It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

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.


It's all based on individual opinion. Just making sure we are clear on this.

Why is it just opinion? Because we can offer no more than that. Regardless of how smart we might think we are, we don't really have anything to offer but personal interpretations of various theories... scientific or religious, etc.

Now then, let's pretend that nature intended sex first and foremost as a means of reproduction. Yes, we know that is silly. Sex was really meant for our personal enjoyment only. But for the moment, we'll imagine that it was intended to assure the continuance of the species.

Oh, and as for religion? We won't even bring that into play because religion is basically an act of faith and is not as scientific as our sexual desires regardless of whatever they may be.

Sex for fun and hobby is always first... and anyone who disses this opinion is wrong because we are perfect in our knowledge otherwise.

But IF sex was meant for reproduction, then homosexuality would indeed run counter to that purpose because it simply and plainly defeats it. It kills it deader than an a cold stone. So, it's a good thing that we know better.

Now, if we were stupid enough to assume that sex was meant primarily for reproduction, then how would we defend homosexuality in a culture that is smart enough to know that sex was meant for pleasure first?

Well, we could say that as individuals, we are all in charge of how we use our bodies and if we were inclined to homosexual relationships, that is the right of that individual. after that, we would not need to defend it any further or cast insults at people who disagree.

But here again, we know that sex was also meant to amuse us so we COULD insult those who disagree.

Anyway, in closing... morally speaking... the greatest sin here on this thread is human arrogance. beyond that, what you do with your body should be up to you.

Oh... and the same goes for your personal opinion. You have a right to it but... in some circles, you don't so... nevermind. I wasn't here and I didn't say any of that.

Have a nice day




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

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.


It's all based on individual opinion. Just making sure we are clear on this.

Why is it just opinion? Because we can offer no more than that. Regardless of how smart we might think we are, we don't really have anything to offer but personal interpretations of various theories... scientific or religious, etc.

Now then, let's pretend that nature intended sex first and foremost as a means of reproduction. Yes, we know that is silly. Sex was really meant for our personal enjoyment only. But for the moment, we'll imagine that it was intended to assure the continuance of the species.

Oh, and as for religion? We won't even bring that into play because religion is basically an act of faith and is not as scientific as our sexual desires regardless of whatever they may be.

Sex for fun and hobby is always first... and anyone who disses this opinion is wrong because we are perfect in our knowledge otherwise.

But IF sex was meant for reproduction, then homosexuality would indeed run counter to that purpose because it simply and plainly defeats it. It kills it deader than an a cold stone. So, it's a good thing that we know better.

Now, if we were stupid enough to assume that sex was meant primarily for reproduction, then how would we defend homosexuality in a culture that is smart enough to know that sex was meant for pleasure first?

Well, we could say that as individuals, we are all in charge of how we use our bodies and if we were inclined to homosexual relationships, that is the right of that individual. after that, we would not need to defend it any further or cast insults at people who disagree.

But here again, we know that sex was also meant to amuse us so we COULD insult those who disagree.

Anyway, in closing... morally speaking... the greatest sin here on this thread is human arrogance. beyond that, what you do with your body should be up to you.

Oh... and the same goes for your personal opinion. You have a right to it but... in some circles, you don't so... nevermind. I wasn't here and I didn't say any of that.

Have a nice day


Best reply, and best post I've read in quite some time.

I applaud the subtle use of sarcasm and dry humor to make the basic truths beome evident...

But that's just my opinion, take it or leave it.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The point of the "if everyone was gay argument"s, is that it does not produce offspring. Please do not post articles about gay penguins or scientist genetically engineering sex cells the fact is you can't stick you penis in something other than a vagina and produce offspring. End of story. When people make that argument they are simply stating that it does not produce offspring. I don't think they actually believe that we as a species might one day be in danger of extinction because the whole world is gay.

It does not occur "naturally" in animals. Humans are the only species who have sex for the fun of it. The animals are not smart enough to realize that their actions will not result in the production of offspring. It's not because they are gay.

I think what you actually have a problem with is the condemnation that goes along with that statement. On this we can agree, it's not their place or right. They can claim whatever religious reasoning they want but you don't follow that religion and that is your choice not theirs. It takes two to argue, so in my opinion you are angry about them trying to force their beliefs on to you. You retaliate by trying to force yours onto them. It's pointless!
edit on 23-3-2011 by infiniteobserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Hmm..
Probably should have worded my reply better.

It's a good thing people who are gay curb population rather than popping out more and more children.

That's one logical conclusion to why some people are gay anyway.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Yes... I agree! It's definitely a stupid argument. In my view, it's completely natural to be gay, and it's also pretty obvious that a gay couple won't be doing any procreating. Put two and two together, and homosexuality is simply nature's own form of population control. Nothing wrong with that considering the amount of unwanted children there are in this world.

Speaking of that, why not let these gay couples adopt the unwanted children? Hell, it's a lot better than letting the kid get raised in an orphanage where he'll never feel any kind of love. Chances are these gay households will be a far more loving environment than some straight ones.

That being said, I seriously wish people would finally forget this whole "controversy". It's a waste of breath. I'm tired of hearing gays complain that they don't have rights because they can really, really be fags about it. I'm also tired of straights being "eff"-ing bigots and thinking that just because they don't agree with someone else's chosen lifestyle, that said lifestyle must be shunned.

We're all people here... and we're smarter than that. Besides, don't you think we've got bigger problems on our plate right now than arguing over who puts their genitals where?

(PS: Yes, I realize used the word "fag" in my post... I wish to clarify that its context is the same as proposed in the Episode of South Park entitled "The F Word", and was in NO WAY a derogatory statement towards all gays... just towards the fags.)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

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


It is not a choice like picking a blue shirt over the red. It is a psycological progression that will manifest after enough time has passed for the person to be convinced that their uncomfortablness with the opposite sex is because "they must just be born gay." Nope, every one is anxious when it comes to the other sex (the unknown), some just less or more than others. That's why you usually hear, "I've been confused or torn for years," from most before they come out. I believe it just took that long to convince themselve and build the courage to do it. So, yes, my position, for the non-disorderd/non-delusional, is it is a choice.
I have gay friends as well who I make the same arguements with. I am also happy that you aren't going straight to the usual moniker of "homophobe," just because I am not afraid to voice my oppinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by infiniteobserver
 


But it does.

Dolphins, sheep, goats, ducks, primates, some of many animals that engage in homosexual and solo-pleasure.

Research is your friend.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I love how all of you fight over what’s natural and unnatural. Seriously, is life natural? The Universe is unfathomably large and earth is ridiculously small. Earth is the only planet known to harbor life, if this is true… life is not natural and should be extinguished A.S.A.P! (I believe in E.T’s btw)
It is so funny to me that some of you hetero people out there scream it is unnatural because there is no procreation. Then wouldn’t masturbating, condoms, birth control, and any other type of sex not used to procreate also be unnatural? Also if your so against unnatural, then get off the internet, leave society, and go live in the wild since the first two things are unnatural.
Another thing, not all gay man are whores and have anal sex nor were they all molested and beaten as a child. That is a ridiculous and offensive statement to the millions of homosexuals on this planet. Stereotyping such a huge category of people can lead to dangerous conflicts; as history has shown many times throughout the soap opera of human existence.
One last thing, to all the people that say it goes against nature, how do you know? As stated above, the Universe IS HUGE! Do you fully comprehend 72billion light years of matter and anti-matter? Do you understand what a black hole is? Can explain a formula that makes general relativity and quantum mechanics coexist? No, you cannot. So then if you can’t understand this, then how do YOU speak for nature? The Universe is so ridiculously complex, can we possibly speak for it?
P.S
I advise all to listen to Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot speech. Also, if you have never seen pictures from the Hubble telescope, I advise you to do so.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
In a simple sense, if every was only attracted to the same sex as we are now, children wouldn't be being conceived in a natural way, it was be through sperm donors or test tubes.

I don't really have an opinion on gays, as long as they don't practice their beliefs within eye shot of me or try to with me



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by infiniteobserver
 


But it does.

Dolphins, sheep, goats, ducks, primates, some of many animals that engage in homosexual and solo-pleasure.

Research is your friend.


Please show me evidence that these animals are aware that what they are doing will not produce offspring and I will eat my words.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AngryOne
 


Here, do some scientific reading about how homosexuality has evolutionary benefits.

And again, so what if it's 'unnatural'. The internet is unnatural. Automobiles are unnatural. Corrective lenses? Unnatural. Houses? Also unnatural.

Natural doesn't mean good. Rape? That's perfectly natural...and it's also not good.


Exactly! Homosexuality isn't good. It isn't good for the efficient propagation of the species. It's natural, but not normal. Is it right or wrong morally? Why does anyone care? It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm not homosexual, neither is my wife. We have a son that is 13 and just now realizing his sexuality (S C A R Y!!!). If he turns out to be gay will I be disappointed in the situation? Well, yeah. Will I love him any less? That's a big negative. But being homosexual is most certainly not good.

/TOA



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by voidla
 


Please show me specifically using the quote function that these animals are aware that what they are doing will not produce offspring.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by infiniteobserver
 


Do you really need me to do things for you?

These animals know they feel good from certain feelings, actions, even eating specific foods.

They know they're doing it to feel good.

So.. 1+1 = they know they're doing it not to get pregnant, but to feel good.

You see?

Well done, we did it!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by voidla
 


Yes, because supposedly you already read all that crap and I do not consider yahoo answers or wiki as scientific. If you read it then it should be no problem. When you post the proof that these animals know that what they are doing doesn't produce offspring then you can talk all the crap you want.

Feeling good and knowing it doesn't produce offspring aren't exactly the same thing.
edit on 23-3-2011 by infiniteobserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by infiniteobserver
 


How shocking, you turn your nose up at wiki and a public answer board.

Okay, so then you're just ignoring LiveScience and Discovery are you?

And of course they're not the same thing, that's stupid.

What isn't stupid is an animal that knows it can feel good without having to mate does so.

Are you saying animals are stupid?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join