I'm just pondering the notion of "beneficial".
What do we actually mean by "benefit", and whom does it benefit?
Just a few generations ago we all believed in the Western world that Kings had Divine Rights, and to question that was "unnatural".
Now we live in a morally reletavistic world, where whatever claims to be "absolute good" is often exposed as evil.
As Hannah Arendts and others pointed out, the Holocaust was possible because of insignificant, banal citizen's positive qualities like precision, work
ethic, patriotism and loyalty.
So one has to define terms like "society" and being "beneficial".
Endangered animals or minority cultures may not be beneficial in any direct sense, but they may hold all kinds of future beneficial material.
Consumption, consumer goods and gas-guzzling SUVs may not be benefial to the environment or future generations, but they may be temporarily beneficial
So it seems that "benefit" is a golden mean, or a balancing act.
Heterosexual vaginal sex can keep populations going, but it can also cause over-population. Either extreme can cause extinction for the entire
Therefore it's a bit unfair to say that only homosexuality can cause extinction. Without intervention heterosexuality can also cause extinction.
The thing is that people imagine a worst case scenario for homosexuality (if EVERYBODY was gay we'd die out), but they keep the denial on
heterosexuality - because the way things are going heterosexuality threatens us far more.
It's not balanced.
So, since gay culture nowadays largely tries to copy heterosexuality, it can also not be balanced.
The blind leading the blind, it seems.
edit on 24-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)