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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




Homosexuality is natural. Also, there are evolutionary benefits to having a homosexual sibling. It's been discovered that straight siblings with homosexual brothers or sisters end up being more fertile. Homosexuality is not only natural but beneficial to our species.


Homosexuality is "natural" in a certain sense; in another sense, it is absolutely unnatural.
So enough of the "natural" argument; it gets us nowhere.

As for the latter part of your post:WHAT THE HELL???




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:17 PM
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.


Listen here, not all of us are conditioned into your politically correct 'opinions', some of us really don't like the sight or the thought of another man making a move on you. And yes, if the planet was gay, we'd have no children. It might be stupid, but it's also a fact.

So yeah, high-horse -



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ag893
Reply to post by Symer
 


You being colorblind doesn't effect your ability to reproduce and keep the human population alive.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

Why do you care about other people's ability to reproduce? If I told you I decided not to put any children onto this world, would you try to convince me otherwise?

As for the second argument: I'll just assume you aren't serious about the 1% of gay men and women being a real threat to the existence of all 7 billion of us.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Reply to post by AngryOne
 


Just what I was thinking. Even if I didn't have anything against homosexuals and was tolerant and open to their lifestyle, I certainly wouldn't be delusional. What benefits have homosexuals added to society? Any society really?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Reply to post by Symer
 


No I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But the fact is, even if you weren't going to have kids, your an available fertile male that can impregnate a woman at any given moment and keep the population going. But according to evolutionists, if you choose to not have any children, your basically useless to society and would be better off dead. Therefore, childless people, homosexuals, and others are threats to our society. This is what your scientist say.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I always thought it was, "If everyone were born gay, we'd wear nicer clothes and have nicer homes."

Seriously though....

I think it's time we stop worrying about what goes on in our neighbor's bedrooms and stop flaunting our personal sexual lives. I don't care what you do or who you do it with as long as you're not hurting anyone or anything. It's time we get over ourselves and stop judging each other based on our own moral compasses.

I don't care if the fellow next to me is gay, straight or none of the above. I care about the quality of his character and, if I'm moving, if he owns a truck.

Seriously, let's get over ourselves and move forward.

Libya is being bombed, thousands of people are dead in Japan and many more are homeless, the US national debt is through the roof, riots are breaking out in the middle east and we are worried about this?!? Ridiculous in my opinion and proves that the human race is destined to destroy itself.

Rant over...move along...nothing more to see here.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   


What benefits have homosexuals added to society? Any society really?


Are you kidding? They have purple police cars in Provincetown, MA. purple. Awesome.

Seriously. What kind of question is that? What benefit does anyone add to society? And how does their sexuality have anything to do with it? Tell me then, what benefit have YOU added to society? Please answer only if it relates to your sexual preference.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 


I'm sorry, but since when does 'natural' equal 'reproductive'. By your argument sterility is unnatural because sterile people can't reproduce. News flash: Sterile people are natural, so are homosexuals. Gay penguins, 'nuff said.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryOne
 


Not really. Homosexuality is something that describes homosexuals. They, as a group, are beneficial to the reproduction of other members of the species. As drummer pointed out, there is a strong benefit to having a homosexual sibling.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 



Originally posted by ag893
Reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You never expected to see so much ignorance and bigotry?


Well, I did sort of expected it, but I hoped for the best.



Sorry sherlock.


...I'm not trying to solve any mysteries here.



Gays can whine all they want about "intolerance" and "bigotry".


Well, they aren't really whining, they're voicing legitimate concerns. Last time I checked they're still people and deserve to be treated as such.



But when it comes to evolution (which most of the world believes) and survival of the fittest, homosexuals play no other role than a threat to the human species.


...ah, now I'm in my comfort zone. Look at my avatar, now back to me, now back to my avatar, now back to me. You see who that is? Good ol' Chuck Darwin. I fully accept the scientific fact of evolution...and here's something that shows an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter. Society has been acting against natural selection from the second it starting taking care of the injured and infirm.



You can thank your Charles Darwin and scientist for clarifying that.


Well, of course I can. But it's still beside the point.



But luckily, I'm a christian and I simply believe it's a perversion.


Well, that makes you bigoted. You're also ignorant if you don't accept evolution, but I have a thread in my signature talking about all of that.



So that leaves you with no one who thinks homosexuality is natural.


Wow, the entire world is either Christian or accepts evolution...um...no.
Oh, and I already provided that there's evidence of an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality.



You are in the same category as pedophilia, beastiality, and other perversions.


Ah, the ever-idiotic refrain. You do realize that pedophilia is improper because it's non-consensual and much the same argument is made against bestiality, right?



Its funny how those things corrolate.


No, they really don't.



If you are college educated and studied world history, all the ancient societies where homosexuality was open practiced and widespread, pedophilia and beastiality were never far behind. Funny how that works huh?


You do realize that societies that shunned homosexuality still embraced pedophilia, right? I mean, in first century Judea it was perfectly acceptable to marry a 12 year old girl. As for bestiality, that's also found in societies that openly chastise homosexuality.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Robert Reynolds
 


Wow, logical fallacies abound. One, how can a penguin make a lifestyle choice? Two, we're not saying people should do it because animals do it, we're saying that you can't say that it's unnatural. It's perfectly natural, that's all we're saying.

Granted, I don't see how 'natural' is good and 'unnatural' is bad. I'm wearing glasses, that's unnatural. Someone with my eyesight would never survive in the wild. I'm on the internet for the sake of fornication, how the hell is that natural?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 


And your ability to reproduce isn't the only way you keep the human race alive. Should we then punish those who simply choose not to reproduce? Should we openly chastise those who wish to remain chaste?

You do realize that doctors, teachers, policemen, firemen, etc are all as useful to keeping humanity alive as breeders, right?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



Originally posted by mr-lizard
Listen here, not all of us are conditioned into your politically correct 'opinions',


Politically correct? I'm sorry, but I'm just pointing out something. I honestly don't really care about political correctness one way or the other.



some of us really don't like the sight or the thought of another man making a move on you.


Well, that might speak to a deep-seated insecurity. I'm personally flattered when a guy offers me a drink at a bar. I politely decline, but I don't go into a rage nor do I shudder at the very thought.



And yes, if the planet was gay, we'd have no children. It might be stupid, but it's also a fact.


And like I said, if everyone was female, we'd have no children. If was infertile, we'd have no children. If everyone was male, we'd have no children.

Guess what? None of that matters. Just like the "If everyone was gay" argument doesn't matter. Same damn reason, it's never going to happen.



So yeah, high-horse -


What high-horse? I'm not even on a low-horse. I'm just someone at my desk.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Why are you telling me? Scientist and evolution are the ones that say childless folks and homosexuals basically are threats and useless to society. I don't think that. I think homosexuals simply need to repent and turn from their ways so they can go to Heaven. And childless people are not looked down upon in God's eyes. Scientist are the ones that are not on your side. Even thought most homosexuals seem to think so. If they were college educated, especially in evolution, they would know according to natural law, they serve no purpose to society. But to God they are regular people that just need to be turn from their perversions and lust and repent and be born again.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 


Are you seriously asking what benefits homosexuals have had on society while using a computer!

Alan Turing

Homosexual, Enigma code cracker, and (most importantly) computer pioneer.

Edit:
Also, here's a few lists, take your pick.
edit on 22/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join