterosexual" to "indifferent".

But children are routinely handed over. The battle has been won, and your side lost. You can blather and puff about not being convinced if you want, but with nothing more substantial than gut feelings and a tendentious string of counterfactual speculations to base your arguments on we are under no compulsion to treat your case with respect.

My point is, can you accept them in principle? This will prepare you for if and when it happens (unless you think it won't or is much too unlikely - and then I would ask why you think that). Saying "I'll cross that bridge when I get there" is not good enough. You need to be clear about the acceptance of having to cross that bridge if need be. Why? Because this says a lot about what kind of person you really are. Nothing personal, by the way. I am just trying to articulate what I mean.

And I put that right back to you and ask whether you're willing to accept the conclusions of the evidence, wherever they lead, rather than treating your oft-mentioned personal dislikes as if they had any objective validity? When that study on the economic benefits of an all-bisexual society reaches you (and my beloved, who is an economist at the treasury, showed it to me - the maths works!) are you willing to change your mind and abandon your prejudices?

I disagree. Not where children are involved. Voting, fine. Not kids.

Exactly. We cannot afford to deny vulnerable children the loving parents they deserve based on unevidenced prejudice and conservative inertia. The stakes are far too high to countenance something inhumane like that...

119. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187847 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 9:00 pm

And if anyone wants more evidence on the abilities of gay parents, over half the adoptions approved by the Brighton and Hove district council are for same-sex couples these days.

It's a reality. It happens. There's plenty of evidence out there and we're getting more all the time. These are the wonders of a modern, progressive, liberal and tolerant society - increased happiness and joy, more loving families, children better looked after and fewer people ostracised or excluded from the common weal.

For all its faults, sometimes I'm just glad to be alive in Britain the 21st century! I might almost consider adopting a child to celebrate if I didn't hate the grubby, cheeky little bastards so much...

120. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187840 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I can see that you're trying to be civil here Mr. Appleby. I don't think that you're always succeeding, but that's beside the point - the attempt is there, however poorly executed, and that holds some merit in my eyes.

I do so hope you realise the comedic intent of my parody, really I do. Though I would urge that the silliness of my strawmen is derived entirely from the fact that your own strawmen are so ridiculous.

The biggest problem I see with your standpoint is that it simply assumes that the behaviour of heterosexual people is beyond reproach because it is "normal", while the behaviour of homosexuals, being in the minority, does not get the same free pass that lets it get through unexamined. Why do you assume that heterosexuals are automatically qualified to be parents while homosexuals are not? Simply because they have children in the natural course of things? Why do you assume that heterosexual parenting is necessarily acceptable, and yet homosexual parenting is not? The "naturalness" of heterosexual parenting is neither here nor there when it comes to justifying it morally. All your arguments for the possible invalidity of homosexual parenting could, with equal validity, be turned on their heads and applied to heterosexual parenting.

When you tell me why heterosexuals deserve to look after children, I will tell you why homosexuals deserve to do it. You simply cannot arbitrarily assume that the burden of proof is on either side - in this case it applies to both sides equally. And as has been brought up before, the evidence is there that gay people make just as good parents as straight ones. In fact the evidence shows that they actually make slightly better parents, because in order to adopt children they have to prove their devotion, whereas heterosexuals can just have children in an entirely unregulated fashion. That part of my satire was not meant entirely facetiously.

I would, however, say that parenting instincts are genetic to a great degree. Homosexuals possess them just as much as heterosexuals do. Why do straight people want to have and raise children? Because they have a genetic drive to do so. Homosexuals have just the same drives, and just the same care and love to give their children. To assume that there is some political statement inherent in it is deeply patronising. Do we assume that women want to drive cars because they want to make a statement to men that they can do it too, or do we just go along with the sensible explanation that they want to get around the place? We might as well assume that heterosexuals are automatically against gay adoption in order to oppress homosexuals and massage their own egos - you too are just as vulnerable to prejudice and it is just as incumbent on you to examine your motives.

But why divide the moral decision-making into an adversarial "us" versus "them" conflict though? Moral progress is not generally made through adversarial conflict, it is made through careful analysis of the evidence, discussion and creative collaboration. The situation you present is little short of ochlocracy - mob rule. Why should the heterosexual majority automatically be assumed to be the moral arbiters in our society, with minority groups having to forcibly change their minds or else submit to the unexamined will of the mob? Where is the difference between that and making atheists kowtow to a religious majority? Sexual orientation, like religion, has no connection whatsoever with the ability to make good ethical decisions.

As to your more abstract point, of course I admit that it is theoretically possible to imagine evidence which might change our understanding of certain groups within our society, in which case our priorities might have to be reassessed. I can imagine, for instance, that scientists might theoretically discover heterosexuals to be of much lower intelligence and capability than homosexuals. I can imagine the discovery that women make much better leaders and decision-makers in society than men - and that matriarchal societies where men have no political influence work with much greater harmony, much less conflict and are thus much more productive and much happier. I can very well imagine that compulsory castration for all males at birth would reduce societal tension wonderfully and have similar results. I can even just about imagine the discovery that black people have a secret genetic strand which can be manipulated to render them immune to all diseases, much longer lived and much more capable of virtually any task than other groups. I can imagine all these things, theoretical "facts" which we would have to live with and adjust to. So what? What's your point? We don't make our decisions based on the facts we can dream up off the top of our heads, we make them based on the facts we gather through science and reason. Why do you always assume that science might prove homosexuals or women or blacks inferior, but will never prove hets or men or whites the lesser beings? Why the archaic, illiberal, unreformed, patriarchal bias on your imagination?

And even if there is difference, why is that a basis for discrimination? It would have to be an extreme and significantly dangerous difference - so dangerous that it would almost certainly be blatantly apparent already. If heterosexuals really were a threat to social stability it would probably have been made manifest by now.

121. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187827 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm

In Britain being a "noisy atheist" is not problematic for one's political career. Being noisily religious very much is however, which is as it should be.

I sympathise with those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere, where this is not the case.

We tend not to think about the religious convictions of our prime ministers. In fact it seems the British care much less about the personal characteristics of their leaders than many nations do. Admittedly the vast majority of them have been Oxford educated middle aged straight white male christians, but we've had a jewish prime minister (Disraeli), a female prime minister (Thatcher), a prime minister without a university education (Major), a clinically obese prime minister (Churchill), a gay prime minister (Roseberry. Not openly of course, but it was an ill-kept secret) and, as I said, plenty of Atheists. We've even had a closet catholic in Blair - the only reasons he didn't come out openly being that he wanted to make a name for himself in Northern Ireland and didn't want to be considered a nutter by the voting public.

122. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187823 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm

It's not really a platform you need to campaign on in Britain. As Blair said, over here you're considered a nutter if you bring religion into politics. Atheism is just not a barrier to public office these days, but strongly professed religious conviction certainly is (how Ruth Kelly from Opus Dei ended up as minorities minister is anyone's guess)

Clegg is the leader of the third largest political party in the UK. Very popular with students and down in the Westcountry where I come from. Okay, he's never going to be PM - because he's a lib dem and the majority of people in the rest of the uk have an inexplicable block when it comes to voting for lib dems - but we've had plenty of atheist prime ministers before with nobody batting an eyelid (Atlee for instance)...

123. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187819 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Why is it that NO politician will ever choose the path of reason and rationality? Somebody please name me ONE self-avowed atheist politician anywhere in the world...just one.

How about Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democratic party?

Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell? Roy Hattersley? Mo Mowlam? Ken Livingstone? Peter Tatchell? Oona King?

Actually, how about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(Politics_and_law)

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187815 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Awww, no fair! I spend two hours wading through this thread, carefully reading all the posts to keep track of the arguments, and find out at the end that the sport has buggered off and I can't play anymore...

Still, kudos to everyone who did take part. It's very reassuring as a gay man to know that rational folk everywhere will fight tooth and nail for your rights and well-being in the face of the irrational prejudices of the bigot. Only at post 495 did Bonzai, who is also of the Wildean persuasion, join in to provide a gay man's perspective, though our superlative Sapphic sister Elli was a stalwart throughout.

It just leaves me to say, however, that you're all fundamentally wrong on this...

I have a deep-seated personal dislike of heterosexual sex. How right-thinking people can copulate with members of a different gender I don't understand. It's worse than eating your own faeces, surely? Isn't it? No? Well you can't prove it isn't so I'm going to assume flat out with no evidence that it is. Now, because of this all heterosexuals might well be on the same level as animals - in some nebulous, abstract way I don't want to define, but I'm right anyway because I say so - and as a result they should be banished from normal people's society. They probably want to live in their own segregated straight people ghettos anyway. Then I can tell lewd jokes about fucking cute boys to my neighbours all day, and they'll have to laugh at them whether they're funny or not.

I also think that a society where everyone is homosexual would be far better than one where everyone is heterosexual or a necrophiliac (because logically you have to accept one if you accept the other, right?). There are two reasons for this - 1) procreation can be properly regulated via the turkey baster method, giving us unparalleled control over our demographic future, and 2) disease control, because having sex with decomposing corpses is unsanitary. Heterosexual sex is probably the same. We bury corpses without their say-so, so why is consent an issue when we want to have sex with them?

(did I tell you that women are objectively better than men at everything and black people are demonstrably more intelligent than white ones? It's just an unfounded prejudice of mine of course, but if huge piles of evidence for it turn up tomorrow on my doorstep then it must be true - so we might as well all behave as though it is now eh?)

Also, why should we risk denying orphaned children the benefits of being raised by gay parents? There's obviously a DIFFERENCE (capital letters make it so much more convincing) between normal, loving, superior gay parents and nasty, diseased, necrophile straight parents. I don't know, despite all the numerous studies to the contrary which you have presented me with, whether the difference is positive or not. But it MIGHT be positive if we conveniently forget about all that evidence because it was gathered at the height of the Middle Ages in 1995. Therefore there is a realistic chance that gay parents are much, much better at raising children than straight ones and we are criminally denying our offspring the right to decent parents by letting straight people adopt.

We should also use force to take children away from their straight biological parents - we don't want to risk their future for the sake of this modern, PC heterosexual rights movement now do we? Since gay people have to adopt and go through rigorous screening processes in order to have children, whereas even the most stupid, lumpen and unsuitable heterosexuals can give birth in the live manner, surely gay people are intrinsically better parents than straights? Having two parents of different genders must surely confuse a child, and may well cause lifelong harm to their development. If we free them up from having to remember which gender which parent is just think of how much more profitably they could use that vital extra brainpower!

But I'm not suggesting that we discriminate. Oh no, nothing like that...

Oh, and Al-Rwandi is a miserable breeder. He must be. He supports straight marriage. It's the only possible conclusion. And epeeist smells of shit, and I can ignore him because he has a moustache. See, my hypothesis has been proved correct, as us people wot knows all about scientific methodology from careful perusal of Wikipedia will tell you.

Right, well, fun though this has been I'm off to have (anal) sex with my boyfriend. His name is Felix if you're interested (it says so on the front of his bowl). I win the argument and you're all fools for doubting me!

Now, did somebody say something about an unusual French divorce case a while ago...?

125. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187643 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm

The French have got it right. No religion in school period. School is not for religion, it is for education. The two are mutually exclusive - when you need a religious reason for learning something, it immediately ceases to be something that is worth learning.

What I hate is the use in this context of that horrible buzz-word "diversity". Particularly in such phrases as "promoting diversity" or "celebrating diversity". It's a sneaky trick. We all approve of cultural diversity, racial diversity, sexual diversity and the tolerance of others who are different from ourselves. That goes without saying. But although people and cultures are diverse, the truth isn't. The origins of the universe and of life are not something that vary from person to person or culture to culture. If a culture promotes beliefs that do not accord with the way it actually happened - evolution by natural selection - then that culture is simply wrong, and in this instance of much lesser value than a culture which has the right of it.

126. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #187631 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 11:59 am

The author has missed out one of the most important reasons for making ad hominem attacks - showing off.

We often resort to ad hominems in order to demonstrate a puissant command of abusive yet amusing vocabulary - to show that we can, ex tempore, string together long chains of confusing latinate circumlocutions and impress both audience and victim alike with the exuberant creativeness of our vituperations. Particularly with our ability to viciously insult and excoriate without resorting to base crudeness.

Furthermore, an ad hominem attack can get across wonderfully the degree of disdain we feel for the target of said attack, his position, and what he stands for. It works well in showing that we are not going to give ground and will subject his arguments to the withering scorn they deserve. To an audience this indicates conviction of one's beliefs, to an opponent the likelihood he will not get an easy ride. If one's opponent uses trite and facile arguments, it is often much more effective to ridicule him than to answer him, because one implicitly credits arguments with validity by taking them seriously.

As a purely logical strategy, it often fails. But as a rhetorical strategy it can be among the most effective. The trivium rests on three pillars, and, as John of Salisbury would have said, it collapses unless you have them all.

127. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187301 by Cartomancer on June 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I am very impressed by this. I never knew that evolutionary changes in complex vertebrates could be quite so dramatic in such a short time. I always used to think that evolutionary change was glacially slow in anything but rapidly reproducing bacteria, but apparently this is not so.

128. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187073 by Cartomancer on June 1, 2008 at 9:05 am

I don't know what school you went to...

Well, St. Dunstan's Community School, Glastonbury for what it's worth. I did my GCSEs in 1999. As far as I remember we had several lessons on evolution by natural selection as part of the GCSE double award science course. In fact, if I remember rightly, we even had a very basic introduction to it when I was in year 6 at Baltonsborough primary school. It does surprise me that it's not like that elsewhere in the country - it's certainly not too difficult to explain the outline of evolutionary theory to eleven year olds (especially given that primary school children are taught obscure bible stories from age 7 or so).

129. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187056 by Cartomancer on June 1, 2008 at 8:34 am

I'm not entirely sure how people who seriously believe in this creationism nonsense, having been presented with even a fraction of the evidence, could be anything but idiots and morons. The evidence and arguments are so copious and so watertight there's no other possible explanation. If nothing else the fact that every single legitimate scientist on the planet agrees on the basics of evolution by natural selection should be more than enough to convince everyone else that this is as close to the right answer as we have ever got.

Now, people who profess to believing it for political reasons (such as claiming group membership, avoiding ostracism, or as a statement of anti-intellectualism) are probably not morons. They doubtless range from the harrowed to the arrogantly controversialist. Given the public perception of creationist flummery in this country (as an idiotic, intellectually barren american import, or associated with creepy muslims), and the gratifyingly low status of religion in public discourse, I cannot see this group accounting for many of the putative 40%.

Likewise, those who have not been exposed to the facts and actually taught the blindingly obvious mechanics of natural selection are simply ignorant - which is not a crime. Given that schooling in science is compulsory to 16 in this country, and the basics of evolutionary theory and DNA are an integral part of it, I find it hard to believe that there's an excuse on that score either.

With neither contrarianism nor ignorance of the facts to fall back on, the only other explanation there is for failure to grasp the truth of the situation is abject stupidity.

So in which stinking cracks culverts are those ragged hosts of demented creationists lurking then? Surely the wittering, narrow-minded fools in the free church of Scotland can't account for all of them? The aforementioned creepy muslims? At under 2% of the population they wouldn't do it either. I really am baffled as to where they could be hiding.

Maybe we should tempt them out with biscuits and saucers of milk so we can observe their behaviour better?

130. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186951 by Cartomancer on June 1, 2008 at 12:23 am

40% sounds very, very high to me. I strongly suspect some kind of skewing in the figures, probably from poor survey technique. I don't think I've ever met a real, live UK creationist before - but then again I only know one religious person (even then, not very religious), and she's from America.

But if Steve Jones is experiencing problems with his students then clearly there must be something wrong. Where are all these massed hordes of drooling creationist morons? Lurking in the dark and forsaken places beneath the world? Dartford? Hartlepool? Eyrith?

131. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186684 by Cartomancer on May 31, 2008 at 3:04 am

Why must something "be done" with these people?

Because if nothing is done the consequences are almost certainly going to be extremely negative ones. Knowing what we do about isolated tribes like this, and having the tools of modern anthropology and psychology at our disposal, it seems incumbent on us in the developed, international world to manage contact with these people to their greatest benefit and least harm.

If we do nothing then contact will probably occur anyway, most likely via unscrupulous logging concerns, and there will be no attempt to manage the problems it may cause. It seems somewhat immoral to subject human beings to that through apathy or negligence when we could at least try to do it properly and make things better when contact inevitably does happen.

132. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186607 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I don't think these people should be protected in their way of life simply because they're "uncontacted" or "unspoiled" or something like that - a post-industrial romantic fiction of the noble savage if ever there was one. I do, however, think they are a fascinating and rare source of anthropological insights and should perhaps be protected for scientific purposes.

It's an intriguing problem what is to be done with people like this. Obviously keeping them primitive and unconnected with the world for the sake of it could be very harmful to them eventually, especially given the unscrupulous sorts who might try to exploit them. On the other hand, too much interference too quickly could be just as damaging to their well-being, particularly their psychological well-being. I'm sure there are anthropological studies of how isolated tribes like this cope with being introduced to modern science and technology that we can learn from.

133. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186582 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Of course the ten commandments and lords prayer have bugger all to do with the US legal system (though Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 probably have an awful lot to do with it). That's not why this is so worrying though.

Nobody has yet noted the scariest aspect of what is happening here. It's not just that christian groups are trying to get their version of history sanctioned by the state, it's that the state is actually weighing in and setting itself up as an authority on historical matters. By a simple vote of elected officials - almost none of whom I am willing to bet is an academic historian - the US government is trying to set out which documents it thinks are of historical value and, by omitting others, which are not.

You simply can't do that. History, like science, is not written by democratic vote. It's an evidence-based discipline which tries, however imperfectly, to explain what is going on in reality. Any attempt to come up with an officially sanctioned version of history skews the enterprise from an academic matter into a case of propaganda.

Also, history, much more than experimental science, is a woolly and imperfect discipline. Our evidence is much less copious, much more anecdotal and much less amenable to quantification and analysis. And we can rarely go out and find much more of it. Some degree of vagueness and openness to alternate views is therefore a good thing in history - commensurate with the sparseness of the evidence we have. By sticking up big marble plaques which say "this document was VERY IMPORTANT" one implicitly rejects that salutary skepticism and the possibility that our current appreciation of its importance is inaccurate. The Magna Carta might not, in fact, have been tremendously important in the formation of US civil values. It was probably far less important than the federalist papers for instance, which draw a tremendous amount of material from English and Florentine humanist writings, and ultimately from the political works of Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero. Or the symbolic value of Magna Carta might be perennially underestimated - it's a difficult one to judge and requires careful sifting of lots of historical evidence to come to an informed conclusion.

But I see now why the list has been so chosen. It's been staring me in the face. It's because those documents make good soundbites. Ten commandments - ten lines. Lord's prayer - similar. "I have a dream" - soundbite. Magna Carta - very simple by the standards of medieval diplomatic. "In god we trust" - four words. This bill has no concern with presenting the full complexity, or even a fair outline, of US constitutional history - it simply wants to render the subject down to a series of officially approved one-liners. This easily-digested catalogue of patriotic shibboleths can then be plastered across civic architecture like the gaudy national flags which the Americans habitually fetishise.

Style over substance pure and simple.

134. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186572 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Which reminds me. After discussing gay marriage with someone, I got to wondering what exactly counts as consummation for lesbians? I'm pretty sure that oral sex doesn't count for heterosexuals...am I wrong about that? Or is an exception made? Hmm... maybe I'm just being dense, but there isn't anything they can really do that I think would count as consumation for a heterosexual marriage.

I wasn't even aware that the archaic legal requirement for sexual consummation of a marriage was still on the books. If it is then it's probably in breach of many, many human rights and anti-discrimination laws, or at least it damn well should be. I think that any test case brought on such grounds would blow that one out of the water, so even if the law hasn't been scrapped already it's effectively just as inoperative as the laws which require me to train in archery every Sunday, and allow me to fire my crossbow at marauding Welshmen in Coventry after midnight.

But yes, female intercourse puzzles me too. Even after I had my friends draw me a set of anatomical diagrams...

135. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186362 by Cartomancer on May 30, 2008 at 8:04 am

Now, I don't know much about the French legal system, but it does strike me as somewhat odd that virginity can be considered a relevant "quality" in the contracting party, much less an "essential" one for the institution of marriage. Presumably the marriage contract is defined by French civil law or statute, and thus its essential qualities fairly explicitly laid down. I would be very surprised if virginity - or indeed any sexual behaviour stipulations - were among them.

Is virginity even a quality? Surely it might just as easily be called a privative? All this talk of actually existing qualities in individuals sounds hopelessly Aristotelian anyway. Is there actually any physical or mental difference between a virgin and someone who has indulged in sexual activity? That hymen business is something of a red herring as far as I'm aware (though female anatomy is not something I really know much about).

136. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185181 by Cartomancer on May 27, 2008 at 6:42 am

The standard explanation for the existence of other people in the Land of Nod is that Adam and Eve had been rather busier with their grubby heterosexual copulations than the explicit story in genesis suggests. Only three children of the randy protoplastic pair are named in the bible - Kain, Abel and Seth - but theologians have speculated that their filthy man-on-woman dalliances would have spawned hundreds if not thousands of second generation Adamite sprogs, given the unnatural length of their lives.

It was, of course, out of the question to have god create additional, non-Adamic, people in the same way as he made the first one. That would mean there were people running around who weren't infected by original sin, and hence didn't need to pay the church money for its alleviation. That would never do. Many catholic christological writings (particularly those of Anselm of Aosta) make much of the fact that Jesus was not of Adamic birth, being both an eternal god and virgin-born (though, paradoxically, also of the line of David...) and thus free from the taint.

Honestly. If god had wanted society to run properly he should have only created one gender and done reproduction through some sort of secure online shopping arrangement. Then it wouldn't matter who had sex with whom, because nobody would be related in the first place.

137. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185171 by Cartomancer on May 27, 2008 at 6:19 am

I can understand the use of incest as a literary trope to induce horror and revulsion - some of the greatest Greek tragic literature uses it masterfully - but I am at a loss to explain precisely why it seems so prevalent, and so unremarkable, in works of ancient semitic fiction. It seems that the Graeco-Roman world had a far more pronounced and visceral dislike of incest than did the ancient semitic and middle eastern world. I can only put this down to a more family-oriented social structure, centred on the oikos or familia, in the former as opposed to a more prevalent tribal group mentality in the latter.

Just goes to show that, wherever our late antique, medieval and modern dislike of incest came from, it certainly wasn't the bible...

I am also highly amused by the Sodom and Gomorrah story. It forms a wonderful corrective for dousing the ardour of firebrand street preachers (when you don't have a drink to hand to throw over them). "So... homosexuality is wrong and evil, but the premeditated incestuous drug-rape of the homeless and recently bereaved is perfectly okay then? Sounds like a wonderful moral system to me..."

138. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185009 by Cartomancer on May 26, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Does Mr. McLeroy not realise that he has it completely the wrong way around? Yes, medieval thought in Europe had a significantly christian slant to it, but to say that this is the driving force behind medieval political thought is rather like saying that wheels are the driving force behind a car. He clearly knows next to nothing about Augustine's Neoplatonic influences or the Aristotelian political science that sparked John of Salisbury and Aquinas. He has not studied the expediencies of medieval royal politics - the dynastic power struggles, attempts to extend and stabilise royal territories, growth of towns and professionalisation of workers in guilds. Where does Magna Carta derive its biblical inspiration? Where in the bible is the idea of a jury of one's peers ever presented? Where is the theory of the just war? Of justified revolution and tyrannicide? Of inalienable human rights?

Sure, christian doctrine was made to fit with these ideas, but it's the doctrine that was consciously manufactured, not the ideas themselves. Canon law glossators in the French schools and Bologna bent over backwards to try to accommodate late antique legal practice to modern, twelfth-century mores. The medievals developed a sophisticated system of biblical exegesis which enabled them to cherry pick the good bits from the bible with exceptional finesse. If any moral and political advance came from the middle ages in the west it is precisely because they saw the rebirth of secularism and political science as a non-religious discipline.

The important point is that it would have been perfectly possible to create a scripturally-backed defence of slavery, tyranny, oppression, violence and all the rest. The fact the medievals chose not to do this is testament to their very human desire not to live in that kind of society.

139. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184985 by Cartomancer on May 26, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Psychotropic effects from incense? Typos in the title? I think we can all agree that this kind of catholic ritual should be censered straight away....

140. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184760 by Cartomancer on May 26, 2008 at 6:03 am

Not a terrifically valuable contribution to the history of ideas is it? It's a rather whiggish, and terribly Victorian, take on intellectual history to make a big fuss about who got there first and which individual should be credited as the "great man" or the "genius" behind the idea. We've moved on somewhat in the intervening hundred years or so.

And chasing round after people's mail deliveries? I doubt my DPhil supervisor would be too pleased if I told him I was going to be doing that for the next twelve years, not to mention how the AHRC would react! What about trying to assess the currents of thought that influenced both Wallace and Darwin? What of late enlightenment philosophy? What of recent developments in geology and chemistry? What of social trends among upper class gentlemen and the atmosphere of the universities in the first half of the nineteenth century?

Maybe I should scrap the paper on cathedral school learning in the central middle ages that I'm supposed to be giving at All Souls in three hours and talk about the postal service in twelfth-century Wales instead?

As for the emphasis on the nationality of Wallace, that too is a glaringly anachronistic piece of nineteenth-century historical thinking. Now, if he was going to try to come up with some explanation as to why Welsh culture in the nineteenth century was unusually fruitful for the propagation of scientific inquiry, that would be a valid historical investigation. Geographically located quickenings of learning do happen - Classical Athens, Aachen under Charlemagne, Twelfth Century Oxford and Paris, Quattrocento Florence etc - if there were any evidence for a Welsh one at this time then surely it would be worth studying. I'm not sure there is any evidence though - which leads me to conclude that the project is one of merely nationalistic rather than academic significance.

Oh, and I should probably wish my pseudo-Welsh friend Bryn a happy birthday too if he's lurking. He's bound to alight on this one.

141. Repulsive but right

Comment #184555 by Cartomancer on May 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I must say I like both Gene Robinson and Christopher Hitchens. Both of them are outspoken "controversialists" in their own ways, and both seem to have a highly admirable moral code. This is derived in both cases, thank you Richard for pointing this out, from the very same roots in the modern zeitgeist, and ultimately from enlightenment liberal tolerance.

More importantly, perhaps, both of them are utterly corrosive to the bigoted, homophobic, patriarchal scions of bad old organised religion. One is the enemy without - making religious belief look as stupid as it really is, the other is a reformer - working from within to spread tolerance and understanding among those who lack it.

I am glad we have both approaches at work in the world. To quote the peerless Sellars and Yeatman myself, I think they're both a Very Good Thing.

142. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #184123 by Cartomancer on May 23, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Many bright lights of Wadham College have been going out in recent years. Michael Cullen, John Fleming, Stuart Hampshire, my own dear tutor Peter Derow, and only this year our dean Robin McCleery. Alas the current generations are not a patch on what once was...

143. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182457 by Cartomancer on May 20, 2008 at 7:22 am

I was so disappointed to find that a "Camp Quest" didn't involve limp-wristedly mincing around the countryside, simpering and lisping at passers by, while trying to find a magic sword, rescue a damsel in distress and uncover buried treasure...

144. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181776 by Cartomancer on May 18, 2008 at 8:03 am

Catholic thinking in education has always placed a strong emphasis on beatings in childhood. Medieval depictions of the seven liberal arts usually portray them as wise maidens, each bearing the tools of their particular art. Astronomy has an astrolabe or an armillary sphere, Music has a lyre or flute, Rhetoric has a speech written on parchment. Grammar, the first and most basic of the arts which was usually taught to children, is universally depicted with a stick for beating unruly charges when they get it wrong...

145. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181260 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Actually, come to think of it, why not let them have their snippets of exodus and leviticus plastered all over the walls, but instead of just the ten commandments make sure they have a smattering of the really crazy ones as well, just to balance things out?

That would get religious people thinking about the feeble pretense that they get their morals from scripture...

146. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181258 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm

I'm glad this woman has her priorities straight - introducing healthy vegetarian snacks to government canteens and an admirable devotion to civic nomenclature are both far more productive things to spend one's legislative efforts on than promoting two-millennium old ethical curiosities in the public sphere.

In fact she could spend the remainder of her term counting the House of Congress's supply of paperclips and she'd still be contributing more to the legal stability of the United States than these decalogue-toting jobsworths ever will.

147. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181255 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Oh, it's an absolutely classical rhetorical ploy that one. Classical in every sense. Cicero, perhaps the greatest orator the world has ever known, and his Greek model Demosthenes were very much in favour of shouting at the tops of their voices to get the point across when it was effective to do so. Demosthenes was even supposed to have gone down to the sea shore every morning to practice his shouting with pebbles in his mouth so that he could achieve the levels of volume he required (although public speaking in a pre-microphone era did naturally require that quality in abundance). Cicero and Aristotle both noted in their treatises on the art of oratory that the mode of delivery is often far more important in swaying people's opinions than the content of the speech. They also noted that ignorant, vulgar audiences responded well to increased volume whereas those of more intellectual sensibilities could see it for the cheap trick it was.

It is almost certainly no accident that Augustine was a professor of rhetoric and a fervent Ciceronian before he took to christian apologetics, or that there was a powerful strand of humanistic Ciceronian / Horatian education in Carolingian and twelfth century cathedral schools, and the universities of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries which trained the priests and preachers of medieval Europe. The early eastern church was no different - John Chrysostom ("goldenmouth") was the best student of the great Antiochene orator Libanius, and deliberately set out to turn the skills in public speaking he had learned from his master to the service of the christian cult he was a part of.

As far as Hitler is concerned I am less able to judge, but he certainly grew up in a late nineteenth century German-speaking world which raised the model of a classical statesman's instruction to the pinnacle of its educational endeavours.

148. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181146 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Another shocking tale of outdated patriarchal morality. As I read this I started to think "well there's been no mention of islam, and it's India so they're probably some sort of hindus, so clearly you do get this kind of vile crime against humanity without explicit religious sanction for it". Unless there's a kind of hinduism which prescribes such things. There probably is - there's a kind of hinduism that prescribes pretty much anything you like, and if there isn't you can just make up your own and nobody will bat an eyelid.

But to start off on the "is it religion to blame or is it really the underlying cultures that may or may not happen to be overtly religious" road would be missing the point. Clearly the enemy here is deeply ingrained cultural irrationality, plain and simple. Religion is one subset of the phenomenon, this kind of conservative, patriarchal Indian rural culture is another.

Unfortunately, both involve the perpetuation of traditional power structures and modes of oppression - something the powerful and the oppressors will fight tooth and nail to hold on to.

The only ultimate solution I can see to this problem is education in secular, liberal, humanistic values of tolerance, equality, mutual respect and the judging of propositions on evidence rather than the authority of tradition. And increased wealth, access to opportunities and the other core material foundations of a modern society. This is happening, slowly, but it could surely be happening an awful lot more.

149. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #181032 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 10:20 am

Not sure if this has been said before, but I personally find the image of a semi-naked man nailed on a cross quite distressing and amoral, but hey-ho, swings and rundabouts I guess?

And yet, by some, it too has been considered a powerfully erotic image. Yukio Mishima's Confessions of a Mask, for instance, outlines a semi-autobiographical incident involving a masturbatory frenzy in front of Guido Reni's painting of the Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian.

150. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #181022 by Cartomancer on May 16, 2008 at 10:01 am

Now I just looked at the Guardian and found that the letter sold for 170,000 pounds! That's VASTLY more than the auctioneers' upper estimate. I'm disappointed not to have got it for RDFRS, but very pleased that such a document can generate such huge interest.

Don't worry, I suspect that in another hundred years or so we'll have Richard Dawkins letters going under the hammer for similar prices...

How much, I wonder, would an authentic Bertrand Russell original get? Or a Baruch Spinoza autograph? Or a piece of papyrus with the writings of Lucretius or Democritus on it? Much more, I suspect, than religious manuscripts would thanks to the rarity of antique atheist memorabilia.