Yes, extinction will happen. But it was not supposed to be that we were pt here then immediately wiped out.
In general, humans (and animals alike) aren't exactly the best at putting long term investments over short term rewards. We do have institutions that aid this given that we are aware of its value but nonetheless people as a whole will exist in a state of greater pressure, or possibly come across a cataclysmic time of dramatic change due to our simply not making hay while the sun shines.
Homosexuality, of course, has approximately nothing to do with this. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious as they don't even relate to the facts at hand- that being that even if institutionally we mandated social acceptance of homosexuality, this isn't going to make people who aren't so inclined homosexual. I think that's pretty clear from what we've seen thus far. Reproduction and propagation of the human race is tied up with many more issues as I've alluded to in my previous post on this thread.
In the end, I would like to think that this thread itself has a grander purpose, and that is to elicit truths from the clashing of opinions. You're a greater person if you are able to examine your convictions and are prepared to change them in the face of evidence that speaks against you.
@Weeman147, Ricador, Strop: I must say that this has been quite an interesting and revealing topic. The arguments over the various layers and facets of homosexuality have been, in my opinion, very enlightening.
I also applaud the ArmorGames forums in general. The exchange of ideas is extremely refreshing and insightful. Topics such as this absolutely belong here and I believe we ALL win by participating or simply reading them.
Back to subject: I find very interesting the supposition proposed by Strop that "attributes give rise to function then actually points towards a moral obligagion to be tolerant to homosexuals, since we also believe that homophobia ought to be discouraged and is 'less natural' than homosexuality itself".
I found myself wondering if I may have fallen into that catagory. I myself am not homophobic nor homosexual, but I do find it morally wrong to denounce gays simply because their lifestyle is different than mine. That bieng said, however, I have been in group situations where a mate of mine would make a 'gay' reference joke, or something off-color comment and I keep the soapbox in my bag.
How many of us brandish the keyboard in defense of those that are different in private, but keep those nobilities in check around others?
(Thank you bloody much, gents. Just when I thought this was open & shut).
I think that even though this thread is centered about homosexuality, that we can apply a lot of these teachings that we have shared with each other to tackle every group in the world. At first, you have to accept that there are groups of people in the world. Whether it be Americans, French, German, or Brazilian, it doesn't matter. No one wants the group that they belong to, to be hated and discriminated against. But just because you accept that there are groups doesn't mean you can use that to stereotype or discriminate against them. The Olympics are coming up soon. As humans we all come together to compete, but it takes different groups (countries) to compete against. No matter what you are taught, in religion, philosophy, or any schooling, you should be taught not to discriminate or hate any group of people based on one sole characteristic. This isn't a gay or straight thing, this is a human thing. We can kill each other, or we can help each other, which do you want to do?
Maybe a decade ago, if you used the word 'gay' like that it would have been with a significantly homophobic slant. However, these days, not so much. It's just been diluted by the term being handed down to the next generation who doesn't even know the original nature of the term. This is all part of normative behaviors- like it or not (I tend not to), that's how we get along. To put it simply, how intolerant are we to be of intolerance itself?
So in my own consideration, if I do not know somebody well and they use the word "gay", I have to make a judgement call as to exactly what they mean by it. Most likely these days they mean "lame" or "crap" and sometimes even "camp" (I bet most of you don't know what that means), but sometimes if I feel that this is the kind of person who might benefit from appreciating the various usages, I'd politely ask them why they use the word in the first place.
If, however, somebody uses f** or f**got, then I'm more likely to tell them directly that I find this term offensive.
I, myself, use the term "gay," but I do not use it to mean lame, crap or CAMP! I'll pose a scenario:
I am walking back to my car from bartending and I see two dude lifting another dude into the car, I will say to my girlfriend..."Dude...that is so gay." She will humbly agree and we will discuss (for the millionth time) how we hate most of the males in this town because of their fashion.
Now I am rambling...I want to know the local fashions around the world. Time to make a topic. And I was wanting to make one on secular morality too!
Thepyro, I agree to an extent. We have discussed the Kinsey Scale a few times here. I will post some info to further your point.
The Kinsey scale attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of their sexual activity at a given time. It uses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual. In the Kinsey Reports, an additional grade was used for asexuality. It was first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and was also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).
Introducing the scale, Kinsey wrote: â Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
