Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Of course it should happen. It HAS to happen in a technologically based society. Do you want a mouthbreather flying the airplane?

If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.

How is an idiot going to be good at flying an airplane? It requires math skills. BAM auto discrimination.

@easysauce: I see your point. My only point was the 'discrimination' perhaps should occur because of results and actions rather than dispositions.

The people who can't get into college because of Fs....they can include people of very low and very high intelligence. Its the Fs that should be the determining factor, rather than the innate intelligence of the student, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Of course it should happen. It HAS to happen in a technologically based society. Do you want a mouthbreather flying the airplane?

If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.

How is an idiot going to be good at flying an airplane? It requires math skills. BAM auto discrimination.

People of low intelligence can still bunker down, study harder than their peers, and make successes of themselves in some cases. I'm not saying its common, but I'm saying its possible.

So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

Now you're getting into the Libertarian argument - aka government shouldn't have the authority to make the law that discriminates in the first place.

 Ouze wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....

You're gay.

So what.

Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?

I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?

Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.

Super simple stuff

It's a shame that they still need a role model for something like this. Perhaps "proud" is the wrong thing to say though? Wouldn't it of been better if he'd said "I'm not ashamed to be gay"? Or if asked about being gay reply, "yes I am and your point is what...?" I know the intent was noble, but it just comes across wrong to me.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

exaclty my point,

choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.

The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.


Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"

just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.

 easysauce wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

exaclty my point,

choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.

The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.


Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"

just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.

Why ruin paradise?

 easysauce wrote:
just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.

I honestly don't see why not. Who cares what two, three, four, or fifteen consenting adults do with their lives, so long as noone elses rights are being violated.

Count me in the camp of people who think that the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Just tax everyone as individuals, and lets put this mess behind us.

 easysauce wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

exaclty my point,

choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.

The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.


Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"

just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.

Yeah I think polygamy, polyamory and polyandry should be legal too.

 jasper76 wrote:

People of low intelligence can still bunker down, study harder than their peers, and make successes of themselves in some cases. I'm not saying its common, but I'm saying its possible.

I might be misunderstanding the definition of intelligence that you are using here, but I think that for all intents and purposes*, you can't really measure a difference between "well learned and motivated" and "naturally intelligent", at least, not in any sort of traditional academic environment. I've interviewed people who've graduated with honors that couldn't think their way through anything that wasn't in a textbook, and dropouts who probably could do things I wouldn't be able to do with a years of practice and learning.

* I had initially written intensive porpoises, but I don't think people would have realized it was ironic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

I honestly don't see why not. Who cares what two, three, four, or fifteen consenting adults do with their lives, so long as noone elses rights are being violated.

I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.

Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

Daedelus, I don't think I am grasping your point. Your first sentence seems to be saying that you can't measure a difference between "well learned and motivated" and "naturally intelligent", but then you stated that you personally have been able to tell the difference. I feel like I am missing something.

Sorry, doing multiple things at once. I'm trying to say that there's no easily quantifiable test to measure that. That was my subjective estimate of their intelligence; I couldn't assign a number or ranking to it that wouldn't have been equally subjective.

Really the second sentence was just me babbling about an anecdote I think about often.

 jasper76 wrote:

If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.

"Jesus, take the wheel" isn't a very safe way to travel

 daedalus wrote:


I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.

Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

again, choice has nothing to do with it, various poly sexual s ALSO have no choice in their preference, its also perfectly natural, and not socially destructive.

Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.

polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.

on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)



how many people would be applauding mr cook if he came out of the closet about wanting to be in a consensual relationship with two women? I suspect a lot of people would be calling him out as a bigot/sexist/misanthropist at that point.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.

"Jesus, take the wheel" isn't a very safe way to travel

Unless you live in Texas in which what you really meant to say was "Jesús puede usted conducir?" If Jesus can't then Hector probably can.

 easysauce wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.

Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

again, choice has nothing to do with it, various poly sexual s ALSO have no choice in their preference, its also perfectly natural, and not socially destructive.

Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.

polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.

on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)



how many people would be applauding mr cook if he came out of the closet about wanting to be in a consensual relationship with two women? I suspect a lot of people would be calling him out as a bigot/sexist/misanthropist at that point.

I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.

Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.

Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.

 easysauce wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.

Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.

Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.

Some animals pare bond, I don't think humans are meant to.
The idea to me seems odd and...crappy, do I really want to spend all that much time with one person?
I mean I'd rather polyamory then polygamy, I think it'd be happier for everyone, but needless to say the two person thing... not jumping out at me as the best way to go.

 easysauce wrote:

Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.

Assuming that whatever trait it may be that determines who gets the most mates is the same trait that is considered desirable. Also, that the desirable trait is one genuinely beneficial for society. I can think of at least one time where a detrimental physical attribute was considered the most desirable.

polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.

Well, certain genetic traits would be expressed far more frequently than others. This would also drastically curb genetic drift, as a given person has a drastically reduced chance of mating, as well as available options for mating. If you want to avoid inbreeding, it becomes even more difficult. You would see a homogenization of a populace over a long enough time, which is not healthy.

I kind of feel like you're assuming that you take western society, and drop in polygamy, and presume that it continues unchanged, when in reality it would drastically, and probably within a generation or so. For example, you're completely neglecting any possibility of this entire caste of disenfranchised people unable to find a mate. I don't think the haves and have-nots colliding would result in anything beneficial for society. Another good example is the fact that it would imbalance the effective value of one gender over the other, which would cause strange things to happen all over the place. I suspect that it would result in the return of marriage for favor and the like, but I might be a little doom and gloom.

on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)

Baring everyone deviating from their sexual preferences for the sake of survival of the species, or turning to artificial means, yeah.

daedalus...

factually, it would not lead to more homogenization or incest... or it already would have...


otherwise every single animal species that almost exclusively breeds the alphas and not the betas as a rule would be suffering from this sort of thing as well... and they simply are not.

you are missing that a large percentage of the animal kingdom works like this, where the alphas breed and the betas do not (or rarely do)...

by your reasoning, most insects should be extinct due to incest/lack of mates since generally only the queen even reproduces.

if insects can have a hundred thousand to one ratio or more of breeders to non without it destroying their genetics over millions of years, then humans going from 1-1 to 1-2 or 1-10 isnt a stretch at all, especially considering how much of our history has had such ratios.


either way, regardless of the "benefit" or detriment of the sexual preference to society,

its not a choice to be gay or poly-sexual, yet one is accepted, and one is not

its not ok to try to try to force people to stop being gay, but it is acceptable, and explicitly encouraged/enforced to stop people from being naturally poly-sexual

thats a double standard, we dont say no to gays because they cannot breed at all, so why is it ok to say no to poly-heterosexuals because they *might* (they dont) breed slightly worse then mono-heterosexuals?

can you at least see the double standard?

Pretending unlike things are similar doesn't make for a very good or compelling argument.

 Ahtman wrote:
Pretending unlike things are similar doesn't make for a very good or compelling argument.

Comparing the treatment of one sexuality to another sexuality, is going too far in ahtmans books I guess.

By your logic, If they out law apple juice and not orange juice, I cannot speak up for apple juice because its not "orange juice" they are totally different, orange juice can only be compared with itself.

So while it is true in that being gay is different from being poly-straight, they are both examples of sexuality, and comparable as such.


To add to that, no one was arguing, Dakka OT seemed to have a rare moment of people agreeing with one another that the general consensus seems to be good for mr cook, lets keep at making society better at accepting *all* sexualities, not just the more popular/familiar ones like straight/gay as well (or a resounding "meh")

 easysauce wrote:

To add to that, no one was arguing, Dakka OT seemed to have a rare moment of people agreeing with one another that the general consensus seems to be good for mr cook, lets keep at making society better at accepting *all* sexualities, not just the more popular/familiar ones like straight/gay as well (or a resounding "meh")

Okay... time for me to stir the pot.

Compare to the reactions to Mr. Cook's "announcement" to Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich reaction.

*note: I applaud Cook's action, but I also had a collective *so what" response. Mr. Cook! Where's my Apple iWatch!

I think some people are reading into it in perhaps the wrong way. He's not saying he's proud of being gay as though it's some academic or physical achievement. He's making it clear that he's not ashamed of it and feels good enough about it to stand by it and not cover it up. You can be proud of other things about yourself that are not merely about achievement. You can be proud of your nationality or your race or gender. It carries more significance or importance when a person of some demographic that is a minority, especially one that suffers prejudice. For someone to say that they are happy and proud to be the sexuality they are, gives comfort and inspiration to those that are perhaps struggling. And it's pretty clear that there are still some very conservative, anti-gay attitudes and places in western countries where gay people still struggle to be open about it. Further, the more awareness of any minority educates others, there are many preconceptions and prejudices held about many minorities that only change by those in the public view.

Prominent public people can inspire and reassure others, I'm sure Obama is proud to be black, he's certainly not ashamed, and he must inspire many black people who feel they can achieve things unthinkable to their ancestors. But you can tell he's black just looking at him, he doesn't need to out himself as a black person to act as any sort of role model to black people. But prominent gay people are almost invisible unless they say so, they can't be a role model unless they out themselves. I don't think it reasonable that the reaction to someone declaring themselves gay is one of suspicion of an agenda and aggressively "so what?".

People lining up to say how little they care or make a fuss how it's not anything to be proud of or that doesn't deserve publicity, comes across as being churlish. I agree that as it isn't a major world event it doesn't deserve to be headlining, it isn't prominent on the BBC, but if it were then you should ask why something so benign gets so much publicity. If this wasn't worthy of note, then it wouldn't get reported at all. As long as people coming out (especially the case among sportsmen) as gay is still a 'thing', then it really isn't that normalised.

 whembly wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

a resounding "meh")

Okay... time for me to stir the pot.

Compare to the reactions to Mr. Cook's "announcement" to Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich reaction.

*note: I applaud Cook's action, but I also had a collective *so what" response. Mr. Cook! Where's my Apple iWatch!

Isnt that covered by the part where I say "a resounding meh" above?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Prominent public people can inspire and reassure others, I'm sure Obama is proud to be black,

Oh god... imagine if bush claimed he was "proud to be white"....

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Pretending unlike things are similar doesn't make for a very good or compelling argument.

Comparing the treatment of one sexuality to another sexuality, is going too far in ahtmans books I guess.

Not being monogamous is not the same as sexual orientation. Comparing straight to gay makes sense as they are both orientations. Comparing an orientation to a drive is not. That isn't comparing two different juices it is comparing a wheat stalk to Volvo.

 easysauce wrote:
logic

You should avoid using words you really don't understand.

 easysauce wrote:
So while it is true in that being gay is different from being poly-straight, they are both examples of sexuality, and comparable as such.

Except that wanting multiple partners has nothing to do with orientation, unless you grossly misunderstand both, which wouldn't be surprising.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?

exaclty my point,

choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.

The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.


Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"

just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.

Yeah I think polygamy, polyamory and polyandry should be legal too.

They are legal. Nothing stops you having multiple partners. If you are talking about polygamous marriages, that's a different thing. One good reason to not allow them are the huge issues it creates with taxation, inheritance, custody, next-of-kin, and more. It's all incredibly messy and actually very difficult to resolve. The other opposition of such arrangements is that traditionally they are seen as abusive or unequal relationships, that too is rather difficult to police.

I often see people saying 'but muh genetics' as if any argument like that could be so simple. We are socially and genetically evolved in complex ways which means you cannot say that humans are supposed to act a certain way or not. The same applies to homosexuality, the arguments that draw in genetics and evolution are frequently ignorant and ill thought out. It's best to respect personal preferences where possible in society on the basis of "what does harm", rather than attempt to justify behaviour or desires using borderline pseudo-scientific things in what is a very complex topic. Simply put, having read comments further above, it does not hold in population genetics that the 'most desirable' doing all the breeding is a good thing. Good/bad genes are often environmentally determined, if you force a bottle neck and things change, you can face extinction. One of the reasons we are perhaps more inclined to single-mating is the long maturation time and slow growth of our offspring requires long term investment by the male to ensure survival of progeny, this is complemented well by a rough 50:50 split in the gender population. Other species have a different gender balance, offspring production and time, that lends itself better to short term investment by the male. I'm not making a case for the validity of polyamory or not, but the rationale behind some of what is being proposed is not thought out.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.

i do not think he did it to be a role model. I believe he is a narcissist and wants the attention.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


They are legal. Nothing stops you having multiple partners. .

well, that used to be true for gays as well, nothing really stopped them from being gay, they just couldn't legally enjoy the same treatment under the law/taxes as straight married couples... so thats the whole point... if you are going to deny one orientation the right to marry as they see fit because its "too complicated and confusing" once could easily state that men getting married and there fore divorces, is too complicated as well, after all, who pays who alimony?


and its not just poly straight, there is poly gay, and bisexuality... plenty of people who just want a happy three person marriage where one person isnt some third wheel who always has no legal recourse to adopted children, tax or health benefits.



Ahtman, if you cant even be polite dont bother.

I don't think being poly- is an 'orientation', it's a lifestyle choice. Like a poly person I'm attracted to lots of people, other than the fact I choose to be monogamous, there is no difference. I can't choose to be gay because I'm not attracted to men.