The "If everyone was gay we wouldn't have children" argument

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I think that the argument has a positive spin to it only when the world is faced with overpopulation as well as a severe lack of resources. We aren't quite there yet, but dammit, we're trying! So maybe in a few decades to a century the argument of "if everyone was gay then there wouldn't be any children" might well enough become a reality. In which case, the gay community will have the last laugh.

Click here for more information.

If homosexuality was something a person could see, or something someone could "prove"...things would be much simpler. For example...a person born without legs is unquestionably born without legs. Someone who is born (or via an accident) paralyzed, it is sometimes questioned when there isn't an obvious spinal injury etc. It is sometimes thought to be "just in your head". For someone who is (and I'll just go with the position of homosexuals) born gay...there is no proof what-so-ever that belief isn't just in your head. It is a mental difference, not a physical difference. There is no "proof" that there is a physical difference from being born heterosexual. There is no gene, there is no disease, there is no you-are-gay-virus...there is nothing physical that means you are gay.

So...if there is no physical, testable and provable difference...then the difference must be in the mind. And a difference in the mind (not physically in the brain), it is just that...mental. Typically referred to as a "mental disorder" because it is different from the norm. For example...if someone is born and ten years later they decide that everything they own needs to be red, in color...that doesn't constitute a different type of person. At least not physically.

Now...physically, you are born either male of female. Marriage is based upon this difference as is nature, for the sake of continuing the species.

With all that being said...I believe that some people believe that they were "born to be gay". As much as some people believe they were "born to be alcoholics" or "born to be criminals" or even "born to one-with-God"...it doesn't change their gender, the number of limbs they have, the color of their skin, etc. Such a person isn't different...they just think differently. And again, when someone thinks so differently, many would call that a "mental disorder". But thinking differently, believing differently or liking/disliking something doesn't make that person a different entity. And...the reason gays are so often compared to pedophiles is for this reason...they think differently...they like different things. The only difference is that being gay is legal while being a pedophile isn't. The entire basis of "I like this type of person for love and sex but it isn't norm" is identical.

So in closing...if you are male and like males, or female and like females...I don't really care. I don't think anyone really cares until it is stuck in their faces, paraded on the streets or shown to our children on TV disguised as something "normal" and "acceptable". But in my opinion...that is where it ends. You can have a gay club, just like I can have a computer-geek club. But demanding the right to marriage? Demanding to be recognized? Demanding to be considered acceptable? No one has the right to demand that of others. Others have their own morals and beliefs of what is normal or acceptable. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE CHANGE IN OTHERS ANYMORE THAN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE CHANGE IN YOU.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


You're gonna love me for this one! No, some people are just weaker minded than others and prefer the safety of what they know, which is their own sex. I think it is a fear of having to compete with other men for females or vise versa that drive them into the arms of an unatural lover. If you tell yourself something enough you can convince yourself that you have always "just been that way." NOT A HATER JUST A STATER.....LOL

reply to post by Garfee


I didn't coin the phrase there, my little blue hat buddy.

reply to post by Garfee


I think the "gay lifestyle" is alternative because it is same sex, sex. Much like that term "alt" regarding straight sex is bondage, rape fantasy, etc.

if everyone was dead, we wouldn't have children either!
therefore, death is immoral.

erm...actually, I agree with what I just said...we should do something about this death thing. anyone up for some science and funding of life extension?

anyhow...being homophobic is totally gay.

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

You're gonna love me for this one! No, some people are just weaker minded than others and prefer the safety of what they know, which is their own sex. I think it is a fear of having to compete with other men for females or vise versa that drive them into the arms of an unatural lover. If you tell yourself something enough you can convince yourself that you have always "just been that way." NOT A HATER JUST A STATER.....LOL

Then your position is that it is a choice? I basically agree, but I've seen many people with disorders or delusions and (IMO) being gay fits that better then a simple choice. Besides, if being gay is a choice...what a commitment

The way I see it is, people who are gay are a huge benefit when it comes to the human population.

You have a machine that pumps out whatever, those whatevers then create more whatevers, bear in mind, theres only so much space these whatevers can fill.

So, now the machine pumps out something, that something adds to the whatever population, but doesn't breed more, slowing down the reproduction to keep space available for future whatevers.

That's a little complicated.

Basicly, men and women who are gay, who can reproduce through artificial insemination etc etc, keep populations under control, in a sense.
I mean, you have idiots who produce children when there is only so much space, jobs, money, food in a place, then you have gay people, so, contribute to population, but slow down reproduction for the future

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It's stupid. Just making sure that's clear before people post.

Why is it stupid? Well, if everyone was a woman we wouldn't have children either. Same with if everyone was born male. Hell, if everyone was born sterile we wouldn't have children. Does this make being a woman, man, or sterile wrong? Of course not.

In fact, there simply isn't a good argument for calling homosexuality immoral. All of them are as ridiculous as the aforementioned.

Calling something immoral is based upon a personal belief that you cannot standardize. But collectively societies decide which beliefs they hold more in common than less common and these become the standards by which we live.

Murder is commonly held as unacceptable, unless in self defense or in defense of others. But this is only so because the collective of a society has deemed this as "immoral".

One does not have to agree with the collective's decision, but to live in that society, one does have to abide by it.

Originally posted by voidla
The way I see it is, people who are gay are a huge benefit when it comes to the human population.

You have a machine that pumps out whatever, those whatevers then create more whatevers, bear in mind, theres only so much space these whatevers can fill.

So, now the machine pumps out something, that something adds to the whatever population, but doesn't breed more, slowing down the reproduction to keep space available for future whatevers.

That's a little complicated.

Basicly, men and women who are gay, who can reproduce through artificial insemination etc etc, keep populations under control, in a sense.
I mean, you have idiots who produce children when there is only so much space, jobs, money, food in a place, then you have gay people, so, contribute to population, but slow down reproduction for the future

So...you are saying it is a good thing that gay people don't breed??? Harsh!

reply to post by gncnew


im·mor·al   
[ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
–adjective
1.
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2.
licentious or lascivious.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
reply to post by gncnew

 

im·mor·al   
[ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
–adjective
1.
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2.
licentious or lascivious.

re·dun·dant
[riˈdəndənt]
-Adjective
1. No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function

*Used in a sentance: "Your post was redundant as you simply proved my point"

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Pretty much