39
   

Is homosexuality a bad thing?

NSFW Forums: Philosophy, Sociology, Homosexuality, Society, Sweep Under The Carpet
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 06:58 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:
Quote:
No, the purpose of love is love alone

I wouldn't agree rex. Love is much more effective at producing offspring.


So you are saying a man should love a woman for her children? Nonsense.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 07:00 am
Quote:
Adam and Eve were not initially intended to have offspring and offspring ultimately came out of the original sin


So are you saying having sex and children is evil?
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 07:35 am
Maybe homosexuality is nature's version of population control.
0 Replies
 
pangheping
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 07:41 am
RexRed wrote:
RaceDriver205 wrote:
Quote:
No, the purpose of love is love alone

I wouldn't agree rex. Love is much more effective at producing offspring.


So you are saying a man should love a woman for her children? Nonsense.


One of a woman's loveliness is her ability to bear children.
love for love's sake may be one of the characteristics of homosexuality.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 09:48 am
pangheping wrote:
RexRed wrote:
RaceDriver205 wrote:
Quote:
No, the purpose of love is love alone

I wouldn't agree rex. Love is much more effective at producing offspring.


So you are saying a man should love a woman for her children? Nonsense.


One of a woman's loveliness is her ability to bear children.
love for love's sake may be one of the characteristics of homosexuality.


And a man's loveliness is to make children, so what?

You're not convincing me. The focus of love is not procreation but love first. Procreation does not even have to happen. So are you saying because two people choose to not procreate they do not love one another? It doesn't matter what sexual preference you have because most all people are given the ability to procreate.. Even homosexuals can procreate (just not with each other)... Remember it take two to make a baby? You have your priorities wrong.

This is why many woman dump their husbands because they only wanted their babies... and why many men leave their woman because they only wanted to be a father but not a dad...

Your focus on procreation is why we have so many (bastard) children born out of wedlock in dysfunctional families.

Why bring children into the world if there is not a sustaining mutual "love" there first. Why bring children up into an atmosphere of hate out of the blind duty to "procreate"?

Most people do not even love themselves let alone another person.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 07:34 am
Quote:
Q: I wouldn't agree rex. Love is much more effective at producing offspring.

A: So you are saying a man should love a woman for her children? Nonsense.

You misread me.
First point - a man is not thinking of children when he is mating no more than a dragonfly is thinking of nymphs when he is.
BUT:
If a man leaves that women, and she is left to rear the child on her own, the survival chance is much lower (for both).
If the man loves the woman and stays with her, and provides for her and her child, the survival chance is much higher.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 08:45 am
RexRed wrote:
Even homosexuals can procreate (just not with each other)...


Well, there must be a woman involved, but homosexuals can theoretically create a baby with copies of DNA from each other. It's just a complicated, artificial process, that's all.

Quote:
Your focus on procreation is why we have so many (bastard) children born out of wedlock in dysfunctional families.


Your sentence is wrong. It should have read:

"Your focus on procreation is why we have so many unwanted children born into dysfunctional families."

Marriage is not the be-all and end-all of whether a child is wanted or loved or not. I know a lot of people who have raised good-natured, kind and caring children but aren't officially married.

RaceDriver205 wrote:
If a man leaves that women, and she is left to rear the child on her own, the survival chance is much lower (for both).
If the man loves the woman and stays with her, and provides for her and her child, the survival chance is much higher.


Yes, but that's only in the wild.

In our society, single parents can, if they work hard enough and get enough support, and will be able to bring up decent good human beings.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:44 pm
Quote:
Yes, but that's only in the wild.

In our society, single parents can, if they work hard enough and get enough support, and will be able to bring up decent good human beings.


Yes they can. You are selecting an argument of your own and arguing that you are right in that argument. I did not say that it wasn't possible, i said that the survival chance in one case is higher than the other.
Yes society is different now. Not to long ago before the brits had colonised america and australia, and life was hard and people died young. This rule was much more prevalent then. In african societies, id imagine your misguided idea of "its OK dear, you'll be able to raise the kid yourself, bye" would likely result in early death for the kid.
Lol, "thats only in the wild". As a gay man perhaps you can't comprehend such things as how having children actually works. Stick to gay rights. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Is homosexuality a bad thing?
moogly_bear wrote:
I don't think so, but I'm never really understood why people hate it so much, so I'm wondering if anyone can justify their opinions through logic.


When was it that the American Medical Society decided that homosexuality wasn't an abnormality?
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 04:11 am
How is it not an abnormality?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 04:23 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:
Yes they can. You are selecting an argument of your own and arguing that you are right in that argument. I did not say that it wasn't possible, i said that the survival chance in one case is higher than the other.


But it's not. Besides, you fail to prove otherwise.

Quote:
Lol, "thats only in the wild". As a gay man perhaps you can't comprehend such things as how having children actually works. Stick to gay rights. Laughing


Ho, ho, ho. What a riot you are with your stereotypes and prejudice. Stick to your bringing illegitimate bastards into the world. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
How is it not an abnormality?


How is it an abnormality? You fail to prove that it is detrimental to the organism or to the species.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:27 pm
Quote:
What a riot you are with your stereotypes and prejudice.

I know, I know, its great stuff huh. Very Happy
Quote:
Stick to your bringing illegitimate bastards into the world

Lol, dunno what thats about.

Quote:
Me: the survival chance in one case is higher than the other.
Wolf: But its not.

What the? So you ignored this right:
"In african societies, id imagine your misguided idea of "its OK dear, you'll be able to raise the kid yourself, bye" would likely result in early death for the kid. "
Or your saying its wrong?
Quote:
You fail to prove that it is detrimental to the organism

Ah ha.
So having to do this:
Quote:
but homosexuals can theoretically create a baby with copies of DNA from each other. It's just a complicated, artificial process, that's all.

Is not detrimental to the organism right?
So a diabetic (my fav. example) is at no detriment. They have to go through the complexity of having to constantly monitor their blood sugar for the rest of their life, and require artifical insulin to live.
But thats no detriment, of course.

I assume that you believe in evolution. I assume this because the church is against gays and you are therefore against the church, and the church is against evo and for creationism, and therefore you are for evolution. Correct me if im wrong.
GIVEN that gays can not have children sharing each others genes, sexual selection does not occur. Thus this is a detriment in that respect.
Oh but they just have to get mega-complicated biological engineering to create an embryo from a male egg, which may or may not be possible/allowed before the said gays pass on, and have to have the money required to fund such a procedure, THATS ALL.
Naturally, these things are not a detriment to gays. HA! Your a hoot Donnell. Ill leave you to entertain your crazy ideas in fairyland. Woops! just threw that double entendre in there, my mistake Laughing
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 11:30 pm
Race are you saying you are against homos?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 04:38 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:
What the? So you ignored this right:
"In african societies, id imagine your misguided idea of "its OK dear, you'll be able to raise the kid yourself, bye" would likely result in early death for the kid. "


In African society, the people live more closer to the rules of natural selection than in developed societies, something I'm afraid you forgot.


Quote:
Quote:
You fail to prove that it is detrimental to the organism

Ah ha.
So having to do this:
Quote:
but homosexuals can theoretically create a baby with copies of DNA from each other. It's just a complicated, artificial process, that's all.

Is not detrimental to the organism right?


Not detrimental to the organism at all. How is it? The organism doesn't die. The organism's survival is not affected. You forget, that homosexuals are only a small section of society that do not reproduce. They do not affect the general society's ability to survive.

A homosexual need not reproduce to ensure the survival of his/her genes, as all families consist of more than one family member. Their genes will survive through their heterosexual family members.

They need not reproduce for the survival of their genes, just as in a pack of wolves or a pride of lions, the majority of the pack or pride do not need to reproduce in order for their genes to survive.

Compare this to the diabetic. The diabetes afflicts his ability to survive. If he does not get his daily doses of insulin that could be potentially fatal.

Quote:
I assume that you believe in evolution. I assume this because the church is against gays and you are therefore against the church, and the church is against evo and for creationism, and therefore you are for evolution. Correct me if im wrong.


You're wrong. As a scientist, I support evolution because it is more scientifically correct than Creationism or ID. This is a point I've constantly made throughout every single damned Evolution thread I've been to in these forums.

Quote:
GIVEN that gays can not have children sharing each others genes, sexual selection does not occur. Thus this is a detriment in that respect.


Wrong. Given that gays cannot have children sharing each others genes, selection does occur. Their personal copies are selected against, but other copies exist in their family members, whether it be cousins or so forth.

Quote:
Oh but they just have to get mega-complicated biological engineering to create an embryo from a male egg, which may or may not be possible/allowed before the said gays pass on, and have to have the money required to fund such a procedure, THATS ALL.


I was just merely pointing out that you were overgeneralising. Next time, I'll make that clearer.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 05:26 am
dev56 wrote:



But that it is also something that some men do with men, some women do with women, and sometimes what a man does with his livestock.


I know this should be a serious discussion, but can I interject with a ROTFLMAO!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 05:41 am
By the way, how do you define "African Society"? Africa is a continent with 54 countries, and I'm not sure there is a homogenous "society", is there?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 05:45 am
snood wrote:
By the way, how do you define "African Society"? Africa is a continent with 54 countries, and I'm not sure there is a homogenous "society", is there?


Yeah, that too.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 12:35 pm
Hillary Clinton: There Aren't Enough Chinese People
Report; Posted on: 2005-11-16 17:53:28

Demands Bush protest Chinese family planning policies

P. Murphy for V-News

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who supports abortion and birth control for White people, is all steamed up with Red China's "one child" policy, aimed at dealing with China's huge overpopulation problem.

According to Mrs. Clinton, the one-plus billion Chinese people in China alone are not enough. In an appeal to George W. Bush Clinton urged the president to address the issue with Chinese officials on his upcoming visit to the Middle Kingdom. "Since first introduced in 1979, China's one-child policy has evoked strong concern over human rights abuses. These abuses have reportedly included denial of social benefits, fines, detention, destruction of property, forced abortion and forced sterilization. . .," she wrote. Of course, she couldn't leave out self-congratulation: "In 1995, as a participant in the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, I heard first hand about these practices and spoke against them."

China's gigantic population is a very serious threat to Russia, which is itself -- like all of the White world -- underpopulated. Russian territories bordering China stand nearly empty, a serious invitation to Chinese imperial expansion.

Misguided White "pro-life" activists in America are intent on stopping China's population measures, going so far as to import Chinese babies into the United States. Female children are often killed in China by family members, since boys are considered more important for superstitious reasons.

Clinton herself, of course, has only one child, though rumors persist that her philandering husband William Jefferson Clinton -- former US president and governor of Arkansas -- has a few others scattered here and there with various other women. He himself may not share the same "love" for children as his wife, who wrote "It Takes a Village" to advance her supposed "concern" for tots; his regime burned numerous children alive, some still in the womb, at Waco, Texas in 1993. In 1992 federal agents killed a 14-year old youth at Ruby Ridge, Idaho; a sniper also shot the boy's mother in the face as she cradled her infant. Clinton also signed off on the starvation of thousands of Iraqi children and the terror-bombing of Serbian kids.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jun, 2006 06:38 am
Quote:
In African society, the people live more closer to the rules of natural selection than in developed societies

Glad you agree.
Quote:
Not detrimental to the organism at all. How is it? The organism doesn't die. The organism's survival is not affected.

ROLFL! My god this stuff is classic! Ill go up to some guy and say, "you mind if I remove your balls?", and he'll say "sure, I wont die after all! my survial wont be affected!". When someone gets permanently blinded in one eye, do they say "im at a detriment now"?. No! they say "well, im not dead, so there is nothing wrong with me". Cuckoo, Cuckoo.
Quote:
You forget, that homosexuals are only a small section of society that do not reproduce. They do not affect the general society's ability to survive.

Irrelevant. Diebetics are also a small population, this does not mean diabetes is not a disease. What logic is that? Think a few moves ahead, Wolf, you'd really suck at chess.
Quote:
A homosexual need not reproduce to ensure the survival of his/her genes, as all families consist of more than one family member.

Yeah, so impotence is not a disorder, coz as long as his brothers are OK he doesn't need to reproduce. Sounds fair. (What a hoot! Laughing )
Quote:
Wrong. Given that gays cannot have children sharing each others genes, selection does occur. Their personal copies are selected against, but other copies exist in their family members, whether it be cousins or so forth

Wrong to you too. The purpose of sexual attraction is to choose the most fit/fertile/wealthy/strong/beautiful/superior mate, one of the reasons being to ensure the offspring have the best possible genes. The best males get to pass on their genes (happens animal-kingdom-wide) by winning over the most fertile females. Dont argue this please, its well documented, and these ideas are founded by Darwin himself.
Given that homosexuals can choose an attractive mate, but can not have children with them, the purpose is defeated and no sexual selection occurs. You must surely know that sexual selection requires offspring to be produced, thats pretty fundamental, Wolf.

This site as been most entertaining im sure. In Australia one does not get to do intelligent argument much, as it is against the social culture. Thing is, im debating for the mental stimulation and the experience. You are debating to defend the way you are. I can't possibly finish such a debate, nor did I ever expect to, and so I declare defeat.
With that I think I am weary of this site, and I bid it fairwell.

Im sure you'll be glad to see the back end of me. Woops! where did that come from! (ah... priceless).
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jun, 2006 07:14 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:
Quote:
Not detrimental to the organism at all. How is it? The organism doesn't die. The organism's survival is not affected.

ROLFL! My god this stuff is classic! Ill go up to some guy and say, "you mind if I remove your balls?", and he'll say "sure, I wont die after all! my survial wont be affected!". When someone gets permanently blinded in one eye, do they say "im at a detriment now"?. No! they say "well, im not dead, so there is nothing wrong with me". Cuckoo, Cuckoo.


Not comparable. We aren't talking here about a lack of function. A homosexual is perfectly physically capable of reproducing.

And resorting to insults is not befitting.

Quote:
Yeah, so impotence is not a disorder, coz as long as his brothers are OK he doesn't need to reproduce. Sounds fair. (What a hoot! Laughing )


But impotence is a disorder, because it physically prevents him from reproducing. Whereas homosexuality is not, because there is no physical defect.

If you must argue that homosexuality is a defect, it is a mental one. There is nothing physical preventing the homosexual from reproducing.

Now, from that, you can argue that it is a mental disorder. However, it is not. 35 years of objective scientific research on the behalf of the American Psychological Association has proved that it is not a mental disorder. It is not associated with mental disorders, does not cause any emotional or social problems.

Quote:
Wrong to you too. The purpose of sexual attraction is to choose the most fit/fertile/wealthy/strong/beautiful/superior mate, one of the reasons being to ensure the offspring have the best possible genes.


Yes, that is true. But passing on the genes, does not necessarily ensure the survival of genes.

Darwinism does not explain packs, colonies of insects or society in general. It does not explain the persistence of homosexuality in various animal species and in humanity.

Unless, of course, you go down to the genetic level, where as long as you ensure the survival of the offspring of a relative that shares copies of your genes, that is enough.

Quote:
Given that homosexuals can choose an attractive mate, but can not have children with them, the purpose is defeated and no sexual selection occurs. You must surely know that sexual selection requires offspring to be produced, thats pretty fundamental, Wolf.


I must admit that I misread your post. I thought you said natural selection, which is something different.

Quote:
Thing is, im debating for the mental stimulation and the experience. You are debating to defend the way you are.


Actually, no. I'm arguing against you for the sake of arguing against you, which explains why I've been objecting against you on pretty much every single point you've made. Ah, but seeing as you're tired of this site, you won't see this. Too bad.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is homosexuality a bad thing?
  3. » Page 11
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.26 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 09:41:41
▲ ▼