Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Az]

I think that forums are the best for this, I am far too lazy for PMing or E-mail discussions..... (plus this is a spam thread, so noone should care)

[Whaleboy]

But email is fun! I can use more pictures .

[Whaleboy]

The PM system is dying, I've sent you an email.

[Whaleboy]

Ah email is dead too... screw this
ben.elijah*at*gmail dotcom

[Last Conformist]

I question his liberalism.

He's evil. It follows he's a liberal.

[Az]

ben, use anti spam protection.

Btw, I am at
dkogan @(SPAMGUARD) gmail.com

[MrFun]

This thread smells like horse ****.

[Last Conformist]

Whaddya expect? Wiglaf started it!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
All I know is, gay marriage is a luxury. Homosexuality obviously exists. I didn't mean to dispute that. At least not right now.

Heterosexual marriage is a luxury, too - it's unnecessary for survival of the human race. In fact, here's an example: there are three people on a deserted island. One is a fertile female, the other is infertile, and the third is a fertile guy married to the infertile woman. Thus, if you stay "true" to marriage you won't have sex with the fertile woman and the human race will die out. Thus, straight marriage is as much a luxury as gay marriage.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, I mean imposed. To be existentialist about it, the decision is not made by the free will of the beholder, but the free will of the killer, or then kills that person against their will;

That's the same thing as coerced.

The point is that the definition of murder is XYZ and it is a fallacy to say XYZ = bad, we have only established a definition of murder which can *then* be debated.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this; could you clarify?

I didn't. Going on from my definition I would say that all forceful imposition of one relative upon another (person upon person) is fallacious in the human context.

WTF?

How can an action be fallacious?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
The utility function is still much lower with no people whatsoever existing.

So you think we should all maximize the number of people there are, so that there's more total happiness even if everyone happens to be in poverty?

[Jon Miller]

I think we should maximize the total number of people there are

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Apolyton IRC doesn't work for me I cant get java to install, I'll pm you my email now if you want, gmail is perfect for this sort of thing (alas no more invites ).

Download mIRC.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Wiglaf - Clearly B has been chosen for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. In the distant past, sex for reproduction and sex for pleasure were seen as two separate things, so even humans and pre-humans with homosexual tendencies still had hetero sex in order to propagate the species. If they didn't, and all just chose A (going with their gut desires), there would be no homosexuality today, as heterosexuals would be the only ones reproducing. Which is not to say that there are hetero or homosexual "genes" being passed on, but rather that heterosexuality would become so ingrained and reinforced genetically, biologically and psycholologically over the millenia that homosexuality would have no choice but be reduced to a statistical improbability (ie 1/1000000 instead of 1/10).

And as far as marriage, you have to remember that it was only until very recently that marriage did not serve a finite purpose within society (all socieities), and that was to propagate the gene pool, and to secure familial alliances between (often rivaling) family groups or clans. Hence why most marriages across the planet have been arranged for most of human existence. So, only in the past 50 or so years can you say its become a luxury, and only in western society.

[Last Conformist]

How can an action be fallacious?

You live in the elijaverse ...