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

[Lancer]

Man, can I make a thread or what?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, if homosexuality is a biologically pre-determined trait, it would be hard to argue that it isn't a defect. A gene that produces an abnormal brain structure that leads the sufferer to be attracted to reproductively useless mates is a defect if I've ever heard of one.

Gee, I hate to demolish your apple cart, but

(1) There is a strong argument that low levels of homosexuality actually confer an evolutionary advantage to a given population. This would help explain the apparently universal rate of homosexuality across the populations of the world, as well as the frequency with which it appears throughout the mammalian kingdom. Reduced to a sentence, the argument is this: groups that have non-child producing members capable of increasing the group's ability to gather food, provide defense, rear children, etc. without bias towards any particular children of the group, give that group a valuable edge in terms of survivability.

(2) homosexuality (including child-rearing by homosexual couples) has been documented in hundreds (thousands?) of species of animals, including most kinds of mammals, (and nearly every type of primate). To characterize this as a "defect" seems a bit of a stretch, although I'm quite aware people are capable of dazzling stretches to fit the order of the world to their prejudices.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
I truly believe that most parents (except for the regligious) would choose to abort a gay fetus.

I think you need to get out of your trailer more often, Ned.

If you seriously doubt this, and I do not think that you do, why don't we conduct a poll here on Apolyton.

Q1: Assuming that being gay is genetic and that DNA analysis could determine that a fetus was gay, would you abort the fetus?

No.

Q2: If you are gay, would your parents have preferred you to not be gay?

No.

Ned, I wish you could meet my wonderful mother. Despite my arguments to the contrary, she firmly believes that gay people are God's special gift to humanity! She thinks that God put gay people, with their special creative talents, on Earth to enrich the world for everyone else. I LOVE MY MOM!!!!

Ned, when you hang around exclusively in circles (online and otherwise) of nasty, vinegary, hate-mongering conservatives, the result is the hobbled mindset you often display around here. You need to get out and mix it up a bit with more enlightened, loving, tolerant people. It will make your life a bit sunnier. C'mon, give it a try! Throw open that trailer door and get out there!

[Az]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Azazel:

False dilemma. Look at the early feminists like Susan B. Anthony who felt that a woman should not have to choose between children and a career, but should be able to do both.

Procreation does not hinder human rights in any way shape or form. In fact, I would argue just the opposite. Look at China, with their one child policy. Is China therefore the beacon of human rights? No. Restrictions upon procreation are the source of human rights abuses.

No it isn't. The fact is that most people in modern society don't want to procreate enough. period. that's the problem I talking about. It isn't just a problem of "the damn womyn trying to get out of the kitchun".

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Azazel
The US is a great example of NOT being it. The USA influences the immigrants much more than the immigrants influence the USA.

No, that's exactly my point. We take in immigrants and expand our culture to include them. Immigrants change the culture, and the culture also changes the immigrants. The result is a more dynamic society and culture. We know how to do this; so do Canada and the UK. Continental Europe hasn't quite figured it out, though, and maybe you guys haven't either. You'd better get on it.

It's clear, though, that you haven't got my point. My point is that if in our culture procreation isn't important, our culture cannot survive on it's own. And if you believe in all those gibberish values of modern society, like human rights, and such, you'd probably want that those other societies would change to meet those criteria, the problem being that there is no alternative mechanism to ensure procreation in place, thus making a 'modern values = not viable' equation a reality. We need to find a new social construct that would allow humans to procreate and to retain human rights, esp. women's rights, as well.

No, I understand your point. Now understand mine: adapt or die; you have a right to life, but your culture doesn't. Again, modern nations can assimilate non-modern immigrants; it's not necessarily easy, but the U.S. provides clear evidence that it can be done. Sure, you can instead shut the borders and get your people a-breedin', but you'll be a poorer nation (in every sense) for it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lancer
Man, can I make a thread or what?

Are you waiting to be handed an award or something?



Anyway, about parents preferring their children to be heterosexual -- my mother, a devout Catholic, unconditionally loves me and accepts this part of my identity.

[Ben Kenobi]

It isn't just a problem of "the damn womyn trying to get out of the kitchun".

Wow!

What an awesome flame. However, it might help if you hit the target. All I argued is that a woman ought to be able to have both a career and a child, and not have to settle for one or the other.

The fact is that most people in modern society don't want to procreate enough. period.

No, society makes it difficult to have a large family. It also does it's darnedest to delink sex from having a child. Surely people still want to have sex.

[Drake Tungsten]

(1) There is a strong argument that low levels of homosexuality actually confer an evolutionary advantage to a given population. This would help explain the apparently universal rate of homosexuality across the populations of the world, as well as the frequency with which it appears throughout the mammalian kingdom. Reduced to a sentence, the argument is this: groups that have non-child producing members capable of increasing the group's ability to gather food, provide defense, rear children, etc. without bias towards any particular children of the group, give that group a valuable edge in terms of survivability.

(2) homosexuality (including child-rearing by homosexual couples) has been documented in hundreds (thousands?) of species of animals, including most kinds of mammals, (and nearly every type of primate). To characterize this as a "defect" seems a bit of a stretch, although I'm quite aware people are capable of dazzling stretches to fit the order of the world to their prejudices.

You could also argue that Down's Syndrome supplies society with necessary french fry cooks, but I don't think anyone would argue that Down's Syndrome isn't a defect. A defect in a person's biological development isn't negated simply because they play a useful role in society.

[Az]

No, I understand your point. Now understand mine: adapt or die; you have a right to life, but your culture doesn't. Again, modern nations can assimilate non-modern immigrants; it's not necessarily easy, but the U.S. provides clear evidence that it can be done. Sure, you can instead shut the borders and get your people a-breedin', but you'll be a poorer nation (in every sense) for it.

You're AGAIN missing my point. If we cannot sustain our own society, it means that it is not a viable form of society.

[Winston]

Won't someone PLEASE think of the polar bears in all of this!?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Azazel

No, I understand your point. Now understand mine: adapt or die; you have a right to life, but your culture doesn't. Again, modern nations can assimilate non-modern immigrants; it's not necessarily easy, but the U.S. provides clear evidence that it can be done. Sure, you can instead shut the borders and get your people a-breedin', but you'll be a poorer nation (in every sense) for it.

You're AGAIN missing my point. If we cannot sustain our own society, it means that it is not a viable form of society.

Societies are, and should be, dynamic things. The great wave of immigration to the US that took place between 1890-1920 challenged and changed US society; by 1930, the US was a very different place than it had been in 1880, and all those Italians, Poles, Greeks, Jews, etc. were the primary reason. Does that mean that the US failed to sustain its society? No; it means its society flexed enough to survive. This wasn't easy and was often violent; this was, after all, the period wher the Ku Klux Klan started targeting Catholics and Jews in addition to blacks, all in the name of "sustaining" "our" society. Luckily, they failed.

Frankly, if you atavistically regard your society as a static thing, it doesn't deserve to survive. And it won't; history is rather clear on that point.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


You could also argue that Down's Syndrome supplies society with necessary french fry cooks, but I don't think anyone would argue that Down's Syndrome isn't a defect. A defect in a person's biological development isn't negated simply because they play a useful role in society.

Ah yes, the old 'Tchaikovsky is as useful as a finger painter' argument. The arrogance is breathtaking.

I knew someone who had Down's Syndrome who could actually tell anyone who wanted to know, what the chromosomal defects were that caused the syndrome to develop. Yes, he had other physical ailments too, but then so does Stephen Hawking now. People with 'defects' acquired, or otherwise, continue to contribute to society in ways too numerous to mention.

Even people who have to deal with the kind of condescension and prejudice that some people throw off as second nature, it seems.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I would, although I would only abort if it was still very early.

And for those who have seen the movie "Heathers".

I love my dead gay fetus!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A defect in a person's biological development isn't negated simply because they play a useful role in society.

But how are they judged "defective" in the first place? By your arbitrary criteria? Sorry, I'm not buying the "can't procreate = defect" argument. It doesn't jive well with nature, for starters. By your logic almost all bees and most male buffalo (to name just two examples) are "defective".

Nature's ways just don't conform well with the prim right's moralistic views of sex and sexuality.

[Ramo]

Some people always point out that we're more than our biological selves. I fully agree. That doesn't mean that we should neglect that we're living creatures, also. Negative growth of population numbers is wrong on a couple of levels:

a) in a sense, you're screwing up the next generation, simply by not having enough people. If we can ensure that 3 more people will have a great life, having zero, instead, is wrong. And the fact that they don't even exist yet, is, amusingly enough, irrelevant, just as it is wrong to place a time bomb that will kill people in the far future, even though they aren't born yet.

I don't see how those two situations are at all similar. You're killing people in one scenario, and you're not doing anything in another scenario.

And what makes you think the kid will have a great life? A lot of people are unfit parents who could potentially seriously **** up their kids' lives. Furthermore, the siblings of the kid will have to deal with lesser financial resources and parental time leading to a worse off a life in general.

b) negative growth rates wreck havoc upon our society. It's hurting to our economy, and our social life. In order to help ourselves, we need to "import" people from other countries, that have bad societies. If we need to rely on societies that are generally bad, maybe we have something to learn from them.

1. Importing people is good! It's better for the economy than high birth rates. If a person doesn't have many kids, it's more likely that he has a substantial pension. Furthermore, the kids that he have would likely be more highly educated. The influx of immigrants doesn't at all detract from this phenomena, whereas a high birth rate does.
2. We have a moral duty to liberate people from these oppressive societies by allowing them into our countries.
3. High birth rates in third world countries are very, very bad things (since, as I pointed out earlier, resources would be divided up more in families). Clearly they have to learn from us.
4. Your logic is faulty; I don't see why your assertion is justified.