Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now ... at what point to we overpopulate ourselves into extinction?
At no point, IMO. This has been a doomsday concern since at least the 1960s; popular ZPG books of the 60's through 80's could not see Life As We Know it here in 2015, yet, here we are. It's a little bit like the Y2K scare or the periodic End oF Days predictions like the just-past Sept 27 date.
The reality is that birth rates fall as populations rise, and also as prosperity and education are more of an influence. Individual couples don't have twelve children just because they can. In a society that doesn't stigmatize "childlessness", they may well elect to have zero children just because they can.
Not that unbridled human reproduction should not be any sort of concern, ever, because one of the reasons birth rates fall as population increases is because of little things like starvation and disease and populations rendered restive because of those pressures and who then tend to have civil wars and genocide. It's just that those things usually happen in third-world nations that, if we westerners are honest with ourselves, we don't care about. We should, but we don't.
From the perspective of an individual, pleasure and pair-bonding.
From the perspective of the species, there are myriad possibilities. It could be that a genetic component which manifests itself also provides other benefits, at present unknown, that more than make up for the lack of an inclination to reproduce. An analog would be the sickle cell trait, which causes complications is some individuals but which provides malarial resistance - among populations threatened by malaria, this trait has a net benefit. It is quite possible that homosexuality is a similar effect of a gene conveying some benefit that is unknown at this time. Then there's kin selection - you do know that evolutionary forces work upon not onle one's own genes by copies of those genes, don't you? Finally, there's the rather obvious fact that gay people do and have had children all througout human history, so the notion that being gay precludes conventional reproduction is simply wrong. You do understand the utility of reproducing, no?
Presumably, you're just being obtuse to amuse yourself, as the various utilities of homosexuality, demonstrated and conceivable, should be obvious. Are you done playing games?
I see you're also ignorant as to the various evolutionary utilities of homosexuality. Beyond that, you should at least have the sense to comprehend that life exists on the species level. Never have all members of a species reproduced. Those who chose never to have children are not 'destroying' Homo sapiens. Surely you learned sufficient math in that middle school education you've been bragging about to understand that it is the average reproductive rate - not that of each specimen - that matters. Then there's the fact, again, that gays do reproduce. And before you starting whining that they do not do so in the way you desperately wish they would, that's irrelevant from your own stated concern of species preservation.
You've got nothing.
You and the rest have but one objection to homosexuality, and this is it: "I just don't like gays!"
That's all you people have got. Everything else is just window dressing intended to mask your animus.
And, of course, finding a religion that reinforces their "I just don't like gays!" attitude.
Interestingly, I've read studies that show the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to hate gay people. Hmmm...
Gays and lesbians DO have children, so that blows your theory out of the water. Not only do we have biological children, we also adopt children that were thrown away by their heterosexual parents.
Okay so when the child grows up and ask how they were born and they have this wild story and can't fathom it and will have a mental breakdown, just know that was the reason. Sure some kids will be able to take it, but in 20 years were gonna have a scary situation on our hands.
No it's not, can't equate corn chips to life, nice try though.
Sure you can. Life is like a bag of Fritos. The good chips are on the top. The broken chips are in the middle.... and the crumbs are on the bottom.
The fundamentalists treat the LGBTQ community like the crumbs in the bottom of the bag. Repent, you sinners who treat people like crumbs in the bottom of the bag. God will be displeased.
Okay so when the child grows up and ask how they were born and they have this wild story and can't fathom it and will have a mental breakdown, just know that was the reason. Sure some kids will be able to take it, but in 20 years were gonna have a scary situation on our hands.
More nonsense. Adoption has been around for more than a few years as has fertility means to allow those who cannot conceve to have children. Are you aware of a number of people who have had mental breakdowns due to this? I too could use my imagination and come up with some thing scary and equally as nonsensical.
Not as much nonsense as linking homosexuality with genocide or stating that you need to reproduce in order to understand how reproduction occurrs. Or homosexuality is a form of population control.
Okay so when the child grows up and ask how they were born and they have this wild story and can't fathom it and will have a mental breakdown, just know that was the reason. Sure some kids will be able to take it, but in 20 years were gonna have a scary situation on our hands.
Okay so when the child grows up and ask how they were born and they have this wild story and can't fathom it and will have a mental breakdown, just know that was the reason. Sure some kids will be able to take it, but in 20 years were gonna have a scary situation on our hands.
Since when is IVF or adoption a wild story? We don't see millions of kids from IVF and adoption having mental breakdowns currently, why would that change because of the sex of the parents?
Adoption and IVF have been around for over 20 years, why are we not seeing the effects you claim should be happening?
Are you claiming to be a bonobo, or are you claiming the bonobos told you that?
You failed to address the question:
What is the utility of homosexuality?
You dodged the question. This thread is about "Objections to homosexuality."
What is the utility of homosexuality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You did not ask a relevant one. I have already answered the thread topic in many posts. So the only one dodging is you, because the UTILITY of it has nothing to do with the morality of it.
The question is relevant, regardless of your repeated denials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Ask a relevant question and I will answer it. You have not. Maybe if you can establish what utility has to do with morality or objections then I could answer.
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility."
Oooops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Or I can answer a question with a question.
Which is a fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
The reason the question is not worth answering is it could be answered two ways. "No utility", in which case SO WHAT? What has that to do with the morality of it or useful objections to it? Or I could give you some utilities which we can debate or accept, and again SO WHAT? What does something having utility mean for morality or objections.
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility."
Oooops, you're wrong again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosmas
It's the exact same utility as straight marriage or relationships with the exception of being able to reproduce on their own.
Then it is not the same, by your own definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosmas
Given that this is a topic about understanding the opposition to homosexuality without evoking a God, it leads me to think you're asking this because you're opposed to things without some utility. Please clarify if not. If you are you might as well be strongly opposed to stamp collecting and video games.
It appears no one has taken university level philosophy courses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
None that I know of but I do not know everything.
Someone got it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
From the perspective of an individual, pleasure and pair-bonding.
So there's no societal benefit, it's just individual instant deviant sexual self-gratification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
