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

reply to post by voidla


Perhaps you should have finished my first post before you replied. All I was doing was stating why people make that argument. Barring outside intervention the only way babies can be produced is with a male and a female. I realize now, since we can't truly know what animals are thinking, I can't say for sure that they don't know what they doing wont produce offspring. Ok, I declare you winner in that aspect.

I then went on to say it's not their right to force their beliefs onto others and that trying to do the same in retaliation is pointless. Congratulations to you, I'm moving on.

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by infiniteobserver

 

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

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by infiniteobserver

 

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

I don't believe in homosexuality for the simple fact that we were not designed to have sex with the same gender and if we only had sex with the same gender there would be no future, no more people and no people right now.

reply to post by mileslong54


By that logic, I don't believe in heterosexuality for the fact men weren't designed to go inside a woman.

Example?

Men's privates aren't the same shape/length/size.
Women's privates aren't the same size/etc.
Some men and women are sterile from birth.
Some men and women's parts don't develop fully.
etc.
etc.
etc.

If life is so black and white that we're here to produce, don't you think it'd be more simple?

reply to post by voidla


Here is the larger question (for me):

If homosexual behavior is documented and observed across multiple species, then is it to be considered an abnormal trend in the species? Is it a deviation from the normal development of the species?

I would propose that (using Darwin logic here) that any abnormality or mutation of behavior and/or physical characteristics that does not enhance that species chances for survival and/or domination over its peers and other species is considered an unproductive or undesirable deviation.

From this basic premise, should we view all homosexual behavior as a "natural" occurrence, but not a normal occurrence, and in fact a non-productive deviation.

Using Darwin's logic again, we would have to ask why this deviation has not been bred out of the species but continues to reoccur.

At this point one could assume that this deviation must be non-genetic as it is impossible to pass down via reproduction (since homosexual activity does not inherently reproduce).

So we have to look for other possible reason for this occurrence. This leads us to the "choice" debate that many in the homosexual community vehemently deny.

But it would seem to me that our research into cross-species homosexual behavior would indicate that it is in fact not a genetic disorder (i.e. passed down via reproduction) so we must look elsewhere for the cause of the deviation from "normal" species development.

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by zeeon

 

You should probably work on that sarcasm, because I read the post.

But, nice attempt. Keep trying, you'll get it sooner or later!

Edit: Work on recognizing satire too!

Perhaps, JUST MAYBE to help the species procreate more furthering chances for survival?



So, why do male cats have tiny hairs on their penis which creates pain in the female cat to make her stay on?
www.livescience.com...
That doesn't sound too fun to go through just to get a good feeling.

And in links I provided before, some animals can get sexual feelings from just eating certain foods.

And survival?
What have humans got to survive? We die. We aren't roaming the landscapes from carnivores now days, JUST MAYBE that's the reason why there may be an increase in gay men and women, population control in a society with no prey.

Originally posted by voidla


Perhaps, JUST MAYBE to help the species procreate more furthering chances for survival?


So, why do male cats have tiny hairs on their penis which creates pain in the female cat to make her stay on?
www.livescience.com...
That doesn't sound too fun to go through just to get a good feeling.

And in links I provided before, some animals can get sexual feelings from just eating certain foods.

And survival?
What have humans got to survive? We die. We aren't roaming the landscapes from carnivores now days, JUST MAYBE that's the reason why there may be an increase in gay men and women, population control in a society with no prey.

I think you're responding to me... not sure, but that made no damn sense. There is no increase in gay men and women. The percentage is still painfully small. There is an increase in exposure and an increase in acceptance.

The loudest bird is not always the most numerous my friend.... you should know this.

To madnessinmysoul and others

Geez ok I got like 3 pages in and felt I had to comment, mainly because I am tired of the rhetoric of "lets compare Gays to animals". First off as a sister to a homosexual brother, I have to say the biggest threat against homosexuals aren't the religious anti-gays but the supposed supporters of gay right straights. I speak only for myself and my brother when I say this, as well as the whole freaking "it's natural because animals do it" crap has got to stop. Animals in the the wild do a lot of sh*t we as humans wouldn't do or choose not to do i.e eat their own crap, their young, piss of stuff to mark their territory, etc. Though I know we humans are animals (duh) equating homosexuals to animalistics beast just to try to prove a point in THEIR favor is obnoxious and isn't helping.


Secondly as I and my brother were raised Catholic, not ONCE did we sit before a priest during Mass and have it told to us that homosexuals were evil, actually homosexuality was never brought up in Church while we were growing up. As a matter of fact besides a few fouled mouths kids on our block calling everyone "fag" and "queer" we got most of our education of homosexuality from "PROGRESSIVE" T.V, and the way television depicted them was distorted. Either they were AIDS ridden little boy rapers or fluttering little fairies with awesome fashion sense.


My brother and I have gotten into long conversations about Homosexuality. First he hates that there seems to be a new gender specification, Male, Female, Gay. As if Gays are a complete humanoid species of their own. Second, I admit I still have my moments wondering if its right, wrong or "natural", but even my brother tells me that it seems like he always was. So in that sense it is natural to him. As far as him wanting kids, he knows he can't have them naturally (if he wants kids at all)


Lastly, you cant believe that there is so much hate and bigotry aimed toward your thread, I call bull #. It's an obvious hot button issue, seems to me you were trying to ignite something considering there are soooo many other threads on the topic of homosexuality that have the same adverse reaction. What would make yours any different. I assume that you are straight because not my brother nor any of my Gay friends have ever used the argument or compared themselves to animals because of their lifestyle. When it comes to my opinion of Gay marriage I feel the same about it with Heterosexual marriage... two consenting in love adults, sounds fine to me, but I also feel the government should have no right to issue a marriage or "license" a marriage.


So please if you're going to stir the pot, or feel the need to stick up for LGBT community please please please stop using "the wild animals do it so people can to" argument, it's insulting and degrading and in itself immoral. Doing that makes it easier for others to compare Gays to child molesters and the like. I know your intentions are in the right place just the terminology is terrible.

Enough is enough.

There is absolutely zero reason why this topic can not be addressed in a civil manner. In fact the ability to continue posting is dependent on posting in a civil manner or have we forgotten that Civility & Decorum are Expected from all our members?

This thread will be closed so staff can clean up this mess of back and forth opinions that are...well let just say that everyone has them.

This is not a matter of taking sides, this is not stating a position nor policy other than civility. While this is closed, it is strongly urged to evaluate your behavior versus carrying this to another thread or waiting for this one to reopen. Post bans will be handed out from this point forward.