Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Whaleboy]

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.

Do you not find marriage to be irrelevant to the example however? Regardless of the issue of prolonging the human race too!!

That's the same thing as coerced.

No, to coerce you bring in a "chain of command" like structure which renders a free will a puppet of your free will, and thus your responsibility. I don't see your point wrt coersion however.

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

Sure. Assume my definition to hold. Murder is imposed killing. Intrinsic to that definition, there lies no notion of "good" or "bad", "moral" or "immoral". It is essentially amoral until you attach that property to is, which should be entertaining.

How can an action be fallacious?

Forgive me. I mean the proposition of that action in the given context.

JCC:

Download mIRC

Tried

[Whaleboy]

You live in the elijaverse ...

It's a good place to be! Would you like pie?

[Wiglaf]

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.

Marriages with infertile people are certainly not the way to go. They are bizarre anyway and should not last very long.

Heterosexual interaction WINK WINK is where babies come from. Hence it is anything but a luxury.

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.

Bingo. Hence Homosexuality = a spin at the craps table. A luxury. Not something to be taken seriously. I love it when everyone proves me right

[Az]

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?

It's not a linear function of the number of people. After a certain number, the amount of people is unsustainable by the enviroment, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf Marriages with infertile people are certainly not the way to go. They are bizarre anyway and should not last very long.

Have you ever heard of menopause? After around the age of fifty, women become infertile. So should all marriages after that date be annulled?

Heterosexual interaction WINK WINK is where babies come from. Hence it is anything but a luxury.

Straight sex is where babies come from, yes, but straight sex is NOT equivalent to straight marriage.

[Wiglaf]

Have you ever heard of menopause? After around the age of fifty, women become infertile. So should all marriages after that date be annulled?

NO they need to parent.

Straight sex is where babies come from, yes, but straight sex is NOT equivalent to straight marriage.

Fine, ban all marriage, what the hell do I care, if you really want to force the issue. But the absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that.

EDIT - Straight MARRIAGES definitely encourage straight sex wink wink. I thought this WAS OBVIOUS

[Kuciwalker]

NO they need to parent.

Most people's children are gone from the house by that age, and this still begs the question - should the marriage be annulled after their children are gone?

Fine, ban all marriage, what the hell do I care, if you really want to force the issue. But the absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that.

Why would gay people have kids anyway?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Bingo. Hence Homosexuality = a spin at the craps table. A luxury. Not something to be taken seriously. I love it when everyone proves me right

But what do you mean by a "luxury"? Do you mean it as in a purely physical/ pleasure thing that doesn't really serve a biological purpose? If so, then I guess thats true.

But the times are different today, homosexuality, to homosexuals, serves a distinct emotional purpose, and I'm sure many gays out there would argue with you that it is a "luxury", since to them its the only option they have.

[Wiglaf]

Most people's children are gone from the house by that age, and this still begs the question - should the marriage be annulled after their children are gone?

Why bother, old people do not make many babies anyway, it is no use letting granddaddy out on the prowl, you know, wink winking his way around the nightclub, BECAUSE HE'LL BE SEVENTY YEARS OLD, why bother.

Why would gay people have kids anyway?

What's your point ? I don't understand

But the times are different today, homosexuality, to homosexuals, serves a distinct emotional purpose,

And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Fine, ban all marriage, what the hell do I care, if you really want to force the issue. But the absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that.

But today isn't 500,000 years ago when we were an endangered species. Not every couple needs to have children, and in fact, we'd probably be better off (globally) if more people didn't have kids.

[Az]

And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all

I am sorry, but...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Why bother, old people do not make many babies anyway, it is no use letting granddaddy out on the prowl, you know, wink winking his way around the nightclub, BECAUSE HE'LL BE SEVENTY YEARS OLD, why bother.

A grandaddy could still have kids. The absolute worse you can do is ENCOURAGE people to hookup for life with someone who can never, you know, have kids the biologically sensible way DAMN I'm right about that.

What's your point ? I don't understand

Allowing them to marry isn't going to decrease the number of children produced, cuz they AREN'T GOING TO HAVE KIDS ANYWAY.

And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1.

We're not going to go extinct through lack of reproduction.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And it also serves to lessen our evolutionary potential as a species. And that must be stopped, obviously of course, like a train out of control it threatens to kill us all, cited in example 1 in original post on page1.

No it doesn't. As I said before, our evolutionary history was furthered by culturally evading the fact that homosexuality exists (ie, gays having straight sex to have children, and gay sex for pleasure), and if the ration of 1/10 were to somehow increase, we'd find other ways around it in much the same way as we did before.

But actually, your point is moot, since if more gays are abstaining from straight sex completely (ie, through gay marriage), the "genes" and the biological traits which encourage it, are not being passed on whatsoever. If anything, the growing acceptance of gays and things like gay marriage is starting the slow decline of homosexuality in our species, since now they don't feel obligated to bear their own children.

[mrmitchell]

How many times has Wiglaf winked in this thread?

Oh God, he's got Mingitis, hasn't he?

I'm sorry. I didn't know.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


NO they need to parent.

So Wiglaf supports marriage for homosexual couples with children ...

Down with the liberal element Wiglaf!!!