speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/23/83)
It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them last week -- they are in New Guinea.) What argument? Did you READ the article? At any time did I say that humans do it exclusivly for making babies? In fact I stated the just the opposite. When I said that humans do it for fun, WHY DID YOU THINK I WAS REFERRING TO A HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP????? I was in fact referring to a HOMOSEXUAL relationship. Your lack of objectivity is showing. Do you really expect that the rats do? I said they "MAY" think they are procreating. Stop trying to force words down my throat. They may also be having a little fun. Can you honestly tell the difference between a homosexual rat and a rat that thinks it's procreating? And then you drone on and ON and ON about the idea of what is natural being derived from Genesis, etc, etc. You DIDN'T read my article DID you? Why must you always lower every conversation to Laura Creighton's personal crusade against the bible? I don't give a fuck about your repressed hatred. You state... "And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality." I have made NO arguments against anyone. I have said NOTHING of morality. I have NOT envoked the bible. These are all YOUR words... YOU eat them. -- - Bessie the Hellcow speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/25/83)
<Laura> It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them last week -- they are in New Guinea.) <speaker> What argument? Did you READ the article? At any time did I say that humans do it exclusivly for making babies? In fact I stated the just the opposite. yes, that was what I got out of your argument. This, however, was only the first part of mine, which you chose to split so clumsily. But, (for the readers of net.flame who didn't see the original) lets see what you did say: Let's be very carefull when we make comparisons between humans and animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Humans do it for fun. The animals may very well think that they are procreating and just have their wires crossed. One expects odd behavior from rats if they are placed in an overcrowded environment... an 'unatural' environement if you will. On the other hand, many animals (rats too) can learn to modify their behavior if the reward is some sort of pleasure. Laura's story about the bull on her uncle's (?) farm is an example that could be interpreted wither way. -- My argument is that if human beings have not caught on to "sex is for procreation" it is unreasonable to assume that the rats do. Thus the whole idea of: The animals may very well think that they are procreating (your words) is the sort of romantic nonsense that you get out of certain biology teachers who do not know genetics from a hole in the ground. Rats have itty-bitty tiny brains. I do not think that it is possible for them to know that they areprocreating. Which is what I said. When I said that humans do it for fun, WHY DID YOU THINK I WAS REFERRING TO A HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP????? I was in fact referring to a HOMOSEXUAL relationship. Your lack of objectivity is showing. What lack of objectivity? I'm the one that doesn't think that it matters from the point of view of the rat *what* he has sex with. You are the one that has to substantiate that the statement "has got their wires crossed" has any meaning for a rat. My claim is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are founded on this programmed "desire to procreate" for either rats or human beings. I am attacking the idea of "sex is designed for procreation". Do you really expect that the rats do? I said they "MAY" think they are procreating. Stop trying to force words down my throat. They may also be having a little fun. Can you honestly tell the difference between a homosexual rat and a rat that thinks it's procreating? Yes. the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination. Or it is a figment of some teacher of yours' imagination. This great myth has long standing in classrooms, but that does not make it any less a myth. And then you drone on and ON and ON about the idea of what is natural being derived from Genesis, etc, etc. You DIDN'T read my article DID you? Why must you always lower every conversation to Laura Creighton's personal crusade against the bible? I don't give a fuck about your repressed hatred. What I was proposing was a theory as to why this myth that you spouted could be so wide-spread. I expressed it as such. While you are at it you might want to look up the word "repressed" since you do not seem to understand its meaning. It is interesting that I have never said that I hate the Bible -- just that people use it to do all of their science for them. You state... "And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality." I have made NO arguments against anyone. yes, but this is long after I have proposed that "natural" expressed as a "programmed to procreate" is a remnant of Genesis teaching. If it is not, then you are left explaining where it came from, but if it is, then the whole word "natural" should be replaced by "moral" since that is the real topic of discsussion. Why so sensitive? I'll bet that you read the whole article i wrote once, didn't see the break in the argument from the illogic of what you said to why it is interesting, and decided to roast me. Not that you will let me collect on that bet, though... I have said NOTHING of morality. Aha, but I think you have. You may not have used such words, but if you defend the "rats think that they are procreating" position then you are expressing a view on "why animal sex is moral" -- even if you do not recognise this argument. I have NOT envoked the bible. No, I did, as an explanation of where that funny belief you have could have come from. I did not say that you went out and looked up the Bible to get your beliefs. it is a widerspread belief which is taught in school with no evidence whatsoever to support it. This means that it has to come from some very well respected source which is shared by a lot of people. it also has to be in harmony with the beliefs of a lot of people. There are very few documents which can satisfy both of these requirements. There are other documents which support your myth (for instance, you can read it in Darwin's *Origin of Species*) but they do not have the same universal appeal. The American Declaration of Independance has had the same exposure in North America, but does not speak of procreation. These are all YOUR words... YOU eat them. I'd rather stand by them. Here they are again for those of you who missed them the first time: It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them last week -- they are in New Guinea.) Do you really expect that the rats do? However, it really outlines what it is that some people <note added today -- i didn't even say that you were one of those people as I am quite aware of how much garbage gets passed as truth in high school biology classrooms> mean by "natural". They mean that if you aren't going "rah rah procreate!" all the time, then your sex is unnatural. By that definition, I don't know a single heterosexual couple that counts as natural. Now where could this idea, not that the humans *ought* to be thinking of sex-as-for-procreation-only (an idea which isn't even in favour with the middle-of-the road Catholics in Toronto!), but that the animals *already are* have come from? Let me think. I may be wrong, but my hunch is that it comes from Genesis 1:22 -- the old "be fruitful and multiply bit". If this is so, then you have just defined "natural" to mean "in accordance with my interpretation of the Christian Bible". This sure isn't my definiton of the word natural, and I am sure that it is not the one that most people use. I have a smaller definiton of "natural" than Tim Maroney's (for instance, if there were no wild colonies of rats that exhibited that lab behaviour, I would be willing to concede that that was not natural behaviour for rats) but not so small as to consist of somebody else' interpretation of his Holy Book. (By the way, lemmings exhibit homosexual behaviour every 7 (I think) years, under overcrowded situations. Of course they are the same animals that every seven years "swarm" <much like bees> to form new colonies due to overpopulation. In lemming swarms, there is a lot of dinners provided for the Arctic foxes and wolves, and a lot of lemmings simply dive into the ocean and start swimming for the other side. They drown, leading people to beliefs of lemming mass suicides.) Now. If you want to argue about "correspondance to my interpretaion of Holy Book X", that is fine. BUT -- not in net.motss, which is read by a lot of people who don't care about "Holy Book X". And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/04/83)
<laura> My argument is that if human beings have not caught on to "sex is for procreation" it is unreasonable to assume that the rats do. Thus the whole idea of... And just WHERE do you see the words "sex is for procreation" in my article? The article that started this (possibly rene's) implied that because rats have natural homosexual tendencies, there's no reason why humans shouldn't. Read my comments on this article again and you'll find that I neither agreed nor disagreed with the statment. Rather, I urged caution in making sweeping judgements. Look at your argument again Laura. Are you saying that something is necessarily unreasonable because humans have not caught onto it? Does this mean that it is unreasonable for rats to eat their young because humans don't? I find this kind of thinking unreasonably anthrocentric. In fact, the burden of proof is upon you for stating that it "doesn't matter from the point of view of the rat *what* he has sex with." This is equivelent to saying that you know *why* rats have sex. What verifiable evidence can you produce that substantiates this sweeping statement? You state that "the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination." What evidence do you have to support your thesis that a rat will ONLY choose to have sex when he wants a little pleasure? You also claim that a rat has a teeny-tiny little brain that probably doesn't know if it's procreating or not. Well I can argue the same about a rat that "decides" to have sex with another rat. And besides... sex has nothing to do with brain size. My claim is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are founded on this programmed "desire to procreate" for either rats or human beings. I am attacking the idea of "sex is designed for procreation". Fine. You'll have to show that this is true for every species from planaria to man. In fact you won't be able to prove "sex is not designed for procreation" because all of the hardware in question was designed for procreation. I suggest you rephrase your statement to something like "animals do not always f_ck for procreation"... there is a distinct difference between design and usage. And where in my original article do you see the words "desire to procreate" or "sex is designed for procreation" anyway? This is why you aren't being objective. You've decided in your own imagination which side of the fence I'm on. Yes. the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination. Or it is a figment of some teacher of yours' imagination. This great myth has long standing in classrooms, but that does not make it any less a myth. This "teacher of mine" exists in your own imagination. This "great myth" does too. Before criticizing my background and making more sweeping judgements I suggest that you get to know more about what you are talking about. Especially me, if you want to talk about my background. Since when did you become an expert on my beliefs? What I was proposing was a theory as to why this myth that you spouted could be so wide-spread. Rhetoric. At no time did I state that "rats always have sex to procreate." Your theories are totally invalid because they are based on assumptions (i.e. these imagined "beliefs" of mine) and not facts. While you are at it you might want to look up the word "repressed" since you do not seem to understand its meaning. My, aren't WE on our high horse tonight?! yes, but this is long after I have proposed that "natural" expressed as a "programmed to procreate" is a remnant of Genesis teaching. If it is not, then you are left explaining where it came from, but if it is, then the whole word "natural" should be replaced by "moral" since that is the real topic of discsussion. I am left doing neither since I never proposed that procreation be the only use for sex. The difference between natural and moral is indeed the topic of discussion and I suggest that you pursue that line. You'll find that the word natural drops out of the argument and that the question of "is homosexuality okay" is a moral one. Why so sensitive? I'll bet that you read the whole article i wrote once, didn't see the break in the argument from the illogic of what you said to why it is interesting, and decided to roast me. Actually, I always type 's' and let these sort of discussions hang around in my directory a while. That way I can ponder over a period of days (yes, sometimes I never send them). Not that you will let me collect on that bet, though... You may collect upon any bet that you can win. I did, as an explanation of where that funny belief you have could have come from. Funny beliefs belong in net.jokes.beliefs. -- - Bessie the Hellcow speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/09/83)
real long response to ucmp-cs!speaker. Sorry folks, but if I compress a belief and do not quote it exactly, ucmp-cs!speaker denies that it exists, so I have to quote the whole lot... <laura> My argument is that if human beings have not caught on to "sex is for procreation" it is unreasonable to assume that the rats do. Thus the whole idea of... <speaker> And just WHERE do you see the words "sex is for procreation" in my article? I am getting tired of this. I quoted that the last time, and I will do so again, but you are going to have to learn that direct quotes come in indented paragraphs and idea-blocks often get quotation blocks. this is for the people who get sick of reading direct quotes again and again. they are going to have to suffer this one through (or hit their 'n' key....) Here is your original quote: The animals may very well think that they are procreating and just have their wires crossed. What I am arguing is that this sentence is the purest romantic bull. And this is an expression of the belief 'sex is for procreation'. You may not know that you have been sucked into this belief (in which case you are probably a fool) but that does not make the belief any less obvious. <speaker> The article that started this (possibly rene's) implied that because rats have natural homosexual tendencies, there's no reason why humans shouldn't. Read my comments on this article again and you'll find that I neither agreed nor disagreed with the statment. Rather, I urged caution in making sweeping judgements. Look at your argument again Laura. Are you saying that something is necessarily unreasonable because humans have not caught onto it? Does this mean that it is unreasonable for rats to eat their young because humans don't? I find this kind of thinking unreasonably anthrocentric. No, no, I am arguing that rats can't remember well enough to reason! Whatever 'reason' (if there is one) that rats have for behaving in any way does not involve them knowing that in 18 days (23days? i forget) there are going to be little rats. Rats do not have 18 day memories. Neither do other animals (well, I am holding out on the dolphins, whales and some primates) which is the classic way to tell an animal from a human. In fact, the burden of proof is upon you for stating that it "doesn't matter from the point of view of the rat *what* he has sex with." This is equivelent to saying that you know *why* rats have sex. No. All I am saying is that you cannot ascribe human memories and 'rational behaviour' to rats. Rats cannot do things for reasons, (though a human being viewing a rat can postulate that a rat had a reason for doing this, <such as, for instance "his body chemistry" or "pain avoidance" or "pleasure seeking">) but the reasoning in this case came from THE HUMAN BEING, not the rat. Thus from the point of view of the rat it really *doesn't matter* -- it only matters to human beings who are used to looking for a cause for every effect. (Why? well, it seems to work, and make the world easier to understand. Why can we understand? Well, we have this wonderful memory. But rats don't. Right, so rats can't reason, so rats do not do things for rat-reasons.) You state that "the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination." What evidence do you have to support your thesis that a rat will ONLY choose to have sex when he wants a little pleasure? You also claim that a rat has a teeny-tiny little brain that probably doesn't know if it's procreating or not. Well I can argue the same about a rat that "decides" to have sex with another rat. Yes. So would I. Note that the rat *does not know that it is procreating* does not mean "that the rat wants pleasure". You do not understand my thesis at all. If you do not get it after this longwinded try, i give up. What it means is that the knowledge of procreation either requires a brain of a sort that the rats do not have or the intervention of some supernatural force. The argument that "the rat wants a little pleasure", while still expressed in human terms, is a lot more plausible than your premise -- for you can train rats to do things for pleasure, while you cannot give them the 18 day memories. And besides... sex has nothing to do with brain size. But memory ability seems to have something to do with it... My claim is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are founded on this programmed "desire to procreate" for either rats or human beings. I am attacking the idea of "sex is designed for procreation". Fine. You'll have to show that this is true for every species from planaria to man. In fact you won't be able to prove "sex is not designed for procreation" because all of the hardware in question was designed for procreation. I suggest you rephrase your statement to something like "animals do not always f_ck for procreation"... there is a distinct difference between design and usage. No. design implies a designer, which is why I chose to phrse it that way. It is easy to prove that animals do not always fuck for procreation -- you just have to watch them for a while and wait to see when they make what would be 'a mistake' if they were always fucking for procreation. What I am attacking is quite specific -- the idea that all of the hardware in question was designed for procreation for you do not have a design without a designer (whose existance i doubt) and it makes as much sense as saying that "my mouth was designed for eating" thus ignoring that i can breathe and talk and do other things with it as well. It also ignores all the evidence of evolutionary adaptation. And where in my original article do you see the words "desire to procreate" or "sex is designed for procreation" anyway? This is why you aren't being objective. You've decided in your own imagination which side of the fence I'm on. No. I do not know what side of the fence you are on. But you are spouting bad science. You have several choices now. you can continue to misunderstand me. you can redefine what you mean by: The animals may very well think that they are procreating. you can say nothing. you could even apologise. you can abandon the biological evidence that organs are not "designed". Since this is rather well documented, you had better justify this one (start with the Panda's 'thumb' since it is well known). Since this is a large chunk of the evidence for evolution, you will be in good company, but definitely on one side of the fence. If you want to do this, will you let Larry Bickford do the 'against evolution' arguments? He is a lot better at it than you, and a lot more fun to argue with. We have been arguing for (i think) almost a year and a half now, and have agreed on very little but so far he has managed to keep from swearing at me. You don't sound like you are having any fun at all. Yes. the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination. Or it is a figment of some teacher of yours' imagination. This great myth has long standing in classrooms, but that does not make it any less a myth. This "teacher of mine" exists in your own imagination. This "great myth" does too. Before criticizing my background and making more sweeping judgements I suggest that you get to know more about what you are talking about. Especially me, if you want to talk about my background. Since when did you become an expert on my beliefs? I am rather well aquainted with the great north american myths, and you presented that one. Now it is possible that you developed this one independantly, but it is statistically unlikely, since it is a very common belief. I have been collecting widely believed ideas for a very long time. What do you think that a religion and philosophy major does? Note, i could have picked another one -- the principle of sufficient cause. This one goes "nothing arises unless it was caused by another". In short, this is the 'there must be a reason for this' belief. This one is even more widespread than your "reasoning rat with memory enough to believe that it is procreating". For instance, Gary Samuelson used it in his response to Richard Rosen, when he argued that either the universe always was, or something (someone?) had created it. And you expect me to use it to explain that the reason rats have sex is for pleasure. I doubt that you were ever taught that belief explicitly, but it is not a world-wide belief -- try Buddhist or Taoist philosophy for another one. (Actually, I think I will write a short article in net.religion about that one) While you are at it you might want to look up the word "repressed" since you do not seem to understand its meaning. My, aren't WE on our high horse tonight?! No, i am getting tired of arguing with a fool. You may think that you can pepper your prose with words like 'repressed' and get away with the attack value, but this will not work here. Calling my hatred for certain Christian beliefs 'repressed' shows that you do not understand the word. I wonder how many other one you have been using which you do not understand. perhaps you do not understand the phrase "think he is procreating" or "designed" either. In that case, I know where the problem is, but you need to read a dictionary, not talk to me. yes, but this is long after I have proposed that "natural" expressed as a "programmed to procreate" is a remnant of Genesis teaching. If it is not, then you are left explaining where it came from, but if it is, then the whole word "natural" should be replaced by "moral" since that is the real topic of discsussion. I am left doing neither since I never proposed that procreation be the only use for sex. The difference between natural and moral is indeed the topic of discussion and I suggest that you pursue that line. You'll find that the word natural drops out of the argument and that the question of "is homosexuality okay" is a moral one. At this point i begin to wonder if anybody ever reads what I write or if they just use it as an excuse to flame back? I have been saying that "is homosexuality ok" is a moral argument over this net for more than 2 years now. So presumably either the articles have been lost, or ucmp-cs!speaker has not read them, or cannot read them, or cannot comprehend them. If there are any of you out there who remember me saying that "is homosexuality ok" is a moral question, do you think that you could post a followup to this saying that you remembered this? I am sorry, but if this is indicative of most people's attention span then it is time for net.has.memory for those of us who can do better than that. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
elwell@cwruecmp.UUCP (Clayton Elwell) (12/12/83)
Laura, *** B R A V O ***
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/19/83)
I'm not sure what you're arguing about, but I'd like to point out one inconsistency in your arguments. There is no concrete proof that non-human forms of life either know or don't know what the act of sexual intercourse is, means or causes. We do know, however, that it is a natural (I'm being very cautious here, because there are always homosexuals, but on the whole of the mammalian population) tendency for mammals to choose a member of the opposite sex to mate with, for whatever reasons. So, it is superfluous to argue whether animals actually *know* what they're doing, one can only speculate. The fact that humans have language sort of gives us the idea that we are the sole judges of what is considered intelligence, cognition, comprehension etc. The roaches, rats and mice may just be laughing at us (remember HGttG?) --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds p.s. the Bible makes no attempt to distinguish man from the animals in terms of superiority of intelligence. Read Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 for this.
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/20/83)
The Bible may not distinguish between the intelligence of man and animals but Thomas Aquinas sure did. ANd if you do not know the influence that Thomas Aqiunas had in shaping what Christians actually believe then you have some reading to do... It may be that the rats are all thinking about quantum mechanics and just aren't saying anything about it. This just is unlikely to the point of absurdity. The speed of light may change tomorrow as well, but I'm not making any bets on it. For a rat to *know* that it is procreating, it would either have to be told (implying a supernatural force or language abilities in rats which have never been observed) or it would have to learn this fact by observation. The problem is that observation requires memory (you have to remember what you did 18 days ago) which the rats also do not demonstrate. if animals know that they are procreating, then they are keeping their brain-power a great secret. Given the way that they are treated this would be a feat that is to my mind more impressive thant he supernatural force postulated above. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
tim@unc.UUCP (12/22/83)
Laura, I recommend that you give up on this one. Anyone who does not have the rational ability needed to see that a creature with an attention span of less than a quarter of a minute cannot possibly make any sort of mental link between its immediate sexual activity and the giving of young a few weeks in the future is not about to be swayed by any amount of rational argument. My god, even some tribes of primitive humans have yet to make that connection! -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/22/83)
Let's move the discussion on procreating rats to another newsgroup please. Really! The things we must tolerate in net.religion. Paul Dubuc
spam@eneevax.UUCP (12/22/83)
Two things: unc!tim is right, quite a few *humans* (my emphasis) have yet to make the connection between immediate sexual activity and birth ~270 days later. Some tribes, however, advocate standing in tubs of HOT water for a few hours before having sex: germ cell production is reduced by heat in the human male. Question: how did they figure all that out? Also: I support the view that sex was created not only for reproduction, but to give the primitive men (and women?) an incentive to drag heavy items of food back to children too young to forage, and their pregnant/nursing mothers, who probably also stayed behind. Playboy had a rather amusing, but sexist article called "The Procreation Myth" a while back; has anybody else read it, or something similar? --Spam ..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!eneevax!spam
robison@eosp1.UUCP (12/26/83)
I will accept, as Spam says, that quite a few *humans* do not make the connection between intercourse and pregancy. That is, isolated *humans*, not tribes or organized social groups. I will accept the claim because it is impossible to disprove... - Keremath, care of: Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1 or: allegra!eosp1