Homosexuality...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-08-01 05:41pm

Besides the human population has already reached its carrying capacity. What harm can 3-6% of the population do to hurt our dangerously large population?

Pendragon · Post by **Pendragon** » 2002-08-01 05:56pm

And theres still no straight answer to why homosexuality is selfdestructive...

Azeron, Im starting to think you're ignoring me. I'm hurt.

It cant be that you dont have answer, now can it?

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-08-01 06:31pm

Pendragon

I am sorry, but I am in a running firefight, with too many people.

Your example is somewhat flawed heroine and all drug use has effectson more than just the user. I has an impact on thier family and thier frinds

that is a major concession, deiscussed below. this is addrerssed espeically to mike but to everyone as well.

Why is homosexuality Self Destructive?

it neglects the fundemental responsibilities to yourself, and to your society.

In darwinism, there are 2 competeing interests. the needs of the grouip, and the needs of the individual.

In A society where members only choose to do whats in thier best interest, is unlikely to survive. Take for instance the trade towers, if policmen and firfighters weren't willing to take aside thier own needs to save others more people would have died. In effect they serverd the betterment of thier society, and we are strengthened by it collectively and by default individually.

The other position is the welfare of the individual, and what they want. You can;t have a society in where the needs of the many alawyas outwiegh the needs of the few, becasue that leads to constsnt disruption to individuals lives as they constantly jockey to be in the majority -- this tends to lead in a decrease in productivity and defies the progress that can be made by a system in which indiviudal ruggedism encourages growth and greater welfare for all.

It is my assertion that Homosexuality serves none of these needs and turns a reproductive act almost purely into a sensationasl one. The reason why I say Gays cannot marry physically but only emotionally I mean they are incapable of coming together and form a bond without scientific intervention and a volunteer, and approcreating, which is beneficial to both society's goal of continuation adn your goal of passing on part of gnome on to the future.

You can argue with it all you would like, but it does come to these hard facts. You can fight it, but aren;t you really just fighting who you really are as an indiviual, and your place in society? Do you think that your interest in carrying on in what is really a non productive fashion is actually satisfying any deeper urges that evolution has put in your subconcience?

I find it funny that mike cries about Creationists beleiveing what they want and endorsing Darwinism as what has occured over the years, and then proceed to tell people that it is okay to be what it is in escence being run over by that very same proccess. Yah he really cares about people, not.

You cannot abandon a principle Mike becasue you find it politically distateful, or it does not play with your sensibilities about how things such occuir.

Mike as an engineer, don't you find that dishonest? And if you don't, please explain how you think it falls in line with a theory you proffess to be accurate.

Pendragon · Post by **Pendragon** » 2002-08-01 07:05pm

Azeron wrote:Pendragon

I am sorry, but I am in a running firefight, with too many people.

Fine ill help you then by providing a copy of my post for your convenince, sans (most) sarcasm, its fairly short and to the point. You should be able to squeeze it in between your mammoth posts. I'm sorry to be pushy but ill have to assume you dont have an answer if I dont get one.

You know... even if the entire worlds populations was exclusively homosexual, it would not automatically mean that the human race would die out. There are other means of procreation than sex... do you think they have sperm banks for fun? Do you think gay men arent allowed to go there? Do you think none of them do?
Besides, were talking about sexual preferrance , homosexuals still can (and indeed some do) have sex with members of the opposite, non-preferred sex in order to procreate. I dont think lesbian women are much less eager to have children than straight ones.

So, would the human race die out? Nope, hardly, we might have a decrase in childbirths but that may actually be a good thing, remember, a lot of places in this world are very overpopulated...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-08-01 07:08pm

The problem with your logic Azeron is that you assume that reproduction is the only way to contribute to your society.

that is not true.

Think of a hunter-gatherer tribe say...50 people.

1-3 or these people will in all likelyhood be gay. they contribute to thier tribe by NOT having children.

Not burdened by child rearing the gay females can devote thier time and energy to basket weaving and gathering food for the tribe.

The gay males would be able to hunt for the tribe without the additional burden of a family unit of his own. A part of his portion of the kill could go to family units who are somehow to large to feed themeselves.

That is also the reason why in some current tribal cultures Homosexuals are often the tribes leader or shaman. they dont need to support anyone but themesleves and can by extension serve the community.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-08-01 07:20pm

Pendragon

in regards how long do you think that will hold until the population decreases so much that it starts to implode and the economy with it? pretty soon sperm banks would not have enough of a population to support, and soon after that people would have to resort to Hetereosexual sex. So its kind of pointless, becasue once you start having to have sex between men and women, you are going right back to teh very thing you tried to avoid.

Thats why I consider this is be a non starter.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-08-01 07:48pm

The problem with your logic Azeron is that you assume that reproduction is the only way to contribute to your society.

Why are people keep on accusing me of saying this?????? I have said nothing of the sort. Weren't you paying attention just then when I mentioned firefighters contributing to the welfare of society through a job?

What I said, is that approcreation is a fundmental neccessity to the CONNUATION of a society, a responsibility that falls upon every citizen, NOTHING ELSE. Is that really that controversial that members of society by virtue of CHOOSING to reside in a society must take it upon thier shoulders each individually? Isn't it hypocritcal not to thinik that? Can a democracy function well if people CHOOSE not to be aware of the issues they are voting on?

Why do people keep on putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing about AIDS, nothing about prosmicuity (that can;t be applied to both heterosexuals), nothing about god or church, JUST Darwinism!!

that is not true.

Think of a hunter-gatherer tribe say...50 people.

1-3 or these people will in all likelyhood be gay. they contribute to thier tribe by NOT having children.

Not burdened by child rearing the gay females can devote thier time and energy to basket weaving and gathering food for the tribe.

The gay males would be able to hunt for the tribe without the additional burden of a family unit of his own. A part of his portion of the kill could go to family units who are somehow to large to feed themeselves.

That is also the reason why in some current tribal cultures Homosexuals are often the tribes leader or shaman. they dont need to support anyone but themesleves and can by extension serve the community.

Well I think you paraphrase your argument in a superior position, and it would work if it weren't for how things work in reality.

In small groups, survivaly of the group acctually dpeends on each member of the group utilizing the full potential of their capacity inclusing reproduction. People died relatively easily back them, espeically women. Keeping the place chalk full of babies was an absolute neccessity. Having a group of men of any number not reproducing would be dangerous. You could say that 1 member have more than 1 wife, but starting off by excluding up to 6% ofhte gene pool in your hypothetical group greatly increases the chance of a terminal genetic mutation fattally destroying the group. But also in thie hypothetical scenerio, you take awy the chance of women to be lesbians, and force thme to engage in hetereosexuakl sex, and be one wife of maybe 4 or 5 wives to a husband.

There is also the other end of the specturm, if you are a good hunter, and live a long life, eventually there will come a time where you take more than you recieve. if we follow this through with no child to take care of the elderly homosexual, they will have to send them away to die a certain death of starvationor being eaten by a pack of wolves. you can;t just toss someone away like that. Thats why in primitive cultures, homosexuality was not allowed. (generalized) It wasn't something calculated but, when you are couinting on everyone in a group to survive, you tend to "hammer down any nails sticking up"

If you have a kid, its 10 - 13 years till it can really start hunting, thats a small investment for the group considering he will pay off much more than he consumes in his short lifespan.

It is however an effective demonstration why even a large society needs growth in population to survive. Otherwise you implode, asnd there is very little worse than an implossion.

Pendragon · Post by **Pendragon** » 2002-08-01 08:11pm

Azeron wrote:Pendragon

in regards how long do you think that will hold until the population decreases so much that it starts to implode and the economy with it? pretty soon sperm banks would not have enough of a population to support, and soon after that people would have to resort to Hetereosexual sex. So its kind of pointless, becasue once you start having to have sex between men and women, you are going right back to teh very thing you tried to avoid.

Thats why I consider this is be a non starter.

So a homosexual man that has heterosexual sex with a woman, only to procreate, is no longer homosexual?

Then what the hell is he?

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-08-01 08:29pm

So a homosexual man that has heterosexual sex with a woman, only to procreate, is no longer homosexual?

Then what the hell is he?

A hypocrite.

but more to the point, I can only imagine the family lifestyle that any child born into a "family" like this would be like. So coinfused. Alright lil'boby, women are only for procreation not pleasure.

oh well. go figure.

Virgil Caine · Post by **Virgil Caine** » 2002-08-01 09:37pm

Originally posted by Azeron

May i point out that in catholic afriacan countries the aids infection rate is closer to western standards. Its the protestent Afcrican countries where infection rate is out of control

Is it? I didn't know that--would you mind telling me where you heard that from?

Especially since a brief look at the CIA World Factbook and an almanac lets us compile the following information:

ANALYSIS OF AIDS PREVALENCE RATES, GIVEN DOMINANT CHRISTIAN RELIGION *

Catholic
Angola: 2.78% (160 000)
Burundi: 11.32% (360 000)
Chad: 2.69% (92 000)
DRC: 5.07% (1 100 000)
Congo: 6.43% (86 000)
Djibouti: 11.75% (37 000)
Gabon: 4.63% (23 000)
Lesotho: 23.57% (240 000)
Mozambique: 13.22% (1 200 000)
Namibia: 19.54% (160 000)
Niger: 1.35% (64 000)
Nigeria: 5.06% (2 700 000)
Rwanda: 11.21% (400 000)
South Africa: 19.94% (2 400 000)
Swaziland: 25.25% (130 000)

Total: (9 152 000)

Equal
Central African Republic: 13.84% (240 000)
Madagascar: .15% (11 000)
Malawi: 2.03% (100 000)
Suriname: 1.26% (3 000)

Total: (354 000)

Protestant:
Kenya: 13.95% (2 100 000)
Malawi: 15.96% (800 000)
Sierra Leone: 2.99% (68 000)

Total: (2 968 000)

* I'm sure you see the problem with that. This is just an exercise, after all.

So the claim that Protestant states have a greater prevalence is spurious anyway. But no matter.

One need only travel accross the US or canada to see all the nothingness to know that the USA alone could supporty billions more people

What emptiness are you talking about? You do realize that you can't simply put people on every square acre and then still expect to find food in the supermarket, right? The generally agreed-upon carrying capacity of the planet is about nine billion; any more than that, and large numbers of people go malnourished. The optimum human population of the planet is about two billion. Suffice it to say; we are far beyond that at this point.

In small groups... than an implossion.

That style of thinking may well have been viable when people were still eating mastadons. However, there is a difference between ten and twenty thousand years ago, and today. This even to the point of biological imperatives.

The mandate that one has a "responsibility to the species" to reproduce creates a dangerous situation. As I'm sure you've noticed, at least in the West few of us are being killed by sabre-toothed tigers, malnutrition, disease, what have you.

If it was true that in the dawn of civilization, a stable population could only be maintained by continuous childbirth--in order to outpace the death rate--that is no longer true. Because mortality rates among youth are declining, and people are living longer and healthier, promoting reproduction leads to a J-curve--an exponential growth in population. As it is the planet is expected to reach twelve billion people by 2050--by that point, we will be able to support only three-quarters of them.

As recently as two hundred years ago, large numbers of children were an economic boon--they could help on the farm, and bring in extra money to support the family. However, as civiization progressed into industrialization, large numbers of children became a liability--no guarantee of economic gain, and a substantial investment. This is why in general the size of families has declined over the years--the additional children were a burden.

Because we no longer send "10-13" year old children out to hunt, or even work in sweatshops like they did at the turn of the century, analogies using prehistory aren't very good ones. Society--and people--have changed over the years.

-Virgil

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-01 11:34pm

Azeron wrote:I find it funny that mike cries about Creationists beleiveing what they want and endorsing Darwinism as what has occured over the years, and then proceed to tell people that it is okay to be what it is in escence being run over by that very same proccess. Yah he really cares about people, not.

Darwin's theory of evolution is accurate. You, however, are trying to convert it into a system of morality, which it is not. The theory of evolution does not state that "survival of the fittest" is right, or moral; it only states that it occurs, and is responsible for evolution. Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't figure out the distinction between identifying a natural process and worshipping it?

Darwinian evolution predicts that certain variants of any species will not reproduce or survive effectively, thanks to environmental factors (or in this case, sexual factors). The existence of such variants is inevitable in a species with good diversity, since the boundaries of variability should be set by survival and/or procreation rates rather than monoculturing, which harms species viability in the long run.

In other words, far from repudiating homosexuality, evolution theory actually predicts that there must be sufficient variability within a robust species for a fringe element which does not reproduce or survive as well as the main group. It is your bigoted value judgement that such variants are morally inferior.

You cannot abandon a principle Mike becasue you find it politically distateful, or it does not play with your sensibilities about how things such occuir.

Who said anything about abandoning a principle? The theory of evolution can be completely correct without being a template for morality, you fucking moron.

Mike as an engineer, don't you find that dishonest? And if you don't, please explain how you think it falls in line with a theory you proffess to be accurate.

The theory of evolution is accurate. However, your assumption that moral judgements can be made based on that theory is moronic. Scientific theories are just that: theories designed to explain the natural universe. They are not templates for human morality systems, and the mechanisms they identify are not to be worshipped. What's next? Should we also construct a system of morality based on the principle of convection, or electromagnetism?

Your massive, glaring leap in logic from "theory is accurate" to "theory is basis of moral value judgements" is completely indefensible, as is your endless repetition of your idiotic claim that homosexuality is self-destructive. You have ignored dozens of challenges to explain why it is self-destructive, thanks to your brilliant "broken record" debating style.

In conclusion:

Azeron, you are too fucking stupid to realize that Darwinian evolution can be completely accurate without being a basis of morality, you are too fucking stupid to realize that there are ways to contribute to society besides breeding, and you have ignored countless challenges to back up your incessant claim that homosexuality is self-destructive. You are an unrepentant bigot who is too imbecilic to distinguish between your unjustified generalizations and the personal criticism you so richly deserve, so you accuse your critics of bigotry, and the irony is lost on you. Someday, you might learn to think logically. But until then, you will remain a fucking ignorant, cretinous vermin.

This thread has long since ceased to have any meaning. Every one of your arguments has been smashed repeatedly. It now consists only of you repeating your arguments and people repeating the rebuttals which you ignore. It is of no use to anyone except those masochistic enough to sit through endless repetition.