Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: An island full of gay men will die off.
Society isn't comprised exclusively of gay men. Your argument is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. But gay men cannot procreate. Heterosexuals are the ones who do.

Wait we have to qualify all of this now don't we. Gay men who have sex with men cannot procreate, as sodomizing men, or women for that matter, does not produce children. Heterosexual intercourse has a possibility of producing children, especially if the cervix is lowered and the mucus is receptive and not tacky. Since heterosexual intercourse is almost exclusively practiced by heterosexuals, while homosexual intercourse is almost exclusivley practiced by homosexuals, we have the distinct probability that homosexuals will not plant seed and produce an offspring while heterosexuals will. Back to the OP's situation, if genetic homosexuality can be changed to being a genetic heterosexual, manty parents would change that in their unborn children, if given the means. So my argument really isn't irrelevant at all.
Nothing you say above makes an argument that "an island full of gay men will die off" relevant. If homosexuals were the dominant force in society, then you might have a point. But here, you clearly don't.

As for your other post about the semantics of "homosexuals can't legally marry" vs. "homosexuals can't reproduce"....

I maintain that since the topic of conversation when I make such a statement IS the prohibition of same-sex unions, the context makes it quite clear what I mean. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of me making such a blanket statement absent that context.

When we talk about prohibitions against same-sex unions, we aren't ignoring the fact that a gay man can marry a woman, or that a lesbian can marry a man. There's no deception involved - we just think that this fact is so obvious it doesn't require stating. By way of contrast, you're quite intent on reminding us of the obvious fact that gay couples can't reproduce together, though you consistently leave off the 'together'. Why is that?

It's because your argument has a specific purpose - to create the illusion that gay people are incapable of contributing to the continuation of mankind. It is this rather obvious attempt to confuse the issue by implying something untrue to which I object. We can't reproduce together (true), some of us don't reproduce through other means (also true), but more and more of us are - and that's what your argument attempts to persuade the audience to ignore.

It's especially egregious when you go the extra step of classifying us as "sterile" - that's more than clearly an attempt to imply that gay couples never contribute to the reproduction of human life.

Would most heterosexuals go through what we do to produce and raise a child if the process was equally difficult for them? I tend to think many would, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to say most.

So, spare us the feeble attempts at persuasion via the 'you do it too' fallacy. We see right through you.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: An island full of gay men will die off.
Society isn't comprised exclusively of gay men. Your argument is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. But gay men cannot procreate. Heterosexuals are the ones who do.

Wait we have to qualify all of this now don't we. Gay men who have sex with men cannot procreate, as sodomizing men, or women for that matter, does not produce children. Heterosexual intercourse has a possibility of producing children, especially if the cervix is lowered and the mucus is receptive and not tacky. Since heterosexual intercourse is almost exclusively practiced by heterosexuals, while homosexual intercourse is almost exclusivley practiced by homosexuals, we have the distinct probability that homosexuals will not plant seed and produce an offspring while heterosexuals will. Back to the OP's situation, if genetic homosexuality can be changed to being a genetic heterosexual, manty parents would change that in their unborn children, if given the means. So my argument really isn't irrelevant at all.
Nothing you say above makes an argument that "an island full of gay men will die off" relevant. If homosexuals were the dominant force in society, then you might have a point. But here, you clearly don't.

As for your other post about the semantics of "homosexuals can't legally marry" vs. "homosexuals can't reproduce"....

I maintain that since the topic of conversation when I make such a statement IS the prohibition of same-sex unions, the context makes it quite clear what I mean. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of me making such a blanket statement absent that context.

When we talk about prohibitions against same-sex unions, we aren't ignoring the fact that a gay man can marry a woman, or that a lesbian can marry a man. There's no deception involved - we just think that this fact is so obvious it doesn't require stating. By way of contrast, you're quite intent on reminding us of the obvious fact that gay couples can't reproduce together, though you consistently leave off the 'together'. Why is that?

It's because your argument has a specific purpose - to create the illusion that gay people are incapable of contributing to the continuation of mankind. It is this rather obvious attempt to confuse the issue by implying something untrue to which I object. We can't reproduce together (true), some of us don't reproduce through other means (also true), but more and more of us are - and that's what your argument attempts to persuade the audience to ignore.

It's especially egregious when you go the extra step of classifying us as "sterile" - that's more than clearly an attempt to imply that gay couples never contribute to the reproduction of human life.

Would most heterosexuals go through what we do to produce and raise a child if the process was equally difficult for them? I tend to think many would, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to say most.

So, spare us the feeble attempts at persuasion via the 'you do it too' fallacy. We see right through you.

No Mystic, you have to use the word "together" as well to be clear. If you think your failure to use the word "together" is okay I fail to see how it sint' okay with what I said. You knew what I mean, and I knew what you mean. Homosexuals CAN LEGALLY MARRY and they CAN REPRODUCE. Okay? No that that is settled, they CANNOT LEGALLTY MARRY EACH OTHER and they CANNOT IMPREGNATE ONE ANOTHER. To be sure I was not trying to be deceptive.

You are right about one thing Skeptic. I do not feel that "homosexuals" have anything to offer society. To be sure I also don't feel that blacks do either. Or Jews.

Or whites.

Or heterosexuals.

Individuals offer things to society. It does not matter what the physical make up is.

As for the very begining of what you said, I know that society isn't a bunch of homosexual men. My point was soley that homosexual men cannot inseminate each other. There is no fertile ground upon which their seed can grow new life. There is no egg. There is only semen. It doesn't work. THis had nothing to do with society. I was just trying to explain what I explained, again, up in the first paragraph of this response. Homosexuals cannot impreganate one another since the way people naturally reproduce is through heterosexual intercourse.

[cap'n queasy]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay.

That's a loaded statement.

I think that most parents out there wouldn't care either way. While that technically fits under your statement, because it deems that a parent wouldn't necessary promote homosexuality, it isn't the intended message because they also wouldn't promote heterosexuality.

There are people that do care and would terminate the pregnancy if they were to find their unborn child to be gay, unfortunately. Parents shouldn't be bothered if their kids are gay - if they are good parents.

I think most parents if given a choice would want their child to not be queer, in any sense of the word.

I'm sure there are plenty who would specifically genetically engineer their child to be gay, if it were possible.

[F'losrix]

cap'n queasy wrote: I'm sure there are plenty who would specifically genetically engineer their child to be gay, if it were possible.
:roll:

There are plenty of things I'm equally 'sure' of with regard to that statement, but I think I'll refrain from expounding upon them.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: No Mystic, you have to use the word "together" as well to be clear.
We'll just see about that.

John Galt wrote: As for the very begining of what you said, I know that society isn't a bunch of homosexual men. My point was soley that homosexual men cannot inseminate each other. There is no fertile ground upon which their seed can grow new life. There is no egg. There is only semen. It doesn't work. THis had nothing to do with society. I was just trying to explain what I explained, again, up in the first paragraph of this response. Homosexuals cannot impreganate one another since the way people naturally reproduce is through heterosexual intercourse.
And why do you find it necessary to continue explaining to us what we already know?

Answer: Because despite your protestations to the contrary, you want people to focus on the idea that homosexual unions are non-productive and therefore not contributing to the continuation of mankind's existance.

You can yammer all you like about contributions coming from individuals, not groups of people. It's evident to me that you don't really believe your own words, though - not when you persist with making this same argument over and over again as one of your primary attacks against the recognition of same-sex unions.

[F'losrix]

You know what, John Galt? How about you just try to find where I've made this blanket statement that "homosexuals can't marry", and provide us with the link. Maybe then I'll reconsider your argument.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No Mystic, you have to use the word "together" as well to be clear.
We'll just see about that.

John Galt wrote: As for the very begining of what you said, I know that society isn't a bunch of homosexual men. My point was soley that homosexual men cannot inseminate each other. There is no fertile ground upon which their seed can grow new life. There is no egg. There is only semen. It doesn't work. THis had nothing to do with society. I was just trying to explain what I explained, again, up in the first paragraph of this response. Homosexuals cannot impreganate one another since the way people naturally reproduce is through heterosexual intercourse.
And why do you find it necessary to continue explaining to us what we already know?

Answer: Because despite your protestations to the contrary, you want people to focus on the idea that homosexual unions are non-productive and therefore not contributing to the continuation of mankind's existance.

You can yammer all you like about contributions coming from individuals, not groups of people. It's evident to me that you don't really believe your own words, though - not when you persist with making this same argument over and over again as one of your primary attacks against the recognition of same-sex unions.

No, I said it it was the only rational state intrest was related to the above (homosexuals practicing homosexual relations are physically incapable of creating new taxpayers and expanding the human race). Not that it is a very good one, bnut it is the only rational reason for reconginzing marriages in the first place: to create a stable enviornment for procreation. But this has nothing to do with recognizing individuals in the way I was saying. I have stateed many times I do not believe the stae OUGHT to be involved in marriage at all but I cannot just blink the fact that the CAN be and have A rational reason for being there. And neither can you. I really don't see the corallary you are drawing here, at all. I said groups of people do not offer anything to society. This much is true. If all homosexuals were removed (NOT individuals who are homosexuals, but homosexuality) would society be any better or worse? No it would be the same. The same individuals would exist with different pyhsical charachteristics. I do not see how this is related to my argument that the state can make, if it so chooses, a rational argument regarding the procreation of children and the social necessity of marriage or some other institution for the successful rearing of said children (but it isn't even my arguement. I say government should stay out entirely, and I do not need permission to marry whomever of my choice).

[F'losrix]

The rational basis for originally establishing marriage, assuming for the moment that one accepts the idea that it is to keep together the people who produced the child, is just that - a rational basis for the original establishment of the law. That doesn't make it a rational basis for excluding people who weren't included in the original thought.

What's more important: creating the child, or raising it? If we only acknowledge one type of family raising children and completely ignore what would be beneficial to a child being raised in a different configuration, is that justice?

Apparently a great many people think so. I personally just don't see it.

But let's stop hijacking the thread. We're never going to agree so there's little point in discussing it further, at least in this thread.

[toddytodd]

:thrhj: :thrhj:

[Luke]

(Edited by Praetorian)

[Pareve]

It doesn't appear that homosexuality is directly hereditary, so whether gay people procreate or not is irrelevant. It is probably the interaction between multiple genes. I've also read some reports which link an increased likelihood of homosexuality for younger siblings. The more older siblings a person has, the more likely that person is to be gay. There are also some theories involving pre-natal hormones.

Personally, I think the vast majority of people are bisexual to some extent anyway. Sexuality is way more fluid than most people give it credit for. Many gay people have children through in vitro-fertilization, or attempting to be straight. Many straight people never have children.

To answer the original question, I am perfectly happy with my sexuality, and I would not alter it if I was given the opportunity. I do not see sexuality as a disease, but as an expression of the human condition.

[toddytodd]

Pareve wrote: It doesn't appear that homosexuality is directly hereditary, so whether gay people procreate or not is irrelevant. It is probably the interaction between multiple genes. I've also read some reports which link an increased likelihood of homosexuality for younger siblings. The more older siblings a person has, the more likely that person is to be gay. There are also some theories involving pre-natal hormones.

Personally, I think the vast majority of people are bisexual to some extent anyway. Sexuality is way more fluid than most people give it credit for. Many gay people have children through in vitro-fertilization, or attempting to be straight. Many straight people never have children.

To answer the original question, I am perfectly happy with my sexuality, and I would not alter it if I was given the opportunity. I do not see sexuality as a disease, but as an expression of the human condition.

Thanks for the input. By far one of the most honest and straight forward (no pun intended) responses in this thread.

[TheKrava]

I think I am a male lesbian, cuz I love women! :)