Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24

Same-Sex marriage against nature

What do they mean that same-sex marriage is against nature, in what terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.205 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What do who mean? Algebraist 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

People who don't know much about nature, presumably. Nature is full of examples of same-sex relationships - notably among birds, but some species of dolphin and bonobos are also notorious. FWIW, the only "aberrant sexual practice" that seems to be performed by humans and few if any other species is voluntary lifelong celibacy (as practiced in several religious orders...:) Grutness...wha? 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other species which do that, such as social insects. Algebraist 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all members of those species do - drones & queens mate. Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And not all humans join those religious orders, so the comparison is a good one. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original statement is also inaccurate because the concept of marriage isn't a natural thing. Staying with one mate for life is somewhat common. I want to say that geese remain with one mate for life. But "marriage" is an invented concept. Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They mean they've decided an ideal "nature" and they don't think the practice conforms with it. That's it. It has little to nothing to do with "nature" in the scientific sense (which even in the scientific sense is a problematic concept—see naturalistic fallacy, for example). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these is what they mean, it is what people who disagree with them think they mean. What they mean is that same-sex marriage cannot, by nature, lead to children. If enough people were gay, then we would all go extinct because neither woman + woman nor man + man = babies. That's what they mean. It's that simple. Wrad (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's the rationale, sure, but when they call someone unnatural, they're not merely making a biological assessment, they're expressing profound disgust over them. They don't call infertile people unnatural, or people who've been in accidents that have left them unable to procreate, or people who have themselves sterilized... but if you're gay, suddenly you're unnatural, even though that doesn't actually prevent you from procreating. It's hateful bullshit. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're doing a lot of reading between the lines. You're re-saying what they actually say in order to make it something you can despise more easily. That isn't to say that your arguments about sterilization aren't good points, its just to say that it might be more useful to you not to add things to their argument which they didn't say. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss the precise meaning of what 'they' say, it would be helpful to know who 'they' are and what exactly it is that 'they' say. Algebraist 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument comes from religous, conservative people in favor of traditional marriage, mostly. They say exactly what the questioner says they do: "same-sex marriage is against nature". Wrad (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Uh. If you honestly believe that you need to read between the lines in order to come to the conclusion that conservative Christians who strongly object to homosexual marriages by calling them unnatural do so in order to denigrate homosexuals and homosexuality in general, I'm not sure how to respond to that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you make assumptions like that about the people who disagree with you, then you will never be effective at changing their minds. They aren't all trying to denigrate homosexuals. That's just one argument that some pro-gay folks use to distract from the real argument being made. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You just need to make sure you're not defeating a strawman. None of the examples you give are similar at all to homosexuals because of the supposed "choice" homosexual people make in being homosexual. Someone who's maimed or infertile or whatever are sufferers of accidents and are hardly in control of their reproductive choices in the same way. A better analogue might be people who decide to not marry, let alone have children. And, while I don't have a specific cite at hand, I'd bet those folks, especially females, were predominantly the ones to be accused of witchcraft in centuries past. Again, there's a perception of that group behaving in an unnatural way. Using a very narrow definition, the label is, well, not correct, but it does have a point. Whether it's some god telling you to "go forth and multiply" or evolutionary pressure to increase the incidence of your genes, it would seem that having kids (and a good number of them) is the "natural" thing to do. The trouble comes in when someone decides that what's natural must be what's right and anything unnatural (according to their version, of course) needs to eliminated. To me, the fact that homosexual unions typically can't lead to children means that there must be some very interesting evolutionary pressure or side-effect or something at work to overcome the simple truth that people who have many kids leave more of their genes behind and homosexuals obviously can't do that in a direct way. As a personal aside, I tend to accept what I find in nature as being natural - homosexuality included; it's just as simple as that. I don't have a supernatural concept of moral descent decline, which is what many folks choose to apply when they see things that differ from the way they "ought" to be. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practical terms, whether homosexuals can reproduce among themselves is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of gay people with children, some of whom are the product of actual intercourse, whereas others involved a coffee mug and a turkey baster, so to speak. The reproductive urge is still there, and gay people parent children all the time. (The evolutionary pressure aspect is another thing, sure.)

As for straw men, that was specifically in response to the idea that a marriage that cannot lead to children is unnatural. Clearly, not all marriages that cannot lead to children are considered to be unnatural; whether that's an actual conservative religious position can be argued, but strikes me as kind of pointless: a couple of minutes of Googling will turn up all sorts of lovely sources for what "unnatural" tends to mean in the context of religious views and homosexuality. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily represent the majority of conservative religious people, and it's even possible that some religious people are dim-witted and uneducated enough to use the word purely in a completely neutral biological context, but nonetheless, I think it's pretty telling. In the vast majority of cases, that terminology is intentionally derogatory towards homosexuals and homosexuality. It's a beard -- it lets people put down gay people while pretending that they're just being neutral, even objective about the whole thing, when they're actually nothing of the sort. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone who gets up in arms about people putting down gay people you sure are good at putting down religious people. And you do it just as bad or worse. Here in this very post you called them "dimwits" and "uneducated" and you are absolutely determined to have them found guilty of denigrating a group without the slightest inkling of a desire to actually understand where they're coming from. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I called religious people who believe that homosexuality is unnatural dimwitted and uneducated. That's a very specific group of religious people. (I'm also quite willing to call non-religious people with similar views dimwitted and educated, because it's a dimwitted and uneducated viewpoint.) Anyway, in general, putting down religious people for what they choose to do is not the same thing as putting down gay people in general (or black people, or the disabled, or foreigners, or blondes, or...), because religion is a choice, but being gay isn't. I think it's perfectly fine to judge people based on their actions. And I freely admit that I put down religious people who call gay people unnatural, because they're at best acting inappropriately and, in many cases, downright malicious, and given the choice between expressing my disapproval and giving my silent consent, I'm gonna go with the first option. And I understand where they are coming from, I just disapprove of it, disagree with it and think it's, at best, inappropriate and at worst downright evil. Again, my biggest objection here is to the idea that when religious people call homosexuality unnatural, it's not intended as derogatory. I think it is, and I think there's plenty of evidence backing me up there -- I mean, when you have the Pope calling homosexuality evil, how is that not derogatory? Yes, yes, you can say that the Pope didn't say that homosexuals themselves are evil, but isn't that just another form of "separate but equal" bigotry? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a chat room. If the original questioner doesn't stay around to provide additional input, this is just a discussion about related issues, by whoever decides to express an opinion on tangentially related topics. In point of fact the original questioner didn't even mention some of the things that some of you are talking about. How do you know that you are answering the question asked? The original questioner has exactly one post to Wikipedia, and it is the one starting this discussion. What the original questioner has merely done is set up a topic for discussion. I just thought I'd point that out, although it has been pointed out already, by me and by others. But, have fun; continue batting the issues about. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are entire species of lizards composed of only females. Yes, the famale lizards have sex with each other and produce exact genetic copies of the mother. [1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If two human females could produce a child alone, that would be relevant to the argument, but since they can't, the argument remains that, naturally, two human males or two human females can't make another human alone. What other species can do is irrelevant. Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have children without a marriage and a marriage without children. Please disregard my last comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. " This is really the nub of the problem. The question is always framed by "traditional marriage folks" in an unwinnable "have you stopped beating your wife" way:

• 1:It's not natural
• 2:But animals also do it, so it is "natural"
• 1:Humans are different from animals - it's not natural for "us"

You can't have it both ways. Either what's natural for humans must be judged against the rest of nature, or humans are "different from other animals" - in which case what's natural for them can't be judged by anything other than individual subjectivity, and it's impossible to say what is "natural". Grutness...wha? 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always felt that it had two meanings, that a same-sex relationship couldn't produce children and was against the principle of population increase but also like Mel Gibson said, "this (pointing to his buttocks) is only for taking a shit." --JGGardiner (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is simply a pragmatic one about avoiding extinction then claiming that same sex marriage is "against nature" or "unnatural" (Which is what the questioner was asking about.) is a weird way of saying that. It requires a lot of creative interpretation. If that is truly what is meant by "unnatural" in this context, then it's very poor communication, if you ask me. APL (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought "natural" is being misused for (the speaker's understanding of) "normal" in a pronouncement like this. Clearly homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that it is not artificial (unless you use special tools for the task...) What the speaker means is that same-sex marriage (or sex) is different to what they understand as "normal". Thus they project their subjective understandings onto a seemingly objective "nature", and pronounce it unnatural.

I wonder what the same folks would say (as to "naturalness") about other "non-standard" (to varying degrees) sexual behaviour? Shoe fetish? Masturbation? Paedophilia? Oral sex? Inter-racial marriages? Polygamy (or, depending on your perspective, monogamy)? What about sexless marriages, like (apparently) a significant portion of the Japanese population? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, religious people don't apply the same meaning to the word "natural" as you do. When pro-gay folks hear it, they think it must be biological...Darwin-related. This is not the case. "Natural" to a religious person is something that follows the parameters of life which God set for it. For religious people, since in their view God said that homosexuality is wrong, it is by extension unnatural. Therefore, anytime anyone does anything with their bodies which is against God's design, that act is, under this definition, unnatural. This isn't necessarily meant to be degrading (though some who say it mean it that way), and it isn't at all connected to evolution (why would an evangelical use a Darwin analogy?), it is just is another way of saying "Homosexuality is an act against God's design for nature." In this case, pedophilia, lying, stealing, whatever...they're all unnatural. Wrad (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, why do you assume the speaker is religious? And if they were religious, why do you assume they are Christian? There are many gods out there who are perfectly fine with deviant sexual behaviour (Leda and the swan, anyone?), and conversely there are many secular people who are just as homophobic (or at least find it "unnatural") as the next religious fanatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who use that phrase are evangelical Christians, and I am presenting the argument as they would. It only seems fair. I assume that the person asking the question was not religious, and was curious as to why someone might say homosexuality was unnatural. Mine is a very valid answer, and answering questions is our business here at the refdesk, isn't it? Wrad (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage" per se is not natural, no matter how many sexes are involved. It's not found in nature; other animals may pair-bond, but only humans marry. It's the distinction between a legitimate child and a bastard that is memorialized in the term "natural child": a child born to unmarried parents is "natural", in the sense that they are born outside the man-made institution of marriage, and therefore in a "natural" state. - Nunh-huh 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, with Christians, "natural" has nothing to do with what animals do or don't do. A "natural" act is, to these Christians, an act sanctioned by God. Since in their view marriage is sanctioned by God, it is a natural act. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So the problem is that the people making this claim (or at least some of them) are using the word 'natural' to mean something entirely different from what it in fact means. Algebraist 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a biased view. Everybody uses words in the way it means for them. 'Natural' does not mean anything "in fact" in anything outside a subjective sense. It has no solid meaning except as people see it, and people see words differently in different cultures. The problem is a difference in culture causing misinterpretation and cases of bigotry on both sides which results in people being completely unable to communicate because they are too busy talking about how stupid/evil/whatever the other side is. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't buy the idea that Christians who talk about homosexuality and gay marriage as unnatural don't do it to denigrate gay people -- and that's not because I'm biased, that's because the facts don't back that up. I mean, the frickin' Pope called gay marriage not only unnatural, but also evil. See for yourself. (That was the previous pope, of course, but happily enough, it was signed by the current pope, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who's been busily keeping up the campaign after the passing of the torch.) The Catholic Church certainly isn't all of Christianity, of course, but it's probably a fairly decent point of comparison for motivations among those Christians who make it a point to refer to homosexuality and homosexual relationships as unnatural. When the head of the Catholic Church makes proclamations like this, I think it's kind of deluded at best to claim that the Christians who talk about gay marriage and homosexuality in general as unnatural are merely making some kind of a non-judgmental biological assessment. This really isn't about people just misinterpreting the meaning of the word "unnatural" in this context. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the Pope did not say that gay people were evil. He said that gay marriage was evil. Gay marriage is an act, not a person. That is a huge difference which I don't think you're seeing. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That kind of disingenuous semantic trickery makes very little difference to a gay person is what I'm kinda shocked to realize that you just don't see. Or really don't want to see, I don't know. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that some people want the word "natural" to mean "approved of by me", which is, of course, not what the word means. If they doubt this, suggest they consult a dictionary. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not where words get their meaning. Words get their meaning from their use in societies, the dictionary-writers observe how society uses them, and attempt to write it down, but of course it is different from culture to culture. To say that someone is wrong because they aren't part of your culture and aren't conforming to your culture is just the kind of bigotry pro-gay people ironically claim is on the religious side. The bigotry is thick and it flies both ways on this issue. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are most certainly where you look to find out what words mean to other people. If you're going to use a word in an idiosyncratic manner, you are obliged to state the meaning you've assigned to it, or risk being misunderstood. If the purpose of using the word is clear communication, you will state the sense in which you are using it; if the purpose of using the term is to obscure what you actually mean, you won't. - Nunh-huh 09:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And again, what does religion have to do with anything? When a person projects their own subjective view of what is "natural" onto external nature, it matters not at all whether that subjective view of nature comes from their faith or their prejudices. It's still subjective. Being inspired by a holy book does not make one's views any more universal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion has everything to do with understanding what religious people mean when they say what they say. Your view of natural is just as subjective as theirs, and they have to learn what you mean when you say it just as much as you have to learn what they mean. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the fact that - objectively - their definition of "nature" doesn't appear in the dictionary. The two cases are just not "equally subjective". - Nunh-huh 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you read all the links I'm giving below, 76.64, you still won't be satisfied as to what they mean exactly, but at least it will be easier to identify who "they" are, and to read where and in which context "they" use the phrase "against nature", "discard the laws of nature", etc, so here are the links to articles on Wikipedia:

Religion and homosexuality with an entire box of links to various "Relgion X and homosexuality" articles. The Bible and homosexuality might be of particular interest. For a secular "they", see also crime against nature. Typing "Against Nature" into the search box took me to Against Nature?, and to homosexual behavior in animals, summing up some of the counter-evidence mentioned above. Biology and sexual orientation is another article you might wish to read. Then, I suggest you ask "them" directly; one thing this discussion has shown is that is not always easy to explain views one does not share. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, another person actually interested in understanding the other side and answering the question rather than making snide remarks about it. I don't myself even agree with the statement, but that's irrelevant. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pointing out the narrow geographical and social focus of your answer. You simply assume that the person stating homosexuals are unnatural are "religious", and that "religious" equals Christian fanatics. This is not true at all. Plenty of people hold the view referred to by the OP without being religious at all, and most religious people are neither "evangelical" nor fanatical in any way. Plus, most religious people in the world are not Christians. It is both imprecise and misleading to analyse this from the perspective of a very narrow segment of the world population, or even the English-speaking population around the world. I also object to the appeal to religion as if a religious understanding of what is "natural" is fundamentally different to, even privileged above, any other perspective on what is "natural". Every person has their own view, and some are informed by religion, others by their non-religious, ethical codes, still others by only science. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This was the reason for my first response, which alas has yet to be answered. Algebraist 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, so far, I'm the only one who's actually answered the question rather than just ridiculed and belittled the statement, so why don't you turn your criticism elsewhere. Or, even better, you could explain what it means when people who aren't Christian say it. I personally don't know of any such people, so I can't help you there. I don't see what the point of your statement that most religious people are not Christians I never said that they were. You can either sit on your buttocks and ask the IP what he meant again and again like a parrot, never getting an answer, or you can attempt the best answer you can. That's what I did, so don't attack me for actually trying to answer the question, which is what this whole refdesk is for, anyway. It's supposedly not a forum for debate. Most of the people on this thread seem very, very confused on that point. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You assumed that "they" are christians and then answered that christians define "natural" based on an ability to procreate. Firstly, whether "they" are christians is not entirely clear - if the OP wants a clear answer, he/she should ask a clear question. Secondly, even if "they" are christians, we would be doing the OP a disservice by not pointing out that the christian definition of "natural" is stupid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, have you ever heard any non-Christian say that? Second, if you have, then please enlighten us, will you? Third, if all you have to say is that Christian ideas are stupid, then please don't bother posting. Most people here have already said that again and again and it really gets tiresome, especially when no further comment is given. Since that opinion is all over this page, I'm not sure how you can think we're dong the IP a disservice by not mentioning it. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Anti-LGBT slogans has a small section which says the "idea dates back to Plato, who argued in the Laws I 636c and VIII 841d that homosexual sex was 'out of nature' (para phusin)." --JGGardiner (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The original post is from an IP who posted this question with no signature and who has precisely one edit to his credit. I'd surmise that he accomplished exactly what he set out to do and sees no need to expand on his original question. Maybe we should stop feeding him now. - Eron^Talk 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As if we needed help. We do well enough on this page on our own even without trolls. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reflecting that if something has been labelled as "wrong/sinful" in a religious way, that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural". I've never heard anyone describe murder, theft, bigamy, or taking the Lord's name in vain as "unnatural", but they're all contrary to the Christian commandments. (Oh, wait, the murder of Hamlet's father was described as "most foul and unnatural".) Conversely, homosexuality is supposedly outlawed in the Bible, and stoning prostitutes to death is also supported there, but they're not mentioned in the commandments. So, if someone says same-sex matters are both sinful and unnatural, they're using two separate arguments against it. Not that it makes a whit of difference to most gay people, of course. It's no more a choice to be this way than it is to be born with black hair or left-handed. The sooner people stop talking about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice", the happier I'll be. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: I think these reference boards should publicize a preference that anyone posting a question should also make a reasonable effort to keep themselves around to participate in the answering of that inquiry as that process wears on. Clarifications might be needed by those trying to help with providing an answer. It is not fair to everyone's time to simply ask a question and then to cease to participate. Without the possibility of further input from the original questioner, this just becomes a conversation, and not a particularly focussed conversation. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the two articles we need linking to are state of nature and, to a lesser extent, original position. This is the "nature" that people are using when they talk about something being un-natural; a hypothetical construct of what people were like before... whatever you want to examine. Hobbes and Locke used it (first, I think) to discuss what life was like before societies were formed. While we now know from studying chimps and other apes that the state of nature they were considering never existed, they were ignorant of that information and used it very much like religious folks often use it today: to describe what life was like before the fall from grace and the ongoing degeneration of society. I think that's an important distinction to make; it is not that the religious right is using the incorrect word, it's just that they're using it according to a different meaning, which (somewhat ironically) was created by social scientists. The entire thing is wrong-footed because, as I said, we know that the so-called state of nature never existed, but it certainly did according to Christian fundamentalists. But debating the morality at play in Eden is not much use: when something is made up out of whole cloth like that, you can imagine it being however you want it to be. At that point it becomes circular: there were no gays in Eden because gays are wrong and gays are wrong because they didn't exist in Eden - oh, and just take my word for it that they didn't have any then. Matt Deres (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... Wrad (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a state of nature has been around for quite a while and, as I mentioned, it started as a phrase used by political philosophers. People educated in science who consider the idea realize that it's nonsensical, which leaves two main groups to use the term "un-natural" in this way: 1)people who reject the material fact of human evolution from apes and 2)people who haven't really considered exactly what they arguing for. The first group is largely fundamentalist Christian; there are other groups who reject evolution for some reason, but Christianity is the foremost religion in the West and that's where the idea of "state of nature" also exists, so it's partially a happenstance that they are connected in that way. You can call that philosophy wrong or evil or whatever, but the factuality of it is inarguable because you can't reason your way around mythology. The second group, who may or may not be religious, but who really haven't considered things, are simply stuck with cultural baggage that's been ingrained for hundreds of years: the concept of state of nature was taken as read by generations of anthropologists, philosophers, and political scientists, and so has taken on a vitality of its own. Those people (who use the term "un-natural" without considering what it means) can certainly still use it to prop up homophobic opinions as well, though there is at least a chance to reason them out of the position. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I think this question may have just been resolved. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No type of marriage has anything to do with nature; marriage is a social construct, a three way contract between two individuals and society. But in my view that is an argument against same sex "marriage"; the social approval of marriage, and the tangible rewards that traditionally come with, it is a reward for the agreement of the two individuals to organise their lives in the way most likely to lead to the successful raising of children, and therefore the continuation of the society which has endorsed the marriage. Mowsbury (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, Mowsbury. Social approval etc are reasons why inter-sex marriage is generally seen as a positive thing. But surely we're grown-up enough as a society to allow other varieties of marriage, even if they're unlikely to lead to childbirth. We have no issue with a man and a woman marrying who know that they're incapable of having children; and we have no issue with a man and a woman marrying who have said they're not interested in having children. So why draw the line at same-sex marriage? Clearly, what you say is not the reason (the real reason, that is) that some people oppose it. There will always be more people having children than not; some countries actively discourage couples from having children (China), but they certainly don't discourage marriage. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the question at the top of the section, I believe what people mean when they argue that homosexuality is "against nature" is that the behavior is not natural, but is environmentally or culturally determined, or is a disorder or disease that is not a part of the normal behavior of the organism. On the first point, this is indeed refuted by the fact that there are countless species of different animals in which homosexual behavior is observed, and which could not be caused by environment or "culture". Studies of genes, hormones and birth order in male humans, appear to show that it is a naturally-occurring behavior pre-natal in origin. On the second point, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers have all concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and cannot be changed. Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these good Chinese names for me?

Are "Zhao Chengyong" or "Zhao Chengli" good Chinese names for me? I want a Chinese name that is strength and success. "Zhao Chengli" means success and strength and "Zhao Chenyong" means success and brave. I don't care about the Chinese surname. I just care about the Chinese given name right now. Which Chinese names are the best for me? I prefer "Zhao Chengli" because it means success and strength. Jet123 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a tattoo. Jet123 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't help you with the actual question (the Language desk might be better suited for this, anyway), but on the off chance that you are planning to have this tattooed on yourself or apply it in some other permanent manner, you may wish to have a long and hard think about it, and perhaps check out some cautionary tales. It may not think what you think it means, and just because someone convincing tells you it's okay, that might not be the case. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL that's not what the OP asked for, but it could well be what he or she needs!

OP: each of your chosen pronunciations can mean a myriad of things, depending on the characters chosen. I presume that when you say "chengli" meaning "success and strength" you are talking about cheng as one part of chenggong (success). Together, they could be taken to mean "accomplishing strenght" or perhaps "becoming power". (The cheng character in question by itself can mean accomplish or become, among other things). Two things to be aware of: 1. both characters are fairly simple, could be viewed as a tad lacking in literary sophistication (but of course you may be going for the "Wolf" or "Bruce" effect); 2. "chengli" is also the pronunciation of "valid" (with the exact same tones), as in "this argument is valid" or "this equation is valid"; the same word can also mean "established", as in "this shop was established in 1882". Are you comfortable with those connotations? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of Greece and Anatolia, circa 600 BC

For the last few years I've been producing a comic set in Anatolia/Turkey, around 600 BC. Something I've always wanted to do, but never quite succeeded at, is create a political map of Anatolia, Greece and their environs as they existed in this time period. Wikipedia has been quite helpful in determining some of the borders, especially in Anatolia, but almost all of the political maps I've been able to dig up for Greece are based on the Classical Greek period, around 200 years after the time I'm interested in.

I realise what I'm doing may be very difficult due to a scarcity of sources, but I was hoping the reference desk might be able to point me to some useful resources - or even, in the best case scenario, some actual maps for this period. Thanks, chaps. Dooky (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a map [2], entitled, "The Beginnings of Historial Greece", 700 to 600 BC, from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923. It shows the coast of Asia Minor, but not much more. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) PS: There may be a copy in the library of Coventry, maybe it contains other maps of use to you. PS2: This one [3] shows Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd come across those maps before, but it's useful to be reminded of them. The second is pretty useful, although I remember being (and still am) baffled by some of the borders on the first map. I'm especially interested in what was going on in that north eastern corner of Anatolia at the time, as it happens to be close to the setting of my story. Hmm... Thanks again for pointing me to those. Dooky (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History repeating itself

I used the phrase in a reply and found I don't know/can't recall who said it first "History is repeating itself." Does anyone know who deserves credit for it? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea itself has, I think, been around since Biblical times; certainly Karl Marx said specifically that History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. which may be useful as a starting point at least. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch's Parallel Lives are another ancient version of the same idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon says "There is nothing new under the sun", which is a similar concept, even if it is worded differently. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so snappy but Thucydides said his History of the Peloponnesian War was useful for "those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future." That's from the Rex Warner translation. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My favorite take on this was "History doesn't repeat itself, historians merely repeat each other's words." StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

and my favorite is Mark Twain: ""History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (though the Marx quote too is a good one). "History rhymes" led me to the article on historic recurrence, which led me to cliodynamics ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The recurrence of history is of course a recurrent idea among historians... let's quote also Giambattista Vico, with his theory of "corsi e ricorsi". --pma (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." BrainyBabe (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

...in summer school. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Macho ranking of countries

If countries were ranked by how macho they are, what sort of position would the UK (for example) have compared with other western or european countries? I speculate that high-macho countries are less pleasant places to live. 78.146.178.204 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This question is unanswerable. "Macho" is an incredibly subjective term not subject to stastistical analysis. The only plausible answer I can come up with is Qatar - with an average of 1.87 men to every 1 woman in their population you could at least argue that it is. Exxolon (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean how macho the country itself is (as in threatening it's neighbors), or how macho the men in the country are (as in dominating the women) ? In the later category, I'd go with the Arab nations, where women are legally prevented from doing many of the things men can do. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst. I don't believe that this is due to Islam, but rather due to the Arab culture, which predated Islam (although some of the Arab values are enshrined in Islam, since the religion originated there). StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that when OP mentioned that it probably wouldn't be a nice place to live But, also, it could mean how macho the country forces one to be as far as rugged independence, which implies a lesser developed mation, or maybe Russia, given Siberia, the harsh winters, etc.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And Canadia? Lumberjacks and all that... Or the Congo? Swiss Alps? Texas? (... while we are playing stereotypes...) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as we all know, lumberjacks in Canada like to "dress in women's underclothes", just like their dear papas. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For those who are confused by StuRat's comment, see The Lumberjack Song (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim nation, and Sri Lanka and India, which have large but not majority Muslim populations, have had women heads of government/state, when many of the countries who criticise the Muslim nations for their blinkered attitudes have not done so, and seem as far from that achievement as they have ever been. Australia and the US are in that category, although Julia Gillard is only a heartbeat away from the prime ministership and she's first woman to have acted as Australian PM. For once, New Zealand has beaten Australia hands down in this regard. Canada experimented with a woman PM but I don't get that they're particularly excited about repeating it. Margaret Thatcher probably spoiled it for any future female UK PM, as they'll inevitably be compared with her. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that none of those are Arab nations. This is why I made the distinction between Arab and Islamic. They overlap, but are not identical. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan had a female head of government because of feudalism and nepotism, not because of any particularly enlightened form of Islam. Also, do you ever get the feeling that even the OPs know that these questions are stupid, and that we are being trolled? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was the macho of peoples relationships to others: self-seeking rather than altruism, emphasis on personal rights rather than responsibilities to others. I imagine that high-macho societies would have higher violent crime rates than low macho countries, and less concern with "feminine" aspects in society such as caring for the poor. Remember I am interested in Western countries. 89.243.177.130 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a different use of the word "macho" than what I'm used to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That description seems to match the US rather well. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Geert Hofstede has a theory which categorises societies according to where they fit on 5 scales, one of which is the Masculine/Feminine scale. This map classifies cultures according to this scale: [4] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TammyMoet, the link is very interesting. I wonder how they obtained the numbers. 78.151.141.193 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is 42. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)