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

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.

My male dog exclusively humped other male dogs, and he wasn't neutered. It occurs naturally in animals, so why not naturally in humans. It's been a consistently small percent of animal and human populations anyway.

The only people who care about being gay is gay people..its a disgusting mental disorder..people are gay because they have not developed the right way.If there was something nature intended to be gay then both sexes would be able to procreate..gays are not special and they most certainly don't have the right to force their disgusting behaviour on the rest of the world.We don't owe the gay community anything.your gay..you deal with it..there are more serious issues in the world to deal with besides a bunch of *SNIP*.




Mod Note: Civility & Decorum are Expected Please Review This Link.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


right or wrong. either way its just plain sick. get that crap off the tv shows so i can start letting them watch tv again. i mean come on keep the sick stuff to your selves

Originally posted by Nebulous1973
The only people who care about being gay is gay people..its a disgusting mental disorder..people are gay because they have not developed the right way.If there was something nature intended to be gay then both sexes would be able to procreate..gays are not special and they most certainly don't have the right to force their disgusting behaviour on the rest of the world.We don't owe the gay community anything.your gay..you deal with it..there are more serious issues in the world to deal with besides a bunch of whiny homos.

I'm not gay, and I care about gay people, I don't march in parades, or bring it up in conversations but I think they should be able to get married..etc. People are born blind, deaf, with deformities. Homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that the majority of living things are heterosexual, but it's natural in the sense that it occurs naturally in nature with a generally consistent percent of people born each year being gay.

Gay people wouldn't be in your face if you removed your nose from their lives. Give them equal rights and benefits and they'll stop protesting and gaying-up your street corners.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Just for argument sake that's not necessarily true...
Remember we had that story a while back about a lizard's virgin birth... that is to say she had viable egg without the need for a male... Okay I know that doesn't work in higher mammals but who really knows???

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Nature does not allow for exclusively male or female birth rates. As a matter of fact, some research is showing a rise in female births in the West and it is possibly a natural equalizing response to the male dominated births in the East.

The argument is still a valid argument. "Survival of Species" is our first and strongest instinctual urge. It even overpowers "survival of self" which is evidenced by the risks people will take for a sexual encounter. Nature will never allow the entire population to be one biological sex or biologically homosexual.

Therefore, it becomes completely a social argument. Will societal norms ever allow it to be entirely socially acceptable or even preferred to be homosexual? If that becomes the case, then we will be responsible for our own extinction.

I will never argue the "moral" aspect of homosexuality. I have no moral objection to it, and I see no reason we should treat them any differently than other folks. I also see no reason male or female same-sex couples shouldn't enjoy the benefits of legal marriage. And, in my opinion, that right extends to same-sex heterosexual couples. If two old, straight women want to move in together and share incomes and benefits and be each other's advocates and next of kin, then I think that is a great idea.

BUT, I will say that I will never be convinced it is biological in nature. I am a man of many perversions, and homosexuality is just another perversion. Nothing negative, and there should be no negative connotation with the word perversion. It is what it is. We like what we like. It is not biological in nature, because that would make absolutely no sense with what we know about nature. Also, if we decide that some sexual orientations are biological in nature, then what does that say about pedophiles? Should they be forgiven for their biological urges? OR, should they be locked up for life at the first sign of their orientation? It is a slippery slope, if we decide that all sexual urges are biological in nature, then it has a million unintended consequences!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

Not everyone is born female.

Not everyone is born male.

Not everyone is born sterile.

You might want to look up "strawman" as it relates to debate.

Never mind.

Moot point.

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

While you ponder the strawman argument....

The argument against homosexuality is not scientific, it is moral. Yes, it is not natural in that it does not preserve the species unless all homosexuals are also bisexual.

It does not matter though because the argument is moral. The straw man arguments thus far are that it is the same as trying to make the argument that sex with pre-teens does not impact the birth rate so it must be fine or that if the neighbor's dog has sex with a puppy it means its fine for humans to have sex with children.

I know the NAMBLA type references are not well received but if one strawman argument is valid then all strawman arguments are valid.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Why is it stupid? Well, if everyone was a woman we wouldn't have children either.

You see, the difference is that (straight) women and men actually serve a purpose, that purpose being to have children.
But just what is homosexuality's purpose?

.......Why am I apparently drawn to these threads?

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

Not everyone is born female.

Not everyone is born male.

Not everyone is born sterile.

You might want to look up "strawman" as it relates to debate.

And... no one is born gay...

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

Not everyone is born female.

Not everyone is born male.

Not everyone is born sterile.

You might want to look up "strawman" as it relates to debate.

And not everyone is born gay. So the whole thing is a stupid argument because it's never going to happen, so why start a debate over something that won't ever be?

Originally posted by Nebulous1973
The only people who care about being gay is gay people..its a disgusting mental disorder..people are gay because they have not developed the right way.If there was something nature intended to be gay then both sexes would be able to procreate..gays are not special and they most certainly don't have the right to force their disgusting behaviour on the rest of the world.We don't owe the gay community anything.your gay..you deal with it..there are more serious issues in the world to deal with besides a bunch of whiny homos.

My words!!!
Star for you!

Ko3



Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.

--Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
--Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
--Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
--Use snippets and links for external content.
--Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

edit on 23-3-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Why is it stupid? Well, if everyone was a woman we wouldn't have children either.

You see, the difference is that (straight) women and men actually serve a purpose, that purpose being to have children.
But just what is homosexuality's purpose?

.......Why am I apparently drawn to these threads?

Pleasure. That is its purpose, and that is why it should be considered just another perversion, in the best sense of the word. I am attracted to pretty torsos, or pretty necks, or pretty shoulders, and a million other things. It is my perversion. The majority of all sexual encounters are purely for pleasure, and they serve no biological purpose. The only biological purpose to sex is procreation, and that is exclusively an outcome of heterosexual sex.

Therefore, only heterosexual sex for the sole purpose of procreation is anything more than a perversion.

All other sex, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise is just part of a pleasureable perversion unique to the group of consenting individuals partaking of it. And I say this as a big fan of all pleasureable perversions!

It is a total facepalmer isn't it. The absolute lack of any logic used in using that "point" for an argument, just shows a complete bypass of inteligence. It'd be funny, if some people didn't actually believe it.

reply to post by Nebulous1973


What can be failed to realize here is the implications of the effects on a small population on the larger. Sure we pressing global issues, but many of the larger issues stemmed from individual smaller ones. Disregarding the rights of someone with what you say is a "mental disorder" is the same as disregarding the rights of people with other "mental disorders" like people with personality disorders or anyone you deem "fit" as having a mental problem.

When you limit the rights of any group of people, whether they have "mental problems" (and I put it in quotes because I completely disagree with your statement) it makes it okay to limit the rights of other populations.

Violence breeds violence, discrimination breeds discrimination, hate breeds hate.

I could say that you have a mental problem because you lack empathy, something which should come naturally to a human being.

reply to post by Acidtastic


Oh, it's still funny!

I agree with you, madness. Not only is this argument moot, I have never heard ONE argument against giving gay people equal rights that makes any sense at all.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I actually really understand your post. Thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by SolarE-Souljah

First, you just brought it up in a conversation.

Did I initiate this thread? No. I didn't bring it up in conversation. I don't talk about it unless it's already being talked about. Did you honestly think you had a valid point there?

Edit: No problem, mistakes happen.