Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it.

[Ned]

There seems to be a corollary between wealth and family size and also between Social Security (or its equivalent) and family size. Larger families correlate with poverty and with lack of means for supporting oneself and old-age.

During the time of Augustus, the population of the relatively wealthy Roman Empire began to decline. The population Europe not only has stabilized but is declining. The population of European Russia was declining even during time of the Soviet Union.

It appears that the solution to over-population is Social Security or its equivalent. However, Social Security also seems to create a secondary problem: declining population. This inherently places a greater burden on the young to take care of the elderly as the population demographics shift.

This also indicates that states with good Social Security systems should encourage families and procreation, just as Augustus did during his reign.

On the whole, I think Azazel is right in that people who do not produce children are harming society under circumstances where the population is declining.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
"have a brain structure that is clearly different than the vast majority of the human population that leads to sexual behavior that is clearly different than the vast majority of the human population" argument. Seems like a pretty clear case of a developmental defect (...)

Why should "different sexual behavior" = "defective"? Just because something differs from the majority it is "defective"? Too bad bees are stuck with those "defective" queens, so different from the vast majority.

you must be able to see the difference between a brain structure that influences a person's reproductive behavior and a trait that has no real effect on a person's life, like blue eyes or lefthandedness.

Southpaws lead shorter lives than right-handed people. And you're saying that someone who chooses not to reproduce is somehow more "defective"?

That was never my criteria. According to my criteria, a defect is something that differs from the norm and also has obvious negative effects on the sufferer.

Well, aside from the fact that you just changed your criteria, (see top of post), what exactly are the "obviously negative" effects of homosexuality? As I pointed out earlier, it may well confer an evolutionary advantage to a community, which would help explain it's widespread prevalence in nature and humanity.

You think not being able to reproduce is a positive effect?

I wonder what Oscar Wilde's sons would have made of the notion of homosexuals not being able to reproduce.

I know lots of gay people (both genders) who made babies. Personally, I suspect homosexuals typically reproduced until the historically recent emergence of gay culture, which has led to large numbers of homosexual people living more sexually segregated lives than before. At any rate, you show that you have confused "unable to reproduce" with "choosing not to reproduce", further crippling your already foundering "defective" argument.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Azazel
Since they don't hamper a person from having a complete life.

Not reproducing means an "incomplete" life. Got it. You could equally argue that never having sex with someone of the same gender results in an incomplete life.

Originally posted by Azazel
(By not having kids they) didn't contribute their share (...)and That's wrong.

You need to spend an hour in China.

Originally posted by Ned
On the whole, I think Azazel is right in that people who do not produce children are harming society under circumstances where the population is declining.

Even if they are disproportionately assisting with defence, food-gathering, child-rearing, etc.?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yet, what if it could be proven that genetic defects are influential to homosexuality… how then would you argue that homosexuality itself is not defective?

Basing "defectiveness" on the cause rather than the result seems a rather odd way to go about things. Would a virtuoso violinist produced in this manner be judged "defective"?

By that crazy argument, every mutation that successfully advanced evolution actually produced some sort of "defect"!

[Ned]

mindseye, the procreation issue does not relate to how people actually contribute to society otherwise. The issue is limited to demographics only and thus is concerned with averages, etc. Obviously the way one manages this from a governmental level is to adjust tax policies, etc., to encourage families and procreation.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I love the way Azazel has taken the miracle of childbirth and made it sound likesome sort of grim public service. Like jury duty, or something.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel
DUH! I also believe that! But:

a) Having kids is a whole aspect of life. An aspect of life that these people didn't enjoy, as well as didn't contribute their share in.

That, my friend, is hardly a universal value. Not everyone shares this view on having children which is the reason many couples don't have them. Why? Simply because they don't want to.

b) While these great people had, there is also an enormous number of regular people, that could have kids, but don't, not because they're busy developing the cure for cancer, or fusion power, but because they can't be arsed to. and That's wrong.

Again, you might think that it's wrong, but there is no law, be it biological or political that says that having children is the "right thing to do".

Picture this, if every couple on earth has just one child, the population will dwindle to 0 eventually. So, if it's your moral duty to advance the human race by procreation then it should also be "wrong" to only have one child since you are doing the exact same thing as not having them, the only difference being that you are delaying the unavoidable.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
Very eloquent molly b, but irrelevant. Being incomplete is not equivalent to being worthless. Parenthood is part of the "complete" human experience, without which there would be no human experience.

[

Hogwash.

It is part of some human beings' experience of life. To be fully 'human' does not require the production of children- the potential is there in most humans to participate in the creation of new humans. It is a choice, not a necessity for all.

How exactly was Isaac Newton 'incomplete'? Oh, yes, sorry Isaac, you revolutionized physics, optics, mathematics but, you didn't have any kids. Unlike say, the complete Dr. Goebbels. Or Idi Amin. Both outstanding contributors to humanity due to their, ah, 'completeness' which they attained by fathering children. Hoorah.

And Azazel- you said the lives of people who did not reproduce were somehow 'incomplete'. I would argue that rather than simply fathering a few brats who might easily have died in infancy, Michelangelo 'fathered' the David in Florence, the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Tomb of the Medici, the Dying Slave, the Doni Tondo, and posterity, humanity and Italy are much the better off for them. Given the choice between writing, say, 'The Portrait of a Lady' or dealing with soiled nappies, prams, childhood illnesses sleepless nights and ungrateful children I choose option a, the novel writing.

Similarly with all those other creators, inventors, scientists, writers, theoreticians- reproduction is a choice, not part of some imaginary list of boxes to be ticked to qualify for full humanity. Human experience is a spectrum rather than a series of hoops to be jumped through like trained circus animals. I receive and give love to my relatives' and friends' children- I do not envisage having any, nor would I want to. Luckily the Office of the Fatherland and Motherland in Australia has yet to get on my case about not spreading my semen far and wide. Really, it's like something out of '1984' or Stalinist Russia.

"Only 13 children and 5 miscarriages, Mrs. Shevchenko? Letting the side down aren't we? Wouldn't want to be considered one of those childless cosmopolitan intellectuals, would we?"

Perhaps it has something to do with your residing in Israel- the notion that there are all those Arabs out there, busily breeding away...

By the way- you shoudl also consider in nature where animals live in groups, like lions, or the wld dogs of Africa, or some wolf packs- the dominant males and females routienly kill any offspring not of their lineage, effectively 'neutering' the reproductive process in non-alpha males and females, or deposed alpha male and female lines. Equally, in other parts of the animal world, males and females that do not reproduce contribute in terms of protecting young, procuring food, and rearing the young- like meerkats, bees, ants, termites, chimpanzees, baboons, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you think nature knows what it's doing in allowing all these incomplete lives to carry on consuming precious resources?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
mindseye, the procreation issue does not relate to how people actually contribute to society otherwise.

Why this arbitrary restriction? Evolution operates primarily at the gene pool level, not the individual.

Non-reproducers can and do play a part (sometimes a crucial one) in survival of various species, for example hive insects (e.g. ants) and herd mammals (e.g. buffalo).

[Az]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I love the way Azazel has taken the miracle of childbirth and made it sound likesome sort of grim public service. Like jury duty, or something.

I aim to please, Laz.

Seriously, You've got to think big for a second. The fact that modern humans don't reproduce enough is a fact: Europe, USA, Japan, the pattern is the same. I think that the preservation of the modern way of life is important enough that we think of this condition as a problem.

And Azazel- you said the lives of people who did not reproduce were somehow 'incomplete'. I would argue that rather than simply fathering a few brats who might easily have died in infancy, Michelangelo 'fathered' the David in Florence, the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Tomb of the Medici, the Dying Slave, the Doni Tondo, and posterity, humanity and Italy are much the better off for them. Given the choice between writing, say, 'The Portrait of a Lady' or dealing with soiled nappies, prams, childhood illnesses sleepless nights and ungrateful children I choose option a, the novel writing

That's all very nice, but how many of the childless people are Michelangelos? Humility is rather important here.

Similarly with all those other creators, inventors, scientists, writers, theoreticians- reproduction is a choice, not part of some imaginary list of boxes to be ticked to qualify for full humanity. Human experience is a spectrum rather than a series of hoops to be jumped through like trained circus animals. I receive and give love to my relatives' and friends' children- I do not envisage having any, nor would I want to. Luckily the Office of the Fatherland and Motherland in Australia has yet to get on my case about not spreading my semen far and wide. Really, it's like something out of '1984' or Stalinist Russia.

I guess I gave out the wrong impression: I am not "more kids more kids!" I am actually heavily against this. But I do think that the "Having no kids whatsoever is fine!" attitude is just as lethal on the long run.

Your examples from the animal world are wrong as well, since we're talking about pack leaders killing off genetic competition. In our society, the father/mother ratio is much closer to 1. This obviously leads to that the population is still reproducing. This is not the case with us.

o you think nature knows what it's doing in allowing all these incomplete lives to carry on consuming precious resources?

Nature doesn't "know" ****. It just is there. and the result in the end is still the same birthrates, even if only one male "gets some", if you know what I mena.

[Az]

Again, you might think that it's wrong, but there is no law, be it biological or political that says that having children is the "right thing to do".
Picture this, if every couple on earth has just one child, the population will dwindle to 0 eventually. So, if it's your moral duty to advance the human race by procreation then it should also be "wrong" to only have one child since you are doing the exact same thing as not having them, the only difference being that you are delaying the unavoidable.

I am really saddened that you so light-heartly talk about your species' demise.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel


I aim to please, Laz.

Really? Are your eyes open?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel

Seriously, You've got to think big for a second. The fact that modern humans don't reproduce enough is a fact: Europe, USA, Japan, the pattern is the same. I think that the preservation of the modern way of life is important enough that we think of this condition as a problem.

With 6 billion people worldwide, where's the problem? Import a million Indians or so- they've got plenty to spare.

[Az]

And when the Indians modernize? what then?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why do you equate "modernise" with "stop breeding"?

Why aren't you taking into consideration the fact that one side-effect of modernisation is a longer lifespan in which we can work?