Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Wiglaf]

c) that it is self-evident that homosexuality is not utterly opposed to the continuation of the human race,

What?? As a biologically deviant gene it certainly is.

Unless you think humans evolved with test-tube babies in mind? That's absurd.

[Theben]

Okay, who left the gate to the Nedaverse unguarded? Whoha? Boris? Come on, 'fess up!

[Getao321]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


It shows it's a luxury.

I'm sure there's a reason that most people who can't avoid tend to be rather counterproductive to the continuation of the human race.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Theben
Okay, who left the gate to the Nedaverse unguarded? Whoha? Boris? Come on, 'fess up!

I honestly tried to stop the thread at 3 posts.

In my continuation of that, Heterosexual sex is never done with the intent to have a child, its one of those things that just happens.

Originally posted by MORON
Posting on poly and watching porn is a lux.

HERESY!

SEIZE HIM AND BURN HIM AT THE STAKE

[Last Conformist]

That makes three people on the pyre - Wiglaf, Whaleboy, and MORON. Ya think we could have them make a lively threesome while burning?

[Drogue]

Re: Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.

Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?

A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,

--OR--

B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.

The dilemma here for homosexuals and their activists is this -

If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act a la the guy who killed Harrison Ford's wife in The Fugitive. In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly.

If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.

Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.

Ok, I was trying to avoid this thread, seeing how much of a troll it is, but I can resist no longer.

Let's take a counter example. You're a heterosexual, and you're put in a room with George Bush (or whoever happens to have a lot of nukes at his diposal). Now Bush goes wacko, and while locked in a room, says he'll blow up the entire species if you don't give him a blowjob.

Do you:
a) refuse, thus, as you put it "you are terminating the species through your heterosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act"
or do you
b) show that heterosexuality is a luxury?

However forgetting all that, how does one person have a duty to preserve the human species? if the species is wiped down to 3 people, what necessity do they have to preserve it? It's their lives.

Moreover, use your example with a member of your own family. The only way for the human race to survive is for you to procreate with a member of your family. Would that be immoral to refuse?

And even if you still have some definition of luxury that somehow means our biological need to copulate is a luxury, what does it matter? By that definition, everything but water, oxygen and a single form of food is a luxury. Moreover, in a normal case, where the survival of the special rests on 6 billion people, rather than 3, why is one couple being gay any worse than a couple where one of them is infertile, or who decide not to have children? Then it's not a necessity, because others will carry on the species.

But then, surely life is a luxury? Someone could believe in some higher power granting us life, then believe it necessary to carry on for them, granted, but then your arguments that led to life being a necessity would fall on deaf ears of anyone who didn't believe in such a deity. Excluding that, why is life a necessity? We've evolved through chance and chaos, and will continue to do so, until the planet disappears or we wipe ourselves out. There's no overriding reason in that, except life itself.

I won't sink to the insults and ad hominems that you and others have, but I think you've got a few points to show to make your example hold any water:
Why is carrying on the species the duty of one particular person?
Would that be the same if the secxualities were reversed but the consequences the same?
What is a luxury - why is one form of copulation a luxury, and another not. Presuming the opposite being an necessity, a necessity to what end, and why is that end necessary in the overall scheme of things?

However then you still have the problem that we're *not* all trapped on an island. In the real world, especially one of poverty, overcrowding and lack of resources, why is the value of a heterosexual relationship more than that of a homosexual one. Both are luxuries, both the participants could survive without. Why is more humans a good thing?

This is without considering the consequences of not having homosexuality. Surely trapping people into heterosexual relationships in order to preserve the species lead to a lot of unhappy people, both them and their partners, who would be unloved. If you want to talk about preserving the species, as you would seem to, surely a return to forceful impregnation by men, as per some animals, would lead to the most children. Yet it is an abhorrent idea.

Surely, by continuation of the species arguments, a gay man that donates his sperm, thus fathering many children, is doing more for that than a heterosexual man who doesn't? Why does being gay harm continuation of the species, in the real world?

Far from holding water, your example relies on many presuppositions, such as continuation of the species being the only thing that matters, that being gay in the real world "reduc(es) the evolutionary potential of the species significantly" and that a luxury is deviance (looking at this part "...sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.")

[Last Conformist]

@Drogue: Common sense in a Wiglaf thread

Help me gather would for the Wiglaf-Whaleboy-MORON pyre/orgy instead.

[MORON]

Don't burn me

Big difference between getting married and spending minutes/hours on the internet.

I'll probably just spend 20 whole years in front the internet before I die.

marriage = some legal paper work, nothing else.

[MRT144]

its like this.

if the gay folks choose not to have sex with the woman it isnt immoral because morality is relative. To them the moral thing might be to eat the ***** and use her bones as jewelry. The idea that it is a moral imperitive to continue the human race is wrong. Id rather than provide for the ones already here.

if the choose to have sex with the woman to continue the human race they have violated their own belief system and are morally repugnant.

[MRT144]

and what are you wiglaf? a sophist?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MORON
Don't burn me

If the threesome is sufficiently interesting, we just might forget lighting the fire.

[MRT144]

id love to see some DP

[MRT144]

"See johnny, the human race was saved by two gay men DPing this woman"

[Whaleboy]

[Whaleboy]

Umm Drogue, he's trolling, he was actually refuted on the first page and he knows it