Marriage is under fire!!

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:52:12 GMT, "Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

If gays are allowed to marry, they won't be *gay* any more. Why do these
poor chaps want to have long faces, just as all of us married guys? Abolish
marriage all together, it is outdated.

Right! John Kerry married a billion dollars, and he still has a long
face.

John

 

[Kevin Aylward]

JeffM wrote:

Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves
...Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.
Don

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because
they hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a
twat by all mainstream psychologists today.
Kevin Aylward

Ignores the empirical evidence:

Nonsense.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=gay+porn+erections+latent+study+experiment

Like, a total of 9 links is "evidence". Just a quick look on
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html, itself shows a trivial
alternative explanation for that particular "study". Secondly, the study
has so little numbers that the results are completly meaningless. In
addition it takes a *lot* of effort to set up psychological studies that
mean anything at all dude. There can be 1000's of reasons for results.
One simply cant control all the varibles. The fact that most
"Psychologists" like to perpetuate their income with quackery to
unsuspecting layman is cause enough for Freud twatary to continue
indefinitely. For *every* psychological "theory", there is an equal and
opposite theory.

The *only* way to understand social and psychological behaviour, is one
based on darwinian evolution, as this, now get this, is why we have
social and psychological behaviour at all. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html. People hate gays
fundermentally because of the *tautology* "What is mostly observed, is
what replicates the most". The Gay memes/genes trivially don't replicate
as well as the heterosexual memes/genes, so we don't observe them much.
Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a trait
that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes, therefore it
makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be directed against traits
that do not maximise the numbers of those Replicators holding that trait
meme.

Sure, *some* anti-gay people might be repressed gays. So what. This has
nothing to do with a casual correlation. So, you must also believe then
that "gay supporting" people must *really* be closet heterosexuals, by
the same argument. Get real dude.

I claim that drinking milk leads to heroine use. You ask any heroine
addict, I bet you that 99.99% of them all started on milk.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves
...Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.
Don

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because
they hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a
twat by all mainstream psychologists today.
Kevin Aylward

Ignores the empirical evidence:

Nonsense.

Oh....and be sure to let me know when those queer haters are actually
caught giving BJ's to men.

Hint: As the CEO of Sun said, the only valid marketing survey is a
signed purchase order.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[andy]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:37:32 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a trait
that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes, therefore it
makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be directed against traits
that do not maximise the numbers of those Replicators holding that trait
meme.

for that to be true, wouldn't gay men have to pose some kind of threat to
the replicability of straight men's genes? but they don't.

Sure, *some* anti-gay people might be repressed gays. So what. This has
nothing to do with a casual correlation. So, you must also believe then
that "gay supporting" people must *really* be closet heterosexuals, by
the same argument. Get real dude.

I claim that drinking milk leads to heroine use. You ask any heroine
addict, I bet you that 99.99% of them all started on milk.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with
Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:37:32 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a trait
that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes, therefore it
makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be directed against
traits that do not maximise the numbers of those Replicators holding
that trait meme.

for that to be true, wouldn't gay men have to pose some kind of
threat to the replicability of straight men's genes?

Not really. Its a threat to the replicability of straight men's memes.
Human Replicators are a complex function of both memes and genes. Hate
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is an emotion that
is instigated by *both* external memes and internal genes. That is is,
what emotion is instigated for a particular environment is not strictly
hardwired. I discuss this in the aformentioned link e.g. killing the
killer of a killers killer. What emotion will be insigated? How could
this be hardwired?

Well replicated and selected meme
sets(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/memes.html) act to maximise
the population of all Replicators that that meme set can be copied to.
Since gays limit the direct potential to pass on memes to their own
offspring, and noting that offspring statistically preferentially copy
parents memes rather then general population memes (however slight this
preference may be), there will be at least a small advantage for meme
sets that allow copying to offspring Replicators in addition to the
general population replicators.

"What is observed mostly, is what replicates the most".

Life is pretty simple at the global view.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[andy]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:24:11 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:37:32 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a trait
that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes, therefore it
makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be directed against
traits that do not maximise the numbers of those Replicators holding
that trait meme.

for that to be true, wouldn't gay men have to pose some kind of
threat to the replicability of straight men's genes?

Not really. Its a threat to the replicability of straight men's memes.

only if they define their own straightness in terms of not-being-gay.

Human Replicators are a complex function of both memes and genes.

maybe. they (we) also have a self-reflexive consciousness and ability to
see them (our) selves as people-among-others. or something.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Don]

Biologically and anthropologically, gay genes have been successful because
during the vast majority of human evolution, humans have lived in small bands
of family groups. In many hunter/gathering societies, gay people have lived
with their siblings. The addition of a strong productive adult to the family
unit, without the increased demands of more offspring,increases the survival
rate of such families. The nieces and nephews of gay people have better
resources, and share the genes, although not always expressed, of the gay
relative.

 

[Rich Grise]

JeffM wrote:

Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves
...Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.
Don

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because they
hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a twat by
all mainstream psychologists today.
Kevin Aylward

Ignores the empirical evidence:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=gay+porn+erections+latent+study+experiment

Anybody who hates any group hates them because they hate the part of
their own self that the group is showing to them. They think if they
can kill all the $HATED, that they won't have to work so desperately
to keep the $HATED inside of them from exposing itself to the world.

Of course, they'll kill you before they'll admit to even _having_ that
$HATED part of themselves, let alone that they're being driven by it.

It's really quite straightforward Ab Psych 101.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

JeffM wrote:

Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves
...Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.
Don

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because
they hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a
twat by all mainstream psychologists today.
Kevin Aylward

Ignores the empirical evidence:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=gay+porn+erections+latent+study+experiment

Anybody who hates any group hates them because they hate the part of
their own self that the group is showing to them. They think if they
can kill all the $HATED, that they won't have to work so desperately
to keep the $HATED inside of them from exposing itself to the world.

Complete psycho babble drivel.

Of course, they'll kill you before they'll admit to even _having_ that
$HATED part of themselves, let alone that they're being driven by it.

It's really quite straightforward Ab Psych 101.

Yeah...right...

Look dude, your comments are simple unsupported, unverifiable
*assertions*. They are not based or derived from any coherent theory.
Its newspaper agony column twaddle. A decent theory may be said to
consist of a set of simply basic axioms, that results can be derived
from. 101 Psych is here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/psychology.html. The theory
supporting this is here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don wrote:

Biologically and anthropologically, gay genes have been successful
because during the vast majority of human evolution, humans have
lived in small bands of family groups. In many hunter/gathering
societies, gay people have lived with their siblings. The addition of
a strong productive adult to the family unit, without the increased
demands of more offspring,increases the survival rate of such
families. The nieces and nephews of gay people have better resources,
and share the genes, although not always expressed, of the gay
relative.

This is certainly a valid argument, in principle. It is akin to the self
sacrifice of related gene stock, i.e. a few sacrificing themselves allow
much more of the same type to survive. However, I am not personally
convinced in any way that such "gay genes" postulated advantage really
do outweigh the negatives. It would make more sense for the sterile case
to evolve, which does actually occure. So, no I don't really accept
that such an argument here is actually the case. Of course, to prove
this would require detailed models of gene and meme populations, which
I'm not about to do this at the moment

My current opinion is that gayness is more about contineously newly
generated gene mutations (and maybe memes), then by well selected and
replicated genes posited to have long term advantages.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:24:11 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:37:32 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a
trait that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes,
therefore it makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be
directed against traits that do not maximise the numbers of those
Replicators holding that trait meme.

for that to be true, wouldn't gay men have to pose some kind of
threat to the replicability of straight men's genes?

Not really. Its a threat to the replicability of straight men's
memes.

only if they define their own straightness in terms of not-being-gay.

Err... pardon? Not being gay, means either being heterosexual, or not
sexual at all. Either way it excludes any concept of being gay, by
definition.

Human Replicators are a complex function of both memes and genes.

maybe.

No maybe about it.

they (we) also have a self-reflexive consciousness and ability
to see them (our) selves as people-among-others. or something.

I don't understand your point here. Conscious awareness is a VDU. It has
no control over any action we take. The electrochemical machine (brain)
does all the work, and simply reports this to what we call consciousness
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html).

Awareness is not an illusion, however, the idea that there is an "I"
that has any ultimate control over our actions is an illusion
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html).

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

JeffM wrote:

bastardy wasn't so much
about stigmatization as it was about succession (for royalty)
and property dispersal (for everyone).

That makes me think about how most folks think
that celibacy for clerics is in Catholic scripture
when the fact is that it wasn't an issue
until Rome realized that priests were leaving property to their children.
The Vatican wanted all of it.

Good example. There's no succession issue because
"priestness" is granted, not inherited (at least in
Catholicism) and therefore any offspring of a priest is, by
both my sloppy definitions above, a bastard.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Kevin Aylward]

JeffM wrote:

bastardy wasn't so much
about stigmatization as it was about succession (for royalty)
and property dispersal (for everyone).
Mark L. Fergerson

That makes me think about how most folks think
that celibacy for clerics is in Catholic scripture
when the fact is that it wasn't an issue
until Rome realized that priests were leaving property to their
children. The Vatican wanted all of it.

That's an interesting argument. I think there are some flaws with it
though. In principle, why would the priests have more private property
then non-priests? Surely, priests only have *use* of church owned
property, and would therefore not have been able to pass that property
on to offspring anyway.

I think a better argument for celibacy is the meme argument. Celibacy
simply gives more time to pass on the religion meme to others, hence
maximises the religion meme set. Church do-gooders can spend an awful
lot of time away from their families. Family responsibilities can form a
significant impediment to external church work.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:50:29 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote:

JeffM wrote:

bastardy wasn't so much
about stigmatization as it was about succession (for royalty)
and property dispersal (for everyone).

That makes me think about how most folks think
that celibacy for clerics is in Catholic scripture
when the fact is that it wasn't an issue
until Rome realized that priests were leaving property to their children.
The Vatican wanted all of it.

Good example. There's no succession issue because
"priestness" is granted, not inherited (at least in
Catholicism) and therefore any offspring of a priest is, by
both my sloppy definitions above, a bastard.

Mark L. Fergerson

The Borgias turned Catholicism into a family business.

John

 

[JeffM]

bastardy...was about succession (for royalty)
and property dispersal (for everyone).
Mark L. Fergerson

celibacy for clerics...
Rome realized that priests were leaving property to their children.
JeffM

why would the priests have more private property then non-priests?
Kevin Aylward

I'm not sure how "more" got into this.

priests only have *use* of church owned property,
and would therefore not have been able
to pass that property on to offspring anyway.

I think that was exactly the point--possession being 9/10,

Rome being far away (in many cases), and all that.

a better argument for celibacy is the meme argument.
Family responsibilities
can form a significant impediment to external church work.

OTOH, having to deal with his own family's problems

gives a cleric insight and empathy that he wouldn't otherwise have.

 

[andy]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:14:07 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:24:11 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:37:32 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


Its that simple. "Hate"
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html) is just a
trait that has evolved to maximise the numbers of memes/genes,
therefore it makes perfect evolutionary sense for hate to be
directed against traits that do not maximise the numbers of those
Replicators holding that trait meme.

for that to be true, wouldn't gay men have to pose some kind of
threat to the replicability of straight men's genes?

Not really. Its a threat to the replicability of straight men's
memes.

only if they define their own straightness in terms of not-being-gay.

Err... pardon? Not being gay, means either being heterosexual, or not
sexual at all. Either way it excludes any concept of being gay, by
definition.

I meant something like - if the 'meme' you are talking about is 'straight
men are good/ok; gay men are bad/evil; i'm not gay so I must be ok', then
gay men are a threat to that. But if someone doesn't see it that way, then
the existence of gay men needn't be any threat to that person's beliefs.

Human Replicators are a complex function of both memes and genes.

maybe.

No maybe about it.

depends if you want to call beliefs/values 'memes' - that carries a whole
load of other associations beyond just the idea that people's character
and behaviour is a product of both their genetic inheritance and later
social influences.

they (we) also have a self-reflexive consciousness and ability
to see them (our) selves as people-among-others. or something.

I don't understand your point here. Conscious awareness is a VDU. It has
no control over any action we take. The electrochemical machine (brain)
does all the work, and simply reports this to what we call consciousness
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html).

you're stating this as fact, but it's only a hypothesis/opinion isn't it?

My point is that looking at your table of 'what emotions really are',
there's something slightly screwy about a lot of them when you look at
them from the point of view of real life human experience, rather than a
theory about what humans are that someone might create from a detached
'god's-eye-perspective'. I can't exactly claim to be an expert on love,
being pretty much a loner mostly, but to me it means some kind of
awareness of another person /as/ another person, not just a vehicle for
your interests. Or if it's about interests it's to do with the human need
to connect and communicate rather than in the sort of rational-maximiser
way you're talking about.



--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:49:42 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show you
a reflection of what you hate in yourself.

So I dislike arsonists because I secretly want to start fires? And I
hate torturers and mimes and bad drivers because I want to be them
myself?

That's silly.

You create your own reality,

That's even sillier. I'd hate for somebody who believed that to design
a circuit for me.


John

 

[andy]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:31:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:49:42 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:


Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show you
a reflection of what you hate in yourself.

So I dislike arsonists because I secretly want to start fires? And I
hate torturers and mimes and bad drivers because I want to be them
myself?

That's silly.

There's a book called 'Mutant Message down under' that's full of stuff
like this. Supposedly a true story of a white american woman's spiritual
adventures with a lost tribe of australian aborigines, but in fact she
made it all up as a vehicle for her New Age beliefs.

You create your own reality,


That's even sillier. I'd hate for somebody who believed that to design
a circuit for me.

It's just one of those New Age buzz-phrases that has enough truth in it
that people think it wise, but doesn't quite cut it when you try to live
by it.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:49:42 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:


Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show
you a reflection of what you hate in yourself.

So I dislike arsonists because I secretly want to start fires? And I
hate torturers and mimes and bad drivers because I want to be them
myself?

That's silly.

Indeed.

You create your own reality,


That's even sillier. I'd hate for somebody who believed that to design
a circuit for me.

Indeed. Although, I like Kurt Vonnegut "You are how uou pretend to be".

Too many believe that drivel on the Frazier show. Which by the way, has
Frazier acting as a dreadful psychologist not a psychiatrist as he is
claimed to be. Psychiatrists *never* psycho-analyse. They only deal with
hardware faults in the brain.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.