What are your unpopular opinions?

reply to post by trollz

Homosexuality to me seems like an offense against nature and something that should be forbidden.

I think of homosexuality as being one of nature's methods of birth control. Masturbation would be another. If you feel that too is against nature, go to a zoo and watch the monkeys.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Also, considering homosexuality exists in numerous species, it's far from unnatural. How can something that exists naturally be unnatural? It's nature's population control.

reply to post by Skepticesque


To be natural, something must go with the flow of life instead of fighting against its current. For something to be unnatural, something must try to swim in an unswimmable direction.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by trollz

 

No, actually I've been tested twice and am in the top 1%.

Then, why did you not understand the following statement?

Let me guess. The cutoff point for death is less than what you believe your iq is.

Hell, I understood it!

See ya,
Milt

I did understand it:
"The top 1 or 2 percent of the intelligence range will rule the planet, while those slightly under will have the "lower" jobs. Everyone else (the surviving low iq)"

The top 1 or 2% rule the planet, the maybe 5% below them oversee various things, and then the low-iq are used as labor.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by trollz

 

Homosexuality to me seems like an offense against nature and something that should be forbidden.

I think of homosexuality as being one of nature's methods of birth control. Masturbation would be another. If feel that too is against nature, go to a zoo and watch the monkeys.

See ya,
Milt

That is a valid point of view which I can't argue with. If it leads to a peaceful lowering of the human population, I suppose it is a good thing.

That is not how we reproduce. Homosexuality to me seems like an offense against nature and something that should be forbidden.

Many heterosexual couples deal with infertility, an inability to create offspring. Does that mean that just because these people can't naturally produce children, it is unnatural therefore infertile couples are inferior to their fertile counterparts?

I know that's not the stance you're supporting, I enjoy your posts, just figured I'd promote some further discussion.

reply to post by ManjushriPrajna

To be natural, something must go with the flow of life instead of fighting against its current.

That statement implies that death is not natural, and that rocks must be living entities. I disagree with that premise!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by trollz

You still don't understand it!

This:

Let me guess. The cutoff point for death is less than what you believe your iq is.

Was in reponse to your comment:

I believe the world would be better place if most of the people under a certain iq were exterminated

Yet you responded with:

No, actually I've been tested twice and am in the top 1%.

I feel that you should be tested again!

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by Skepticesque

That is not how we reproduce. Homosexuality to me seems like an offense against nature and something that should be forbidden.

Many heterosexual couples deal with infertility, an inability to create offspring. Does that mean that just because these people can't naturally produce children, it is unnatural therefore infertile couples are inferior to their fertile counterparts?

I know that's not the stance you're supporting, I enjoy your posts, just figured I'd promote some further discussion.

edit on 27-4-2012 by Skepticesque because: (no reason given)

Well, technically, yes. Ideally, human beings should be able to successfully create healthy offspring. If something is "wrong with them" in that they are created with an inability to reproduce, then they are counter-productive to human evolution.
Let me put it this way: Say a person with significant mental retardation is born. Most people would say it is moral to allow them to live out their life in relative comfort. Now let's assume that if this person had sex with any other person, the resulting child would also be retarded. Knowing this, would it be good for humanity to encourage them to reproduce, due to the fact that if done on a large enough scale and over a long enough period of time, it would eventually lead humanity backwards?
Why is it considered wrong to want to encourage positive traits for the benefit of human evolution?

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by trollz

 

You still don't understand it!

This:

Let me guess. The cutoff point for death is less than what you believe your iq is.

Was in reponse to your comment:

I believe the world would be better place if most of the people under a certain iq were exterminated

Yet you responded with:

No, actually I've been tested twice and am in the top 1%.

I feel that you should be tested again!

See ya,
Milt

The point I was making was that I was not creating a cutoff point right underneath myself for the purpose of self-preservation, as he/she was insinuating. If my original post was properly understood, it would have been seen that I was allowing for the continued survival of many of those underneath myself on the scale. I wasn't responding to his direct words, I was responding to his thoughts.
As an example, let's say (just for example) that I am, without question, the smartest person in the world. What point would there be in exterminating all of humanity minus myself? I would have to allow for the continued survival of many below me, and that decision would not be due to a prideful desire for self-preservation, but basic logic.

Well, technically, yes. Ideally, human beings should be able to successfully create healthy offspring. If something is "wrong with them" in that they are created with an inability to reproduce, then they are counter-productive to human evolution.
Let me put it this way: Say a person with significant mental retardation is born. Most people would say it is moral to allow them to live out their life in relative comfort. Now let's assume that if this person had sex with any other person, the resulting child would also be retarded. Knowing this, would it be good for humanity to encourage them to reproduce, due to the fact that if done on a large enough scale and over a long enough period of time, it would eventually lead humanity backwards?
Why is it considered wrong to want to encourage positive traits for the benefit of human evolution?

Thanks for the post. I could understand discouraging the idea if the human population was dwindling on a few hundred people. That being said, considering we are far too overpopulated as you know, I don't see the issue with homosexuality in that regard. Giving birth to a mentally retarded child who, if reproduces, will create further mentally retarded children is different than giving birth to an individual who will not be producing offspring.

Even so, what would forbidding homosexuality do? It's like forbidding infertility, even if it's forbade, people will still be infertile, just as they will still be homosexual. In a world that is dealing with excessive population, homosexuals are doing the world a favor.

Originally posted by Skepticesque

Well, technically, yes. Ideally, human beings should be able to successfully create healthy offspring. If something is "wrong with them" in that they are created with an inability to reproduce, then they are counter-productive to human evolution.
Let me put it this way: Say a person with significant mental retardation is born. Most people would say it is moral to allow them to live out their life in relative comfort. Now let's assume that if this person had sex with any other person, the resulting child would also be retarded. Knowing this, would it be good for humanity to encourage them to reproduce, due to the fact that if done on a large enough scale and over a long enough period of time, it would eventually lead humanity backwards?
Why is it considered wrong to want to encourage positive traits for the benefit of human evolution?

Thanks for the post. I could understand discouraging the idea if the human population was dwindling on a few hundred people. That being said, considering we are far too overpopulated as you know, I don't see the issue with homosexuality in that regard. Giving birth to a mentally retarded child who, if reproduces, will create further mentally retarded children is different than giving birth to an individual who will not be producing offspring.

Even so, what would forbidding homosexuality do? It's like forbidding infertility, even if it's forbade, people will still be infertile, just as they will still be homosexual. In a world that is dealing with excessive population, homosexuals are doing the world a favor.

I know homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. If people are homosexual and want to have relationships, they're not doing any kind of damage to anything. But for me, like I said, in my opinion it's an offense against the laws of nature. It feels wrong to me in that we aren't physically designed for homosexuality. I know people will disagree, but that is how I see it as my opinion. I would just prefer to live in a world where everything made sense and worked as intended. I think it would be great if there was no retardation, mental illness, disease, homosexuality, anything like that. Of course that's not reality, but I like being idealistic.

reply to post by BenReclused


I think you misunderstand what the terms "natural" and "life" imply. Life is all of this, everything, the whole shebang we experience. Rocks are incredibly natural, because they do what rocks do: They are made, exist, break down, and are spread to the four corners of the Earth. Rocks cannot be anything but rocks, and what's more, rocks don't try to be anything but what they are. Rocks don't try to make an effort to be trees. Rocks are rocks, trees are trees.

We are, in the same way, naturally natural like the rock. And if we are to be natural, then this body will grow old, get sick, and die. Which is why we should try to stay healthy if we want a long life, but expecting yourself to live forever is very unnatural. Thusly, living implies death, death implies life. Over the course of time, however, we start to do very unnatural things. We try to be who we really aren't. We play a funny game with ourselves. We give ourselves an identity, a persona, and we act the part out until the day we die. But when you live in a completely natural, spontaneous way, you'll notice that not only do you feel better with yourself, but at peace with life, and comfortable with others. So, if you're gay, be gay. If you're straight, be straight. This is a great big world we live in, and there's room for all kinds. Besides, there's more important things to worry about than whether homosexuality is right or wrong, like what you'll be having for dinner today.

So to answer your question, what is natural is if there is to be life, there must also be death. And, although a rock is not a living, sentient being, it certainly is a lot more in tune with life than a lot of us.

If living implies death and death implies life is natural, then homosexuality can't be natural.

Because if everybody and all animals were homosexual, there would only be insect life and plant life on this planet.

If everyone is homosexual, you can't have reproduction. You need a man and a woman for reproduction, not two people of the same gender. Without reproduction, the human race would die out. Go extinct. Kaput.

Reproduction is the key to life, and it's reproduction that starts the entire cycle. All forms of life have some means of reproduction, including plant, microscopic, and arthropods. That's one of the definitions of life, is that it must reproduce.

The only way around this is if a portion of the population would agree to reproduce. But reproduction is not a valued act of homosexuals, and therefore some would need some sort of incentive to reproduce, such as getting paid.

Of course, this also assumes the population is not bisexual, just homosexual.

But from what I understand, bisexuality is not accepted by homosexuals either, at least as far as I know.

So if reproduction is natural, then it stems to logic that homosexuality can not be natural because homosexual does not encourage reproduction.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


If the game of life you want to play is "anything but this is wrong", then that's your game to play. I have no issue with your personal beliefs. But the fact remains this: Only a small percentage of the world population is homosexual. If humankind dies out because of the lack of reproduction, it sure as heck won't be homosexuality that's at fault.

With your logic, I can draw from it that abstinence is also unnatural, as is any form of birth control. They inhibit reproduction. Masturbation and sex toys are also unnatural.

At this rate, anything that doesn't propagate the human race is therefore unnatural and, by Trollz line of reasoning, should be forbidden (I assume by enacting some sort of draconic laws).

Or, apart from all of this, there's an alternative. Maybe, just maybe, by not sticking your nose into the private lives of others, we would all be able to live our own lives, free from fear, free from hate, free from discrimination, and free from the cold machinations of rigidly humanist minds who are only interested in "what benefits our species."

Maybe we should think about what benefits our neighbors first before we start worrying about our species as a whole. Perhaps the human race isn't such a marvelous thing after all, and despite our achievements, we may not be any better than the animals we tame and slaughter for food and amusement.

But this is all my opinion, and not yours. And although it may not be popular, I believe it to be right until I am proven otherwise that homosexuality is a blight rather than a particularly unique expression of this whole thing we call the universe.

reply to post by ManjushriPrajna


I am not making a moral argument.

Morality is entirely subjective,

I am not arguing if it is right or wrong.

And I am very surprised that I got a star out of it.

I'm still expecting a bunch of people to come out and start correcting me and ridiculing me telling me what I must believe. Because that's what always happens when somebody criticizes homosexuals and homosexuality.

1- Certain substances should be legal.
2- Homosexuality shouldn't be seen as normal.
3- Things vital to human life shouldn't cost anything.

A question regarding the argument of homosexuality in animals:

Some animals eat their young, others kill their partners after sex.
Is this ok for humans too? Just because an animal does it, we should do it too?

Just asking.

common sense is not

I agree with essential items ought to be without cost, but i'd even take it one giant leap for mankind further, and say it's time we do away with money (...and organized religion) entirely. When you run out of gold to back up the green, it's just paper. We should learn to value other things, REAL things, ideas, as essential to finding happiness and personal security.

Unpopular opinions:
-I believe music will save the world.
-I believe I will live to see an unfathomable radical societal change. For the better.
-I believe the two party system to be a puppet show like Punch & Judy, and I really want to know/expose the puppetmaster(s).
-I believe there are a lot of really dumb people with Masters degrees.
-I don't believe in the kind of credit you get from a plastic card, or in the glorified importance of a 'credit score'.
-I believe most of our real human history is gone forever.

Originally posted by WarJohn
I think physically the female body was made for being bi-sexual.

Everybody is bisexual, a lot of people are for various reasons just ashamed to admit it and surpress their feelings (it's only ok to show them at sports with group huggings and 'loving' sport stars )

Some more:
- Vegans and Vegetarians are the most annoying, egomanical people on this planet
- Religion is the worst invention humanity ever made
- Scientology is bad but not any worse than Islam, Christianity or any other religion and therefore shouldn't be fought or forbidden
- 9/11: inside Job
- Gaddafi didn't deserve to die, he wasn't any worse than any US President or most other country leaders
- There's no afterlife. If you die, you're dead.
- I'm happy with my life on this planet, it couldn't be any better and i don't constantly worry about all the drama going on elsewhere because i rather just think about me and my life first.