We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Homosexuality
| 704 | 68086 |
Since this topic hasn't been popping up much, and since the old threads are all so cluttered up, I took the liberty of creating this new one.
So yes, someone asked me for sources about my claims that 1500 species of animals practice homosexual behaviour? Here.
Source 1
Source 2
Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
- 704 Replies
Why?
if you had say, six kids, and you kids had 6 kids...well the population would rise rapidly and overpopulation
if you had say, six kids, and you kids had 6 kids...well the population would rise rapidly and overpopulation
Okay, but Jewish and Muslim families are no different to those of any other religion. There are families who are Catholic who have 10 children, families who are Jewish who have none. Claiming that if everyone was either Jewish or Muslim would lead to a rapid overpopulation of the world is a leap of logic.
Claiming that if everyone was either Jewish or Muslim would lead to a rapid overpopulation of the world is a leap of logic.It doesn't even have to be a majority of Jews or Muslims. Take, say, 100 out of the millions (possibly billions) of families out there, and they have, say, 7 kids, then their 7 kids have 7 kids each, it's going to be bad very soon.
I mean, really. If we were all gay, we'd all be DEAD.
You're statement is based off of two different criteria.
1. If it isn't productive, it's wrong.
2. If it can't be applied to everyone without dooming humanity, it's wrong.
The reason you explained homosexuality to be wrong is that if we were all gay, then we would all be dead. However, this is a flawed argument because we're not talking about everyone choosing to be gay. It's an unrealistic scenario. Not to mention, your criteria can be applied to a number of other things.
For example: If everyone were computer programmers, we would be dead because there would be no farmers. Is it, therefore, wrong to be a computer programmer? What if everyone were straight but chose not to have children? If everyone chose not to have children, we would all be dead. Does this mean that an individual who chooses not to have kids is in the wrong?
When you create reasons to justify your thoughts of something, you must make sure the criteria in which you base your justifications are as consistent as possible.
It doesn't even have to be a majority of Jews or Muslims. Take, say, 100 out of the millions (possibly billions) of families out there, and they have, say, 7 kids, then their 7 kids have 7 kids each, it's going to be bad very soon.
Why specifically would it be Jewish or Muslim populations? I know of a white atheist family who have 10 children. Do they not fit into the racial stereotyping?
And what does any of this have to do with homosexuality?
Pardon? At what point in this thread did I state that homosexuality was wrong? In fact I've argued the exact opposite.
Have you actually read anything I've written before misinterpreting my post?
umm... never? and i have. i think you didnt read my comments carefully enough. i was COMPARING between what you said and what some people say. which sound alot alike.
Why?
already explained by my same comment AND other people
Why specifically would it be Jewish or Muslim populations? I know of a white atheist family who have 10 children. Do they not fit into the racial stereotyping?
another example of not reading carefully. look back and see that i said jewish/muslim/any other religion in which having many children is great
And what does any of this have to do with homosexuality?
once again, go back and read all comments carefully. there is one short comment about if we were all gays we would all die because of not having children. (which is wrong. i could think of many ways of humankind to last even if we were all gays)
another example of not reading carefullySorry. I'm no good at reading carefully at ... what is it? Ah, about 12:00 in the morning.
umm... never? and i have. i think you didnt read my comments carefully enough. i was COMPARING between what you said and what some people say. which sound alot alike.
So please explain why you felt the need for comparison? What was it supposed to achieve?
already explained by my same comment AND other people
Not really.
another example of not reading carefully. look back and see that i said jewish/muslim/any other religion in which having many children is great
Do atheists now have their own religion then?
once again, go back and read all comments carefully. there is one short comment about if we were all gays we would all die because of not having children. (which is wrong. i could think of many ways of humankind to last even if we were all gays)
If you took your own advice, you would see that my comment wasn't directed at you.
with the speed of population growth, gays actually help us survive longer because even though they arent such great in numbers (im guessing) they still decrease child rate and increase adoption. so without them, we would die faster. still, that doesnt mean we should all become gay or all be streight. there is nothing in which too much of it will not result in a bad ending... except for eating lattace maybe
No. We won't die faster. How would having more people having more kids lead to you having a decreased life expectancy? It might in Africa, where every extra child means less food from an already small income, but, assuming you come from the more developed countries, this impact would be tiny.
Furthermore, I would think that the proportion of more heterosexuals not wanting kids but more freedom in this hedonistic post-modern age is more impactful than gays not having kids, since the former are the larger number.
And nada for the lettuce. Eating too much lettuce fills you up, leading you to eat less of other foods, leaving you to die of malnutrition. Models have in the past.
and if we were all jewish/muslims/any other religion in which its considered great to hav many children we would all be dead too. so its wrong to be jewish/muslim too?
Having many kids is more of a backup security, for the higher mortality rates and to have more people care about you when you're old. This as a sort of adaptation to harsh conditions. I bet if you'd put a jewish/muslim population in a western city/way of life the birth rates would adapt and sink after some time.
Also as far as I know, the family who is "so happy to be blessed by god with twenty offsprings" is christian :P
with the speed of population growth, gays actually help us survive longer because even though they arent such great in numbers (im guessing) they still decrease child rate and increase adoption. so without them, we would die faster. still, that doesnt mean we should all become gay or all be streight. there is nothing in which too much of it will not result in a bad ending... except for eating lattace maybe
Is this it? Is this the only way you can accept gays and lesbians? By telling yourself they have an exploitable benefit for our society?
Is this the only way you can accept gays and lesbians?Maybe that is the only way he can accept gays and lesbians. I kinda (really I extremely) hate homophobes. Being gay doesn't affect me. Even if I didn't like it, who am I to judge? Hmm? Hmm?
Correction: You being gay doesn't affect me.
I freakin' love my iPod.
No. We won't die faster. How would having more people having more kids lead to you having a decreased life expectancy? It might in Africa, where every extra child means less food from an already small income, but, assuming you come from the more developed countries, this impact would be tiny.
That's interesting. Perhaps you don't see how many children that would mean...
"From Wiki (Source cited and verified) According to the 2000 United States Census there were about 601,209 same-sex unmarried partner households."
Now if we go by the mean average in the US and say that if these were heterosexual couples then we could estimate roughly 1 million more children in the US. And this trend would continue as each generation grew to sexual maturity. Within only a few generations we would see a population increase in the neighborhood of 5-8 million in the US alone. That doesn't seem like a 'tiny impact'.
Now if we go by the mean average in the US and say that if these were heterosexual couples then we could estimate roughly 1 million more children in the US. And this trend would continue as each generation grew to sexual maturity. Within only a few generations we would see a population increase in the neighborhood of 5-8 million in the US alone. That doesn't seem like a 'tiny impact'.
But you're assuming that all heterosexual couples have children which is not the case. I know many couples who have chosen not to have children, although they seem to substitute children with dogs which I find rather strange.
But you're assuming that all heterosexual couples have children which is not the case. I know many couples who have chosen not to have children, although they seem to substitute children with dogs which I find rather strange.
Dogs make for better company. : )
You must be logged in to post a reply!