Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[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.

[KrazyHorse]

[mrmitchell]

It meets the "SUV-sized hole" test. I'm not inclined to keep my hand in a hot fire for ten hours, but if it would save the world, I sure as hell would.

But it's not very fiery. You even said "Yahtzee." What is this? PC Hour? Bring out the flames, man.

[Whoha]

3 people isn't enough anyway, so thats doomed, if we modify it so that about 100 gays and 100 women. There'd still be a human race, they can impregnate the women through other means, if they chose to..

[Wiglaf]

Mr Mitchell, the thing is, if you put your hand on the hot plate so to speak, you are INVALIDATING the practice of HOMO-SEXUALITY.

Why?

Because you now argue it is a LUXURY.

Marriages ain't about luxury.

[reds4ever]

Easy answer. Gays are such sluts that given the chance they'd nail anything.

The only variable in the scenario is whether the woman will **** the gays.

[Wiglaf]

Are you some kind of pervert?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

No, but it does prove your idiocy, Wiggy.

Nice troll, though it's not quite up to your previous achievements. Keep practicing, you'll be back in top form sooner or later.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Are you some kind of pervert?

Aren't you to be thinking about this so constantly?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Are you some kind of pervert?

\\


We're all SOME kind of pervert, be more specific

[Whaleboy]

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.

Immoral and illegal? Please explain? In the context of the three people on the island you need to show how the future of the human race is a necessary condition to any of their future actions.

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.

Which operates on the assumption that that which is not a biological requirement to the perpetuation of the human race is a deviance, which again you need to show.

Nobody can possibly question that homosexuals cannot biologically produce children with their partners but this excludes a number of factors. Firstly, considering that many/all higher mammals have a proportion of homosexual individuals, we cannot describe it as a function of superior human intelligence or an artificial superlative, indeed one might argue it serves a useful evolutionary purpose, since it is not in the interests of humanity to have too many individual for its given local ecosystem to support. The bacteria in the petri dish problem.

Furthermore, consider Maslows hierarchy of needs. In a situation like that, survival is a priority and it is less likely that sexual realisation and actualisation will occur than in a context where life is not so much of a life-and-death situation. Which leads me on to the final point. Given those numbers of people, any species which reproduces using dualistic sex (male+female) as opposed to asexual would not be able to survive given a start of two males and one female because of the lack of variety in the gene pool and the probability of decendents being unable to genetically survive.

Given a greater number of people in any case, homosexuality is both an option regarding procreation (other sources of genetic material), though you still need to answer my first questions, and an eventuality (more people, higher up Maslows hierarchy of needs, more chance of sexual/personal/interpersonal realisation).

Quad erat demonstrandum

[mrmitchell]

Mr Mitchell, the thing is, if you put your hand on the hot plate so to speak, you are INVALIDATING the practice of HOMO-SEXUALITY.

Why?

Because you now argue it is a LUXURY.

Marriages ain't about luxury.

...no.

Actually only reason I post in thread is say thanks.

Thanks Wiglaf! You motivate me take English course. I now learning God's Language.

I use FOXNEWS as practice. It very good English practice. Thank yu!

[Wiglaf]

I'd like to get married to my toaster. As a luxury. Civil rights for all! Including my kitty-cat Commyton, he's so furry.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. You got to draw the line somewhere. And so far the analysis has not even been challenged.

The great are only appreciated when they are dead, the saying goes. Well I ain't waiting.

[Wiglaf]

Immoral and illegal? Please explain? In the context of the three people on the island you need to show how the future of the human race is a necessary condition to any of their future actions.

Everyone else on the planet has been destroyed due to a meteor or somesuch.

Which operates on the assumption that that which is not a biological requirement to the perpetuation of the human race is a deviance, which again you need to show.

NO NO NOT EVERYTHING. Just a coupling of two people who want to live forever who, without the deviant factor, would have made babies WINK WINK and thus evolved the race.

[Nubclear]

Assuming genetic diversity is NOT a factor, the homosexuals would be forced to have sex with the woman. However, this is not even remote proof that homosexuality doesn't exist - they would be forced into the situation.

This was quite pathetic, Wiglaf. Try again.