Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

Gay Marriage Should NOT Be Legalised in Society

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Who won the debate between Lion IRC & Crocodile Gandhi ?

Lion IRC won the debate, but I still disagree with his viewpoint
1
1%
Lion IRC won the debate and I continue to agree with his viewpoint
2
2%
Lion IRC won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
1
1%
Croc Gandhi won the debate, but I still disagree with his viewpoint
2
2%
Croc Gandhi won the debate and I continue to agree with his viewpoint
90
92%
Croc Gandhi won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
0
No votes
I cannot decide who won the debate
2
2%
 
Total votes : 98

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#441  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 1:29 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The thing is that there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and STD's, whether married or unmarried.
There's only, in certain parts of the world, a correlation.


No, I'm pretty sure there is a higher transmission rate of HIV in gay male intercourse than gay female intercourse (or straight intercourse). It's causitive.

Ehm no, There is a higher risk in anal intercourse as opposed to genital or oral intercourse.
And anal intercourse is neither limited to nor practised by all male same-sex couples.
There is no causal link between any sexual orientation and STDs.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#442  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 1:41 pm

Sorry are you actually suggesting that gay men don't have more anal penetrative intercourse than gay women?

Or are you questioning the suggestion that "gay men have more anal sex than non gay men, because they are gay"?

I'm struggling to understand how you can't see this, it's about as clear a chain of causation as can exist.

Gay men have more anal sex, because they are gay -> anal sex has a higher rate of transmission of HIV -> therefore gay men have a higher prevalence of HIV.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#443  Postby Lizard_King » Apr 30, 2012 2:15 pm

According to the CDC, there is a link between sexual orientation and HIV prevalence, though sexual orientation might not be the only cause. (Link)

And it is fairly well established that anal intercourse is more dangerous in terms of STD transmissions (mostly regarding blood-borne viral infections, like HIV or Hep B/C) that any other kind of intercourse.

Come to think of it, if marriage reduces promiscuity, which, so some extent, it probably does, then allowing gay men to get married might save lives.
"Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."
- Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Lizard_King
 
Posts: 1091
Age: 27
Male

Country: Austria
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#444  Postby Shrunk » Apr 30, 2012 2:49 pm

Thommo wrote:Gay men have more anal sex, because they are gay


That's where the logic of your argument falls down. You can say "Gay men have more anal sex" as an empirical observation, if the evidence supports it. But there is nothing inherent in the definition of a homosexual male that, by itself, means they are more likely to have anal sex.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 18976
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#445  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 2:59 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Thommo wrote:Gay men have more anal sex, because they are gay


That's where the logic of your argument falls down. You can say "Gay men have more anal sex" as an empirical observation, if the evidence supports it. But there is nothing inherent in the definition of a homosexual male that, by itself, means they are more likely to have anal sex.


They are though.

This is probabilistic, and it's absolutely bog-standard usage of language. If you pick a gay man at random and a straight man at random then the probability that the gay man practices anal sex (and the expected value of the frequency at which he does) is greater.

I mean, if I said "smoking causes cancer" or "reflection of light causes the sky to appear blue" or "war causes people to die" it would rely on the same bog standard application of probabilistic causation between two sets of events. I suppose one can quibble that this relies on only one definition of cause, but to be fair Thomas ruled out all definitions of cause before I joined the conversation at all.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#446  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 3:11 pm

You might be interested in this passage:-

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation
General pattern

The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

- A may be the cause of B.
- B may be the cause of A.
-some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
-there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
-the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.


If you assume dependence (as we have done in this conversation), i.e. that the correlation between two sampled data sets is not by chance, then at least one of:
-A causes B
-B causes A
-C causes A and B
is true.

Now, we can rule out that being prone to HIV causes homosexuality (since we already know the methods of transmission of HIV). So either there is some unknown C which causes people to be gay and causes them to get HIV, or being gay causes them (probabilistically) to get HIV.

There is no candidate for C, it is entirely unreasonable to suppose that a predilection for anal sex causes men to want to have sex with men. The reasonable conclusion is that being gay causally increases the risk of HIV amongst men.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#447  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Apr 30, 2012 3:17 pm

Wow, Croc exposes the flaws in Lion's ranting with great accuracy and efficiency. A good read.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6608
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#448  Postby Shrunk » Apr 30, 2012 3:23 pm

But, Thommo, the issue here is the correlation between anal sex and male homosexuality. As you say, "it is entirely unreasonable to suppose that a predilection for anal sex causes men to want to have sex with men." But then you are making the assumption that homosexuality in males causes them to want to have anal sex.

Suppose we were to determine that black men are more likely to smoke cigarettes than men of other races and, as a result, have higher rates of lung cancer. Would it be correct to say that being black increases your risk of lung cancer? I think that would be deceptive, if not outright incorrect.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 18976
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#449  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 3:26 pm

Shrunk wrote:But, Thommo, the issue here is the correlation between anal sex and male homosexuality. As you say, "it is entirely unreasonable to suppose that a predilection for anal sex causes men to want to have sex with men." But then you are making the assumption that homosexuality in males causes them to want to have anal sex.


Well it sure as heck doesn't increase their desire to have vaginal intercourse.

Strictly speaking I didn't make that assumption by the way, I have assumed that homosexuals are more likely to practise anal sex than straight men (which I believe is true), but even that isn't a required assumption as the greater homogeneity of the sexual roles of members of the "gay men" category as opposed to the "straight people" category leads to differences in the transmission pattern that sees a greater risk of spreading HIV to more people even with the same rate of practise of anal sex, due to the asymmetry of the transmission rate from the person using the penis and the one using the anus.

Shrunk wrote:Suppose we were to determine that black men are more likely to smoke cigarettes than men of other races and, as a result, have higher rates of lung cancer. Would it be correct to say that being black increases your risk of lung cancer? I think that would be deceptive, if not outright incorrect.


If that were the case and not the result of a spurious correlation (like socio-economic factors that are almost certainly different between blacks and whites), then yes.

A better example might be whether we were to say that being black is a causal factor in having a Primaquine reaction. It is.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#450  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 30, 2012 3:39 pm

Excellent response by CG! He cut through the bullshit with admirable precision, much better than I could have...I don't know how I would have dealt with that pile of slag.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Posts: 5163
Age: 34
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#451  Postby Nicko » Apr 30, 2012 3:40 pm

@Thommo:

Sorry, but you are confusing correlation with causation.

Being homosexual does not cause anal sex. There is, however, a higher correlation between having male/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/male sex and having anal sex.

Look at it this way. There is also a higher correlation between having female/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/female sex and having anal sex.

Does this mean that heterosexuality "causes" anal sex?
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 5981
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#452  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 3:46 pm

Nicko wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Thommo:[/b][/color]

Sorry, but you are confusing correlation with causation.

Being homosexual does not cause anal sex. There is, however, a higher correlation between having male/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/male sex and having anal sex.

Look at it this way. There is also a higher correlation between having female/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/female sex and having anal sex.

Does this mean that heterosexuality "causes" anal sex?


Yes, that's exactly what it means. People without sexual desires would not have a whole lot of anal sex.

And no, I'm not confusing correlation and causation, that's why I linked to a passage clearly explaining the difference between the two things. The "correlation is not causation" quote is incredibly abused. They are not the same, but in all cases of dependence amongst distinct RVs some form of causation is a consequence of correlation, the questions to be addressed are which variables are involved (i.e. rule out spurious correlations) and in which direction the causation is.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#453  Postby Thommo » Apr 30, 2012 3:52 pm

Thommo wrote:A better example might be whether we were to say that being black is a causal factor in having a Primaquine reaction. It is.


Actually, I may be wrong about that, it isn't any better as an example because it might be again a product of spurious correlation, in this case the underlying cause is the particular genome of certain populations, which causes both their skin colour and the greater rate of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12382

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#454  Postby Nicko » Apr 30, 2012 4:16 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thommo wrote:A better example might be whether we were to say that being black is a causal factor in having a Primaquine reaction. It is.


Actually, I may be wrong about that, it isn't any better as an example because it might be again a product of spurious correlation, in this case the underlying cause is the particular genome of certain populations, which causes both their skin colour and the greater rate of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.


That's the kind of distinction that I - and, I assume, Shrunk - was talking about.

Technically, from a genetic standpoint, there is no such thing as a "black" genome. There are merely genes for particular characteristics that correlate in groups that we give labels to. Though I assume you know that from your use of the phrase "certain populations" rather than "race".

Anyway, the distinction I'm talking about is the difference between saying weight training causes physical strength and saying weight training causes the wearing of Lycra.
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 5981
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#455  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:21 pm

Thommo wrote:Sorry are you actually suggesting that gay men don't have more anal penetrative intercourse than gay women?

I'm telling you it is a personal choice to have anal sex or not. Being gay does not guarantee that you will have anal sex.
Not does it guarantee that you have unprotected and/or promiscuous sex, two factors who have far more impact than being in a same-sex relationship.

Thommo wrote:Or are you questioning the suggestion that "gay men have more anal sex than non gay men, because they are gay"?

I'm refuting the notion that sexuality increases the risk to STDs.

Thommo wrote:I'm struggling to understand how you can't see this, it's about as clear a chain of causation as can exist.

No a chain of correlation exist. The actual factors that increase the risk for STDs is ,in order, having promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. Promiscuity and protection are the risk factors. Someone who practices monogamous protected anal sex has far less, almost 0% chance of getting STDs, whereas someone who has unprotected and/or promiscuous 'heterosexual' sex has a higher risk.

Thommo wrote:Gay men have more anal sex, because they are gay

AGain this is an overly simplistic view.

Thommo wrote:-> anal sex has a higher rate of transmission of HIV ->
Again, unprotected anal sex has a higher rate of HIV transmission.
Thommo wrote:therefore gay men who have unprotected and/or promiscuous sex, have a higher prevalence of HIV.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#456  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:23 pm

Lizard_King wrote:According to the CDC, there is a link between sexual orientation and HIV prevalence, though sexual orientation might not be the only cause. (Link)

The link is a correlation, not causation. Many people, especially homophobes fail to see the difference.

Lizard_King wrote:And it is fairly well established that unprotected anal intercourse is more dangerous in terms of STD transmissions (mostly regarding blood-borne viral infections, like HIV or Hep B/C) that any other kind of intercourse.

It is also well established that not all gay men have anal sex and more and more straight couples do, meaning it is not inherently related to a sexuality.

Lizard_King wrote:Come to think of it, if marriage reduces promiscuity, which, so some extent, it probably does, then allowing gay men to get married might save lives.

Exactly!
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#457  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:28 pm

Thommo wrote:
This is probabilistic, and it's absolutely bog-standard usage of language. If you pick a gay man at random and a straight man at random then the probability that the gay man practices anal sex (and the expected value of the frequency at which he does) is greater.

This is a statistic reality not a biological nor absolute reality.
With the same logic you could argue that having a dark skin increases the risk of being a criminal since the majority of criminals in the U.S. are black.

Thommo wrote:I mean, if I said "smoking causes cancer"

That's because of the ingredients of the cigarette or cigar, homosexuals do not have any chemicals or other elements in their body which increase their chance of getting an STD nor anything that guarantees they will have anal sex.

Thommo wrote:I suppose one can quibble that this relies on only one definition of cause, but to be fair Thomas ruled out all definitions of cause before I joined the conversation at all.

Let me phrase it more accurately then, there is no study that shows an inherent higher risk in homosexuals to get HIV or Aids, there are societal factors and practical factors but these are matter of education and culture not sexuality.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#458  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:31 pm

Thommo wrote:You might be interested in this passage:-

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation
General pattern

The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

- A may be the cause of B.
- B may be the cause of A.
-some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
-there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
-the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.


If you assume dependence (as we have done in this conversation), i.e. that the correlation between two sampled data sets is not by chance, then at least one of:
-A causes B
-B causes A
-C causes A and B
is true.

Now, we can rule out that being prone to HIV causes homosexuality (since we already know the methods of transmission of HIV). So either there is some unknown C which causes people to be gay and causes them to get HIV, or being gay causes them (probabilistically) to get HIV.

There is no candidate for C, it is entirely unreasonable to suppose that a predilection for anal sex causes men to want to have sex with men. The reasonable conclusion is that being gay causally increases the risk of HIV amongst men.

There are at least 2 candidates for C: lack of education regarding safe sex and cultural and societal repression.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#459  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:32 pm

Thommo wrote:
Nicko wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b][color=#CC0000][b]Thommo:[/b][/color][/b][/color]

Sorry, but you are confusing correlation with causation.

Being homosexual does not cause anal sex. There is, however, a higher correlation between having male/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/male sex and having anal sex.

Look at it this way. There is also a higher correlation between having female/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/female sex and having anal sex.

Does this mean that heterosexuality "causes" anal sex?


Yes, that's exactly what it means. People without sexual desires would not have a whole lot of anal sex.

And no, I'm not confusing correlation and causation, that's why I linked to a passage clearly explaining the difference between the two things. The "correlation is not causation" quote is incredibly abused.

Not in this case.

Thommo wrote: They are not the same, but in all cases of dependence amongst distinct RVs some form of causation is a consequence of correlation, the questions to be addressed are which variables are involved (i.e. rule out spurious correlations) and in which direction the causation is.

In this case there are other candidates for the causation besides the sexuality of the group.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13997
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate

#460  Postby Shrunk » Apr 30, 2012 4:41 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote: There are at least 2 candidates for C: lack of education regarding safe sex and cultural and societal repression.


There is one other factor, at the risk of being crude: The availability of one fewer orifice for the purpose of sexual activity in a male/male couple. This statistically increases the odd of the anus being used, but is simply a fact of anatomy, not a consequence of sexual orientation.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 18976
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest