Should Homosexuals Recieve A Tax Deduction?

[Wiglaf]

What?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
What?

What makes you so smart to say that homosexuals are bad for society? Who gives you that right to say that?

[Wiglaf]

Uhh...what are you talking about? In America we've got freedom of speech, if that's what you're trying to say...?

If you want me to tell you why homosexuals are bad, that's easy. They have a condition that lessens their will to reproduce with a female to the point where they don't do it. And once that happens, no normal reproduction takes place.

That's a negative trait to take on. A very negative one. And whether or not you can make a test tube baby despite it or whatever isn't the point. The point is that your drive to do something so critical for the survival of the species fails and you're left with only your mind to hold the fort as far as reproduction goes.

Whether you manage to work around it or not, anything that lessens your chances at continuing the species in such a major way is no good.

[Giancarlo]

Uhh...what are you talking about? In America we've got freedom of speech, if that's what you're trying to say...?

I can't believe you try to bail yourself out with that! You are inciting hate. Period.

If you want me to tell you why homosexuals are bad, that's easy.

You are one hateful bastard.

They have a condition that lessens their will to reproduce with a female to the point where they don't do it.

And what if they don't want a child? Are they forced to? Like in Nazi Germany or something? Wiggy, you are a nazi.

That's a negative trait to take on. A very negative one.

There is nothing negative about it. And population growth can be reduced slightly by it, if we overpopulate this world it could become a problem. Well it already is.

And whether or not you can make a test tube baby despite it or whatever isn't the point. The point is that your drive to do something so critical for the survival of the species fails and you're left with only your mind to hold the fort as far as reproduction goes.

Wrong. WRONG! WRONG! People shouldn't be forced to reproduce if they don't want to, and two males do have a right to have a relationship. It is just as healthy as any other relationship. Your reproduction argument holds no merit.

Whether you manage to work around it or not, anything that lessens your chances at continuing the species in such a major way is no good.

Again no merit what-so-ever. Homosexuality as said occurs in animal species too.

[Wiglaf]

Wrong. WRONG! WRONG! People shouldn't be forced to reproduce if they don't want to, and two males do have a right to have a relationship. It is just as healthy as any other relationship. Your reproduction argument holds no merit.

Again you miss the point. I never said people should be forced to reproduce. I simply said that anything that makes it less likely for you to reproduce in such a major way (you dig guys not girls) is a threat and a disorder..eventually it'll screw us all over as obesity will. Therefore gays deserve a tax deduction.

[Guynemer]

Whose DL are you, widdle Wiggums?

Kindly provide a Fox link as evidence, if you will.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Again you miss the point. I never said people should be forced to reproduce. I simply said that anything that makes it less likely for you to reproduce in such a major way (you dig guys not girls) is a threat and a disorder..eventually it'll screw us all over as obesity will. Therefore gays deserve a tax deduction.

Homosexuality won´t spread wiglaf. It remains confined in 5-10% percent that most stats say. Homosexuality is not a disorder nor is it a threat, and the AMA (Which consists of Doctors) recognizes it is not. Who should I believe you, or doctors?

BTW, I am gay... and don´t discuss it often...

I DEMAND FOX LINK! AND I WOULD LIKE $50,000 TOO!

[finkian]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Again you miss the point. I never said people should be forced to reproduce. I simply said that anything that makes it less likely for you to reproduce in such a major way (you dig guys not girls) is a threat and a disorder..eventually it'll screw us all over as obesity will. Therefore gays deserve a tax deduction.

Throughout this entire thread, I've been amused by your assumption that homosexuality is going to lead to the extinction of the human species-- but, honestly, wiglaf, the rate of gays is the same as it ever was, it's not growing. So, even if it doesn't work for the benefit of the human race, it is certainly less harmful than obesity as far as society goes. Now, I would like to ask you-- if people can be changed from gay to straight, wouldn't that mean that they weren't really gay in the first place? That they are just confused straight people? How do they come to this confusion?

[GeneralTacticus]

Why would a tax break induce gays/obese people to change? Wouldn't that just be an incentive NOT to change?

In any case, Wiggy, we have enough difficulty with overpopulation as is. We don't need any more. If you say that homosexuality is 'depopulating the planet', well and good, the place (IMO) probably NEEDS some depopulation (natrual depopulation that is, not mass murder).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So you can't give me a reason why homosexuality is a positive trait? What a shame.

Yes, I can --- the legitimate, intimate, monogamous relationships that gays and lesbians develop. The same kind of relationships that heterosexuals want.

But of course, you want to deny that homosexuals and bisexuals are humans with the same needs as heterosexuals.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Uhh...what are you talking about? In America we've got freedom of speech, if that's what you're trying to say...?

Nuh-uh. Freedom of speech extends only until you infringe on the rights of someone else. And boy, is that ever what you're doing.

[Tuberski]

You know Wiggy I haven't been on al weekend, and yet I didn't miss one of your explanations. BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY! All you have one is rant the same thing over and over again. You are tired, and not particularly intelligent. If you start a thread like this you should at least have some FACTS to base it on not your personal views.

But, 'll make the really simple for you. I'll answer your original question with small words so you understand......

NO!

Did that answer your question?

[Logical Realist]

Well first off I'd like to say that I think Wiggy has any right to express any opinion he wants, no matter how crude, and any judgement, no matter how bigoted.

The Constitution protects that, and if you limit HIS speech on the basis of preference or disagreement, then you are opening a door for all kinds of censorship some of which you may not desire.

Its true that freedom of speech does not apply if it infinges on the rights of others...but who's rights has he infringed on and how? What law says one does not have a right to voice a bigoted opinion?

Fundies says that atheists are evil and deserve to go to hell all the time.....and I dislike that....but I admit they have a right to it. And also know that I will always have to counter that claim whenever it is made....the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Now onto Wiglaff:


In regards to homosexuality being successful because homosecuality is surviving and spreading:

Lots of negative traits spread...

Even if they do, they don't usually last for very long. They are naturally selected. Homosexuality has been with our species for thousands, more likely millions, of years.

This thread has always assumed that the obese deserve one as well.

They could "deserve" that on a different basis than other than that of a purely Darwinian standard. For example, that might be made out of sympathy or to make them more productive in the long run.

We are again talking about tax cuts for gays based on your pseudo-Darwinian standard and I have shown that going by your pseudo-Darwinian standards that such tax cuts to make gays straight would actually be undesirable(since that would lower my fitness(resources) and increase their own(give them a chance to reproduce).

No it's not. Unless you consider homosexuality to be a positive trait for the species, regardless of how it reduces your will to reproduce, I'm simply stating the truth and presenting an obvious (perhaps too obvious) yet new point of view.

(On Wigloaf's anti-gay stance being compared to racism)


That's a non sequitar...why does it have to be shown to be positive to be compared to racism? Also you define the idea of "positive for a species" very narrowly and simplistically, and incorrectly according to modern evolutionary theory. BTW how is integration of races positive for the species, even by your definitions?

but I sure as hell would like to know how it could ever be positive.

Ok, here are some reasons.It could give a tribe of people mor manpower, while not increasing competition among males for mates. It could allow a vent for males unable to get mates to release their sexual frustration, decreasing incidents of rape. It helps add new members while making sure the population being born doesn't get too big. It helps with our own overpopulation problem by creating people wwho do not have reproduce. Things like that. Such behavior can also help with male and female bonding, making the group more unified. Stuff like that equal coulds though each is purely hypothetical.

If you want me to tell you why homosexuals are bad, that's easy. They have a condition that lessens their will to reproduce with a female to the point where they don't do it. And once that happens, no normal reproduction takes place.

Actually, even given your backwards view, it would be bad for gays and good for straights, as that would leave more opputunities open for the straights.

But alas, you still fail to recognize that the Darwinian good might be worthless, in terms of its value, to us organisms. An organism does not consciouslly care about its genes, it cares about satisfying its desires which in the past just happened to be good at spreading genes. If the organism finds an easier way to satisfy its desires, that doesn't help genes spread, then it is reasonable to expect such an organism to take that course of action. We as human being may then value things over and apart from the spreading of genes. From a moral viewpoint then, you cannot say that a failure to reproduce is automatically bad. As we might not care about reproduction, in our own cases or other's.

All you are saying is that gays will not spread their individual genes. This may be bad in a Darwinian sense,(may in that if they help family and such spread genes they can still be counted as good at spreading genes, like worker ants help queens) but so what? What makes you think people value the evolutionary process? I personally don't to that extent.

Also what makes you think that homosexuality has to be positive or negative? Why can't it just be neutral?

So far all you've done is demonstrate a lack of understanding in what evolution is and how it relates to morality. I suggest you do more research before commenting further. And actually aknowledge my posts.

[Wiglaf]

Yes, I can --- the legitimate, intimate, monogamous relationships that gays and lesbians develop. The same kind of relationships that heterosexuals want.

But of course, you want to deny that homosexuals and bisexuals are humans with the same needs as heterosexuals.

Something that replaces your will to reproduce with a new drive to just be good friends is definitely negative and harmful for the species, Mr. Fun.

The Constitution protects that, and if you limit HIS speech on the basis of preference or disagreement, then you are opening a door for all kinds of censorship some of which you may not desire.

Exactly...

Even if they do, they don't usually last for very long.

The flu's been around at least as long as we have. Obese people have as well. So have various birth defects. You couldn't be any more wrong...

Ok, here are some reasons.It could give a tribe of people mor manpower, while not increasing competition among males for mates. It could allow a vent for males unable to get mates to release their sexual frustration, decreasing incidents of rape. It helps add new members while making sure the population being born doesn't get too big. It helps with our own overpopulation problem by creating people wwho do not have reproduce. Things like that. Such behavior can also help with male and female bonding, making the group more unified. Stuff like that equal coulds though each is purely hypothetical.

If the trait is applied to the entire species (which it is trying to do), we're gone. I'm sure you can find all sorts of isolated scenarios where homosexuality can be useful (I could tell you a couple nutty ways having no limbs would be great)...that's not the point. Our biological purpose is to reproduce (unless you disagree?). Homosexuality is a gross violation of that natural law in every way.

Nuh-uh. Freedom of speech extends only until you infringe on the rights of someone else. And boy, is that ever what you're doing.

How have I infringed on the rights of others, again? Whatever.

Homosexuality won´t spread wiglaf. It remains confined in 5-10% percent that most stats say.

Thank God (although some links to back that would be...err, rather nice). Let's get rid of it while we still can instead of letting it loose on the general population like we did with obesity, and inform the public of the reasons being gay is harmful.

If you're gay now, that's fine as long as you realize it isn't a good thing to be. You can feel good about it but certainly shouldn't be all "Yes I'm A Homosexual" or whatever if you know much about biology and how most humans are intended to reproduce.

Now, I would like to ask you-- if people can be changed from gay to straight, wouldn't that mean that they weren't really gay in the first place? That they are just confused straight people? How do they come to this confusion?

People can be changed from fat to thin, it's worth a shot.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Wiglaf



Thank God (although some links to back that would be...err, rather nice).

You mean links like the ones you have given us? You started the thread, you prove it!