Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Wiglaf]

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.

If everyone were gay then we'd put an end to the practice. SO I SAY WHY WAIT BABY?

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.

Grandaddies HAVE ALRADY HAD KIDS wink wink THE BIOLOGICAL WAY, which gays cannot do, wink wink. And if you all keep shouting I will lose my appetite for toast, which I used to find tasty, before this yucky thread.

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

They would, if they were not infected by Deviant Gene 001, as I like to call it. (002 is obesity for the record)

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

But we will lose genetic diversity. And WHAT if we would go extinct? Then you'd change your tune? On a purely theoretical level, my tune is steadier than yours.

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.

There are ways of eliminating Deviant Gene 001, which we can discuss later (medicinal, psycological quarantine, tax deduction, litigation, etc), but they sure as hell don't involve gay marriage, or social acceptance, etc.

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

Society aka you, Mr Jimmy Crack Corn, are doing your part to pass the gene on , so to speak.

Down with the liberal element Wiglaf!!!

I've been voting conservative, since before you were born, please show respect, thank you, and I hold elective office, so please watch your step.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Grandaddies HAVE ALRADY HAD KIDS wink wink THE BIOLOGICAL WAY, which gays cannot do, wink wink.

So? They should have some more!

They would, if they were not infected by Deviant Gene 001, as I like to call it. (002 is obesity for the record)

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

But we will lose genetic diversity.

The only genetic diversity we could possibly lose is your so-called "deviant gene 001", which, btw, does not exist. So far no one has been able to find ANY evidence for homosexuality as an inherited trait.

[Dry]

Wiglaf, your little story is really funny
Mind if I try some?


Does this "disprove" monogamy?

Scenario: a strait 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 the male guy of the couple, and you are really attracted to your official female partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the other girl, what do you do?

A - Stay faithfull to your love, and only "date", WINK WINK, your love, and sexually avoid the other female,

--OR--

B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the other female, even though you don't want to.

If you pick A, you reduce the chance of species survival through reducing the number of possible offsprings, reducing the chances of having male AND female children, but also forcing your children to mate their brother/sister.

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

Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.



Let's try another one.



Does this "disprove" death penalty?

Scenario: a strait 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 the male guys, and you are really attracted to your female partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the other girl. That other girl being jaleous, kills your wife. What do you do?

A - Stay faithfull to your moral values and that murderer HAS to be put to death,

--OR--

B - Don't kill the murderer (murderess?) because she's the only remaining female on earth.

If you pick A, you kill the species.

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

Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.



Hey, this is cool. Maybe we should make a special thread of this...

[Urban Ranger]

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

You are confused.

Just because something is a luxury, according to you, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Thus, your argument is refuted.

[Whaleboy]

His argument was refuted four pages ago and frankly I was surprised it took that long! He's been thoroughly owned by Kuci, Azazel, JCC and myself to the point where the only honourable thing for him to do is pm us his 'Poly password, ebay account and shoe size

[Mercator]

Re: Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
yadda yadda yadda culture of life yadda yadda yadda

Did you see the Larry King Bush interview or something?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
His argument was refuted four pages ago and frankly I was surprised it took that long!

Quite. Should take only a line or two

[Agathon]

I'll say it again.

It's not clear that not procreating in this case is immoral. Some people think (a) that we only have obligations to presently existing persons or (b) those future persons whose existence we are responsible, or (c) future persons who are likely to come into existence independently of our actions.

(c) would cover our environmental responsibilities to future generations, and it doesn't entail mandatory procreation. It doesn't entail that we have to procreate in the original example because there are no persons who will come into existence independently of our actions, nor are there any persons whose existence we are responsible for if we decide not to procreate.

You need an argument to show why procreation is mandatory. You can't rely on arguments about the welfare of future generations because they are covered by principles that don't make procreation obligatory.

[Whaleboy]

Agathon? Existentialism? ...nah

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

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

No, it ain't.


I've already demonstrated to anyone with the intelligence of more than a grain of rice that sperm meets egg= baby.


You don't have to be heterosexual.


We have, even without the usual method of penis in vagina, a variety of ways to inseminate women with sperm.

Perhaps you could drag yourself kicking and screaming into, oh, I don't know, at least the nineteenth century, when it comes to methods of reproduction, biology, human sexuality and, well, commonsense.


Oh, and by the by- animals have been getting along fine in nature with same sex coupling.

And drop the wink wink routine.

Wasn't remotely funny the first time, and the three thousandth time it's just about as funny as finding cancer cells in a half eaten jar of jam.


'If everyone were gay then we'd put an end to the practice. '

Wiglaf


Change gay in that sentence to Wiglaf, and you would get something I suspect many people would pay good money to see.

Being gay isn't a 'practice' and if everyone were gay, who is that 'we' who'd be putting an end to it?

You've progressed from being stupid and amusing in a rather pathetic way, to just plain offensive.

Gee, who'd a thunk.

[Gazablanca]

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.

Sorry Wiggy,but utter bollocks.

More people than ever are going into marriages where having kids and raising a family are not the first priority anymore.The main priority is getting together with the person that feels right for them and if kids are a result of this,fair dos.And if not because of a medical reason or that couples don't want kids anyway,it is no less a reason to get married.

[Last Conformist]

I've been voting conservative, since before you were born, please show respect, thank you, and I hold elective office, so please watch your step.

Not before you mend your liberal ways!

[MORON]

Apolyton does not result in more children and wink wink, therefore apolyton obvious don't exist. I declare all poly posters as having deviant genes and are unnatural and must be elimated.


Damn, trolling is hard....

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, especially when what you say is true

[Wiglaf]

If you are arguing homosexuality exists, you cannot argue it is a biological evolution. Then, let's take it a step further. It doesn't seem to do anything but encourage people not to have kids. Fine, comrade Molly Bloom, perhaps you can make a test-tube monster baby or whatnot. But the fact remains, homosexuality represents a deviant gene.

Unless it doesn't exist, in which case all gay people are lunatics, and must be locked away, no pun intended.