So are you suggesting humans are animals?

Not much to say to that my friend i don't think we are animals and I'm pretty sure sex is for reproduction so a race can live on but what do i know. I guess purpose can be far from use.

anyway to far off the subject of the prom king and queen no more.

Crazynomad (talk)23:09, 3 June 2011

But we are animals. To deny that we are animals is to disregard the evolutionary history of our species, and to ignore our place in the natural world.

And "natural" human action—or animal action, for that matter—is not limited to whatever we need to do to survive. Kissing and hugging, for example, aren't essential to the survival of the human species, yet we do it all the time anyway. Would you call that unnatural?

Ragettho (talk)23:34, 3 June 2011

Its simple, not animals = ability to make choices and override emotions. so hung up on definitions.

"Social evolution" is responsible for hugging and kissing, it has a purpose which does have to do with survival. Think about it friend.

Crazynomad (talk)23:12, 6 June 2011

"ability to make choices and override emotions"

Like all intelligent mammals, then? Y'know, dolphins, apes, dogs etc.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:33, 6 June 2011

No self awareness haha, more nit picking please, its the best way to prove your right with out even arguing your side.

Crazynomad (talk)23:34, 6 June 2011

O RLY?

Prove to me you're self-aware. Prove I'm not a brain in a jar and that you - and my keyboard - aren't figments of my imagination.

(PROTIP: It's impossible - or, if it isn't, several centuries of philosophy have failed to do it.)

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:36, 6 June 2011

How do you prove anything? with logic and understanding. I think therefore I am. simple.

Crazynomad (talk)23:52, 6 June 2011

Cogito ergo sum. Main problem with that is it's quite a leap from 'I think' to 'I exist'. Also, I see little evidence of thinking here.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:58, 6 June 2011
 
 

I'm sorry, you were looking for an argument? A string of reasoned points that you could defeat and debunk?

Seems God, and the Bible, didn't prepare you for that – as delivered by Godless Wikinewsies.

Don't worry, you can stick your fingers in your ears, sing Ode to Joy loudly, and pretend non-theists equipped with logic, science, and facts are Satan's spawn.

Definitely preferable to admitting you're a member of the animal kingdom, isn't it?

Brian McNeil / talk23:54, 6 June 2011

You think im a follower of god? you are mistaken my friend.

Crazynomad (talk)23:57, 6 June 2011

I never claimed friendship with you; I tend to avoid people who're in self-denial. Unless, of course, they present themselves for sporting purposes on teh Intarwebz.

You're denying more than two hundred years of scientific research because it suits your argument for homophobia. You're arguing we, humans, are unique; special to the extent that we're not members of the animal kingdom.

Why don't you take a long enough walk to fall off the edge of the flat Earth you oh-so obviously live on?

Brian McNeil / talk00:07, 7 June 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 

Some people do resemble various forms of plantae or fungi (or in some cases bacteria), but yes, to be honest, they're animalia.

Pi zero (talk)23:34, 3 June 2011
 

Yup....animals all right: multicellular (check); heterotrophs (check), lacking cell walls (check). That should settle that issue.

Airheadmotorcycle (talk)19:16, 6 June 2011
 

"anyway[sic] to[sic] far off the subject... no more."

Translated:

"I'm badly losing this one so I'll arbitarily call a halt to it."

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)22:32, 6 June 2011

must we troll? *sigh* just trying to follow the rules/guidelines.

Crazynomad (talk)22:48, 6 June 2011

I'm sorry, I had no idea pointing out the truth when it hurts the intolerant idiots was considered trolling in your little world. Please forgive me, oh incorrect one.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)22:53, 6 June 2011

A lot of intolerance coming from someone who seeks tolerance. Makes me sad that people can't live up to their own standards.

Crazynomad (talk)23:26, 6 June 2011

<sniggers>

I seem to be tolerating you quite well; note that I a) haven't blocked you and b) have fought damn hard to make sure you have the right to say your piece here in the comments namespace.

Much as I have the same right to tear into it when it's a crock of shite.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:31, 6 June 2011

I love how your tone changed quick, fast and in a hurry after I posted that. :)

and hey I tear into things that seem to be a load of crap also, queers being one of them. *giggle*

Crazynomad (talk)23:41, 6 June 2011

I see no evidence of a change in tone; might I suggest trolling harder?

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:44, 6 June 2011

Who is the master here?

Crazynomad (talk)23:53, 6 June 2011

Master? I'm not into BDSM, sorry.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)23:56, 6 June 2011

I am starting to like you, Blood Red Sandman.

Crazynomad (talk)23:57, 6 June 2011

I guess I should, cautiously, take that as a compliment... Though many have been damned by faint praise by doing so.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)00:00, 7 June 2011
 

Surely there is an adult in the room that will call a halt to this silly baiting. Hopefully. It does not reflect well on anyone.

Mattisse (talk)00:00, 7 June 2011

Silencing a comments page? I think you'll find that to be major abuse of very powerful tools; grounds to have them removed.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)00:03, 7 June 2011
 

I would have to agree, whats the sport in that?

Crazynomad (talk)00:08, 7 June 2011
 

Surely there is an adult in the room who will call a halt to this silly baiting. It doesn't reflect well on anyone, IMO.

Mattisse (talk)00:01, 7 June 2011

I suggest that the "adult" merely step back and ceasing feeding into this ridiculous thread. It takes two to tangle.

Mattisse (talk)00:16, 7 June 2011

... surely you mean "it takes two to tango"? ;)

Ragettho (talk)00:19, 7 June 2011
 

No. Shan't!

This isn't a "room"; it is a very, very lightly moderated space for discussion arising from Wikinews articles.

If a frivolous argument in the Comments: namespace offends you, the answer is simple: don't read it.

Nobody who espouses homophobia, or classes homosexuals as sub-human, should be allowed to get away with it.

Brian McNeil / talk00:19, 7 June 2011

I was referring to the implied threat to block the poster (above in the threat). That combined with the baiting is unsavory.

Mattisse (talk)00:21, 7 June 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 00:30, 7 June 2011

What the 'fuck'?

"I'm not blocking you and I've fought to make sure policy prevents you being blocked" does not resemble "I'm gonna block you!" in any way, shape or form. I suggest you try reading. It helps.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)00:23, 7 June 2011

<shakes head>

The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing.

Brian McNeil / talk00:29, 7 June 2011
 

You brought up the issue of "blocking" above in the thread.

"I seem to be tolerating you quite well; note that I a) haven't blocked you and b) have fought damn hard to make sure you have the right to say your piece here in the comments namespace."

You are right that I have am sensitive to blocking, having been the target of blocking attempts at wikinews. Hopefully expressing my view on a comments thread will not make me a target again. Io even suggest that you would block someone for a thread poisons the atmosphere. This is my opinion. I am fearful here at wikinews, as I was nearly blocked for "disruption" and the blocking policy here is not clear. It seems to be up to admin discretization. A dangerous place for me, so I fear for others.

Mattisse (talk)00:33, 7 June 2011

"Nobody who espouses homophobia, or classes homosexuals as sub-human, should be allowed to get away with it"???? What does that mean?

Mattisse (talk)00:36, 7 June 2011

I would suggest paying more heed to my advice to butt out of a discussion where you're utterly out of your depth. I'd prefer that to bludgeoning you, again, with a clue-by-four and provoking a mass of WikiDrama.

Everyone else in this sparring discussion is coping; you aren't.

Brian McNeil / talk00:48, 7 June 2011
 

Your argument is directly contradicted by your quote.

I note an allusion above to a forensic psychiatrist; one cannot help but think watching you being cross-examined would be an interesting spectacle.

Upon which subject: I would rather think your sensitivity to the slightest mention of blocks likely has more to do with your en.wp block log than your en.wn record; which, post-meltdown, has been helpful.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)00:42, 7 June 2011

I don't know where the allusion to a forensic psychiatrist comes from. I am not one, if that is the issue. And comparing me to "Relatives of EssJay" is another nasty touch. An attempt to discredit me as only the "big bossman" can do. You don't know the story re my wp block log nor of my experiences there. I advise you to look into my actual editing history before you judge.

Mattisse (talk)00:50, 7 June 2011

Yes, yes I do know the story of your enWP block log - long and ignominious as it is. After your du-ramahz here, I asked, and followed through them in the history of your talk page.

I was asked to lay off you by another Wikinews contributor who you, apparently, told you were a forensic psychiatrist. I trust them to not have been lying; you, less-so by the second.

I will, one last time, reiterate some excellent free advice: "If you don't understand the Comments namespace on this project, steer well-clear of it". You're currently firing off more footbullets than a Scientologist on Oprah; pretty soon you won't have a leg to stand on.

Brian McNeil / talk01:02, 7 June 2011

Well, Brian, you have made it clear from the beginning that I am not welcome here, despite my output of quality articles and rescuing and the fixing a multitude of others. You get to decide who stays here and who does not. I have stopped writing articles, and have recently stepped in to fix up a few. But I will stop that also. I never told anyone I was a forensic psychiatrist. I am not a psychiatrist. Please provide evidence that I have said anywhere that I am a psychiatrist. It is quite obvious that your mission was to sabotage me here. I guess that gives you pleasure to drive off well meaning contributors. You have succeeded quite well. You are a success.

Mattisse (talk)01:13, 7 June 2011

Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.

Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice. In no way did I set out to sabotage you contributing here. I offered some advice and you chose to completely misinterpret it, splattered recent changes with churlish whining that I was persecuting you to the point of a breakdown, and somehow this is all my fault? I can't take responsibility for your inability to deal with reality.

I'm not accepting that your accusations have any merit whatsoever. You demonstrate the reading comprehension failing perfectly above; no "normal" person would interpret BloodRedSandman's remark about not blocking as a threat, you did. You've obviously taken on-board tho idiocy from one or two other Wikipedians who've disagreed with myself, and you're running with it.

Perhaps, gasp!, I'm another tentacle of the mass conspiracy that outed your socks on Wikipedia, forced you to ArbCom sanctions you couldn't adhere to, and - eventually - saw you permanently blocked for your actions; why, it's like something out of an X-rated Manga cartoon!

I can't believe someone had the nerve to try and tell me you're supposedly twice my age. You certainly don't act it, you've had a sense-of-humour bypass, and you're so over-sensitive that I'd be unsurprised if you accused someone in the same train carriage as you with flatulence of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Someone, please, pass the Brussels sprouts.

Brian McNeil / talk01:38, 7 June 2011

Thanks Brian for you kind and encouraging words. I will leave wikinews. ArbCom did not sanction me at wp. They were still considering the parameters of my mentoring when I was blocked by a vested editor. You are misinformed, just as you are misinformed that I have said I am a forensic psychiatrist. I am not a psychiatrist.

I was blocked by an invested admin (who has since ceased editing) on wp. I was wrong to use sockpuppets there, but I never harmed an article, vandalized, personally attacked anyone, etc. If you actually look at my editing there, you will see that I was an excellent editor, reviewed hundreds of articles for FAC and GAN and was blocked because I alienated a particular editor who others are afraid to stand up against. All of the admins involved in blocking me were vested; none were disinterested. There are many more editors on wp that respect me. I urge you to look through my editing history, including the sockpuppets and find any bad edits I made. I know I made a bad error in using sockpuppets, but most of the sockpuppets did little or no editing (most of them being others using my computer). The few that did significant editing, did nothing to harm articles but only improved them. FAC and GAN are hurting for reviewers now that I am gone and my copy editing skills are no longer rescuing articles and pushing them through FAC and GAN.

But you are right, of course and I will leave wikinews as you have made it clear your distaste of me. I am sorry not to remain to allow you to use me as a target for you "witicisms.

Mattisse (talk)01:49, 7 June 2011

Here we go with the "other people using my computer" shtick. It didn't wash with ArbCom on enWP, it doesn't wash with me, nor will it do so with a community of critical-thinking journalists.

Your account of history does not tie with the actual edit history on enWP. You're still shouting "I did nothing wrong"; and, you know what? I didn't even look at your Wikipedia history until you went into hysterics that I was part of the same Cabal you are, once again, claiming unjustly ran you off enWP.

In any case, you'd not be screaming "I'm leaving", and sashaying out the door again if you had not been daft enough to try and come to the defence of a homophobe.

Brian McNeil / talk02:04, 7 June 2011
 
 

Merely in the interests of clarity: diff.

Pi zero (talk)01:57, 7 June 2011

Is it really true that no one knows the difference between an psychologist and a psychiatrist? Gasp! Not even the esteemed bossman who knows everything? Perhaps some at wikinews need to read more carefully. Anyway, I'm gone. Not worth the energy Pi zero and others are taking to try to discredit me.

Mattisse (talk)02:08, 7 June 2011

I've met plenty psychologists, and psychiatrists, in my time. Lady, you're neither. No remotely competent psychologist would dig themselves as deep a hole as you have, nor utterly misinterpret the written word to the extent you have.

On the basis of your performance here, you wouldn't last past ninety seconds of questioning in court by a good lawyer.

You write good copy, I'll give you that. But, that's it. You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies.

Come back when I've used up the last six of my nine lives. You can copyedit my obit.

Brian McNeil / talk02:28, 7 June 2011

Could you possibly be wrong? I do have a license and many years of graduate school, internships, and experience from a successful practice. I can prove if to a trustworthy person if you like, as my work, license etc. is public. Thanks for encouraging me to go. "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies." OK. I can say the same of you. But, of course, you are the bossman, so the correctness or misinformation you produce is never up to scrutiny. I have been told by those on wp that this was the case, and that everyone at wikinews was afraid to stand up to you. I guess you are saying good riddance to me. Unfortunately for wikinews. You have how many editors actually writing articles now? Five? Or am I exaggerating. The fact that you produce nothing except nasty put downs is good, I guess. No articles from you on a daily basis. Just your obvious self satisfaction at what you consider cleverness. It's pathetic, but so goes wikinews. Have you ever considered that much of what you post is pure self indulgence and not worth wading through to see if there is any actual useful information in your "cleverness"? Good bye.

Mattisse (talk)02:52, 7 June 2011
 
 

Oh dear, oh dear!

I've not got a defective memory! We've got a Wendy Mitty here.

Brian McNeil / talk02:13, 7 June 2011
 
 
 

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts."

Seems a pretty good explanation to me. You are not our first to come here in disgrace from Wikipedia; and, if not disgraced from it, we have many good users at least alienated by it. The option is available to work up a fresh reputation here; it's been done before.

However, asking for censorship of the comments namespace - and what you sought is self-censorship - is not a great way to gain respect in a news organisation where the freedom is of critical importance. It would be wrong to deny those with unsavoury fiews the chance to defend themselves; and just as wrong to deny the chance to respond in kind.

Since it was the entire log you accused me of not knowing the contents of, and not merely the present block, I feel obliged to point to pieces like "The community will no longer be entertaining your comments and queries," "per original warning and unapologetic response" and "sockpuppetry despite previous warnings." Everything I need to understand is given in the log, which is why the log exists. If I were called upon to review the measure put in place - indef block - I would come out in favour of it.

If you protest it, then working here and other sister projects can be used to show you've turned the corner. One indef-blocked Wikipedian became a wonderful asset to Wikinews and saw that block lifted as a result. However, I would caution you've more work to do than them to reach that stage.

Good luck.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)01:23, 7 June 2011

I have written 60 published articles here since February 20 when I started here and improved for publication numerous others. Not good enough I'm afraid, even though it is more that most have done in several years, and not worth the nastiness here, the snarky remarks and the comparison with Essjay. I appreciate you efforts, Blood Red Sandman, but no one like to work in a nasty atmosphere. Thank you for your kind words, but it is not worth being ridiculed here, when I have tried to do my best.

Mattisse (talk)01:40, 7 June 2011

What's up with this... thing, may I ask?

アンパロ Io ti odio!01:58, 7 June 2011
 

You are in the one namespace set up purely to allow totally unrestrained comments. It is perhaps inevitable that when you enter a heated thread asking for censorship, one will encounter hostility. Such can be trivially avoided by avoiding this namespace.

Despite some gaffes - here and previously - I am quite convinced that you are an intelligent lady. Notice beavering away upon articles has brought disagreements, but no trouble. I'd advise you to stay firmly in mainspace and slowly work your way back out, rather than the reverse.

This might give you the space to address such problems as have led to your blocking. Take this if nothing else: Those who disagree strongly with you are not automatically out to get you. Approaching issues as if they are may change that.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)02:05, 7 June 2011

Yes, I will remain in Comments, as honest discussion is not tolerated at wikinews. If Brian generously pointed out ways I could improve, I would welcome it. But when he uses me as a target of his snarky remarks, an opportunity to discredit and demean me and may comments about my supposed age, that does not create a an atmosphere that encourages open mined consideration. Sorry I won't be around to supply material for what he considers "witty" barbs. Perhaps the comments page is where I will remain; everywhere else at wikinews turns ugly and the pleasure of writing articles is gone for me. Not worth the rancid atmosphere that Brian prefers.

Mattisse (talk)02:15, 7 June 2011

And I thank Pi zero for his helpful diff in another attempt to discredit me. I wish everyone at wikinews would spend a little more time in actually looking at my performance regarding writing and editing articles, and less time trying to catch me in a lie. Hope you get it now, Pi zero: psychologist and psychiatrist are not the same.

Mattisse (talk)02:18, 7 June 2011

And to Brian bossman, whose comment I cannot find in this thread:

Could you possibly be wrong? I do have a license and many years of graduate school, internships, and experience from a successful practice. I can prove if to a trustworthy person if you like, as my work, license etc. is public. Thanks for encouraging me to go. "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies." OK. I can say the same of you. But, of course, you are the bossman, so the correctness or misinformation you produce is never up to scrutiny. I have been told by those on wp that this was the case, and that everyone at wikinews was afraid to stand up to you. I guess you are saying good riddance to me. Unfortunately for wikinews. You have how many editors actually writing articles now? Five? Or am I exaggerating. The fact that you produce nothing except nasty put downs is good, I guess. No articles from you on a daily basis. Just your obvious self satisfaction at what you consider cleverness. It's pathetic, but so goes wikinews. Have you ever considered that much of what you post is pure self indulgence and not worth wading through to see if there is any actual useful information in your "cleverness"? Good bye. Mattisse (talk)02:52, 7 June 2011

Mattisse (talk)02:55, 7 June 2011

Whoa this kind of exploded huh. To get roughly back on topic; I think the main issue here is the definition of the word 'natural'. to quote crazynomad

"Simply put gays = unnatural or, are missing something in their DNA which normally would be removed by natural selection, a mutation."

Let us just assume for the sake of argument that this was the case and homosexuality was a genetic mutation, this would still be 'natural' since genetic mutations and alterations are the basics of evolution. (which kind of suggests that it is NOT genetic since by definition these mutated genes would not be passed on via reproduction).

Crazynomad also distinguishes humans from animals by suggesting our consiousness and ability to override instinctive emotions elevates us above animals. Again for the sake of argument let us accept this distinction - this poses several problems chief amoung which are (1) This suggests that homosexuals naturally are attracted to the opposite sex but use their human abilities to choose to opt for same sex partners (assuming crazynomad means the act is unnatural and not the actual people which would be clearly proposturous [sp]) OR if homosexuals are getting impulses for same sex partners they should force themselves to seek opposite sex partners (which would result in a miserable life and since it would contradict an impulse of the body would be by Crazynomads definition 'unnatural' in itself, which seems to be not what we ought to be condoning.)

I think there is more to life than reproduction because, as crazynomad says, all evidence suggests we have a more encompassing consciousness than other animals but are still bound by the same chemical and psycological mechanisms of our evolutionary past; this means we tend to do what makes us feel good AND WHAT COULD BE MORE NATURAL THAN THAT?

Mcchino64 (talk)13:20, 7 June 2011

Feeling good is presumably something our selfish genes have found (metaphorically speaking) is in their best interest.

It's very easy for things like homosexuality to not get weeded out of the gene pool by the mere fact that homosexuals themselves don't reproduce (to the extent that's even true). There are recessive genes, and there are interactions of genes. Considering how much homosexuality there is around, it seems likely that a certain percentage of homosexuality in the population is, in fact, in the best interests of our selfish genes. (Of course, it could simply be an evolutionarily tolerable side-effect of other things that are in the genes' best interest; that's not my first guess, though.)

Pi zero (talk)14:17, 7 June 2011

Rather than attempting to reconcile homosexuality in terms of genetics (which I am in no way qualified to do of course) I was attempting to suggest that even if it were completely due to nature rather than nurture as was suggested - this by definition would not be unnatural as was also suggested, in a context where unnatural = bad and natural = good, as was implied by the very first post.

Then all hell broke loose and the discussion got way off topic.

CrazyNomad developed the idea of homosexuality as unnatural and his/her apparent disdain for such things by mentioning men with bare ass leather chaps strutting around his/her town. I think this is more an argument for better regulation of indecent exposure laws rather than anything to do with homosexuality (open and flambuoyant homosexuals being only the most obvious members of a diverse gay community).

To get even more back on track I think this story is especially newsworthy because of the image the USA has at least from my perspective in the UK. Such a large percentage of US TV shows are either fundementally based in or heavily insinuate core christian family values, which do not leave much room for 'alternative' lifestyles such as homosexuality. So for a group of highschoolers to elect a gay prom couple seems pretty sensational. (assuming it wasn't somehow done ironically)

Mcchino64 (talk)16:00, 7 June 2011

I did notice the all hell that broke loose, yes. :-)

Does the US really come across that way in the UK? There may be some skewed appearances in both directions, due to which TV shows get exported. There's also some tendency to avoid producing TV shows that the religious fundamentalist loonies will complain about, though that tendency is rather uneven I think. I've always thought of Maine as rather conservative (by New England standards, anyway), so I'm glad to hear their young people have their heads screwed on right after all. Now, if only young people in the Bible Belt showed that level of clue; I suppose that'd be doubly difficult, though, because they'd have to both have clue and be allowed to show it.

Pi zero (talk)17:13, 7 June 2011

Just remember, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass". :P

Brian McNeil / talk18:48, 7 June 2011
 

mcchino64 you make very good points, and pi zero you have my idea right about the genetics aspect.

The reason i dislike gays is because of all the people i have met who are gay. They turn out to be bi-sexual, drug users and, overall, honor less. all of these reasons have become social acceptable so most people don't understand my distaste and say its just homophobia like the fools they are.

I find it necessary to figure out the source of all things to fully understand it which is why I have concluded, until proven other wise, that being gay has to be either a choice, recessive gene, or protein mutation.

I have no idea what happened above but I feel sort of responsible for it so I am sorry. Why can't we be friends? <3 :)

Crazynomad (talk)19:06, 7 June 2011

It is my impression although admittedly completely from either fictional shows or documentaries, I have never been to the US.

I'm certain it's to do with the more secular culture of the UK. I get the impression that biggots in the UK would hate gays because they're 'not right' but with no real religious undertones. As an atheist in middle England I probably have a skewed view - but nobody bats an eyelid when they say they're an atheist in the UK. I read a social study (it may even have been on wikinews) that suggested that atheists in the US are as unpopular if not more unpopular than muslims homosexuals and other potential minority groups. From this I concluded that homosexuality in the US, as atheism, is frowned upon as an affront to god.

I'm not suggesting that the US is more biggoted, but perhaps the predjudice stems from religious reasoning.

Mcchino64 (talk)08:35, 9 June 2011

Religion performs an evolutionarily useful function in the human psyche: We've evolved instincts that presumably promoted our selfish genes but that contradict each other, and our rational minds don't like the contradiction. We have a moral instinct to be good to other human beings, but we also have an instinct to hate those different from us. Religion provides a solution, by claiming that all morality comes from God, and God says we should hate those who are different from us. Naturally, in order for religion to be evolutionarily successful, religions should exhibit similar morality/xenophobia toward other religions. For a religion, atheism is the ultimate foreigner.

Pi zero (talk)12:11, 9 June 2011

However we are not in a life or death situation anymore so (at least many of us) can override any instinctive suspision of all things foreign i.e. a gay couple at high school aren't going to wipe out the straight kids thus they've been accepted.

It seems simplistic to me to suggest however that evolution acts to concentrate selfish genes - depending on the definition of selfish. Evolution can develop traits that are markedly unselfish, such as the poison in certain frogs - which might not aid an individual frog from being eaten but will protect the species as a whole.

I wonder also whether traits may develop which offer no advantage to the species but that also offer no distinct DISadvantage and thus may be allowed to progress. This could be a route through which any genetic susceptibility to homosexuality could travel (again I'm ignorant of where the scientific world stands on nature vs nurture as far as homosexuality goes)

Mcchino64 (talk)13:35, 9 June 2011

The term selfish gene does not refer to genes for selfish individuals. It means that the genes themselves evolve in a way that promotes the "selfish" best interests of the genes. This is in opposition to the (erroneous) idea that evolution favors individual organisms that are most fit to survive, or that it favors communities that are most fit to survive. The genes are the "replicators", the things whose relative success drives evolution; organisms, and communities of organisms, are just vehicles for the genes. Our genes have "learned" that they can promote their own propagation by inducing the creation of these amazing tools — us. All the genes "care" about is that they, the genes, are propagated; sometimes that is is promoted by creating vehicles that survive well, sometimes by creating vehicles that are very fragile but very prolific, and sometimes it's in the best interests of the genes that individual organisms sacrifice themselves for others. What all these have in common is that they benefit the genes, regardless of the welfare of individual organisms. Hence the metaphorical use of the word "selfish".

Pi zero (talk)14:39, 9 June 2011
 

for reference, the abstract of a 2010 article in the JOurnl of Sexual Medicine


Introduction.: Debate continues on whether or not male homosexuality (MH) is a result of biological or cultural factors. The debate persists despite the fact that these two sides have different abilities to create a scientific environment to support their cause. Biological theorists produced evidence, however, that these are not always robust. On the other hand, social theorists, without direct evidence confirming their positions, criticize, with good argument, methods and results of the other side. The aim of this Controversy is to understand the reasons of both perspectives. Methods.: Two scientists (R.B. and A.C.C.) with expertise in the area of biology of MH were asked to contribute their opinions. The nurture position is discussed by a third expert in sexology (J.B.). Main Outcome Measure.: Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature. Result.: The role of the Controversy's editor (E.A.J.) is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The two experts of the biological issue answer with their data to the questions: " Is male homosexuality partly explainable by immunology?" and " How is male homosexuality a Darwinian paradox?", respectively. Genetic and immunological factors, birth order, and fertility of relatives are largely discussed. Finally, the expert sustaining the idea that culture and experiences are important determining factors in sexual orientation used a psychosocial and holistic perspective to explain his position. Conclusions.: The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. © 2010 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Mcchino64 (talk)13:41, 9 June 2011
 

Religion is memetic; to people like myself, it is by-and-large a regressive meme.

Brian McNeil / talk14:21, 9 June 2011

I think religion is memetic only in the sense that species homo sapiens is genetic: people are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their genes, religions are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their memes. Telltale features of organsisms are that they have a lifecycle involving birth, death, and reproduction, and that the children resulting from reproduction carry on many of the replicators (in this case, memes) from their ancestors, including some preserved in recessive form. Here, you can see recessive memes in religion from, for example, all those passages in the Bible, or the Quran, that any particular sect may choose to "overlook".

Pi zero (talk)15:05, 9 June 2011