Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[crazyhomo]

We did not eveolve into elephants becaue it did not favour our survival. Did you study 2nd year biology?

thanks for stating my point in trying to prove me wrong

 

[skip89]

wat do u mean. wat imsaying is that homosexuality doesnt aid the survival of the species and is therefore a weakness of the species. Did u study 2nd year bio?
And its just as easy for me to say that you need to get over your false premise.

 

[_dhj_]

wat do u mean. wat imsaying is that homosexuality doesnt aid the survival of the species and is therefore a weakness of the species. Did u study 2nd year bio?

"second year" means university second year, not preliminary kindergarten.

When you are the least learned person in the discussion, being only in Year 11, you ought to try and avoid the subject of your credentials rather than boast about them.

 

[crazyhomo]

And also with your evolutionary argument, how come given the same amount of time no other animal has evelved to the extent we have.

We did not eveolve into elephants becaue it did not favour our survival.

all spelling mistakes accurately reproduced

 

[crazyhomo]

wat do u mean. wat imsaying is that homosexuality doesnt aid the survival of the species and is therefore a weakness of the species. Did u study 2nd year bio?
And its just as easy for me to say that you need to get over your false premise.

if it were true that homosexuality does not aid the survival of a species, then that trait would have disappeared long ago. this is not the case, as many species exhibit homosexual behaviour. if it were 'against nature' then homosexuality simply would not exist, as all species that displayed it would have died out

 

[*Minka*]

Homosexuality has existed since the very beginning, several thousand years ago, yet the human race is still going strong with no sign of imminant extinction.

Next.

 

[KFunk]

Firstly, i doubt you have studied philosophy(NTB), because if you have you would no what the hiearchy of being is and too suggest i made it up makes me laugh, mostly at you.
Secondly im the first to admit im not a philosopher, so i can only go off what i no and been taught.
...
Also, im am not saying homosexuals ARE lower on the hiearchy of being. Clearly they still have the capacity to reproduce. But the abnormality as dagwoman willingly refers to it, causes them not to fulfill this capacity. I know some people are infertile and some choose not to have kids.
I think of it like this- if everybody was a homosexual, than humankind would cease to continue. Doesnt that say something about homosexuality?

And ive already said i do believe that humans are in fact higher than animals
...
And gay couples do not reproduce by their own merit so i got no idea wat ur trying to say there.
You are right if people chose not to have children they very easily could do this and still have sexual relations.
But in a world where there is no contraception, universal homosexuality would not suit the survival of the species. The species would die out.

Firstly:

- The heirachy of being is BS philosophy - it's anthrocentric in the worst kind of way. It is one thing to argue for a hierarchy from an evolutionary perspective (put the more 'developed' organism at the top of the list) but to then use it as the basis of a moral stance is rediculous. My geuss is that you perhaps feel that the evolutionary hierarchy implies that god favours the more 'advanced'. Once more, this is painfully anthrocentric but I suppose it's between you and your god really...

On your reproductive views:

- You could, theoretically, have an entirely homosexual society where all romantic partnerships were same sex while IVF is used so individuals can have children. Each child then gets two mums and two dads. Such an idea is not at all implausible in the context of the gay and lesbian community. In fact, it's what many lesbian couples do (though sometimes they will have sex with a man, for reproductive purposes, rather than use IVF). Homosexuality does not equal a lack of reproduction, it just means an alternative social structure.

- Also, why should reproduction = better / high in the hierarchy. Our world is overpopulated, we need less people. I think one could argue that less = better in this context.

 

[Se!zuRe.]

if it were true that homosexuality does not aid the survival of a species, then that trait would have disappeared long ago. this is not the case, as many species exhibit homosexual behaviour. if it were 'against nature' then homosexuality simply would not exist, as all species that displayed it would have died out

ok i know im going to cope alot of criticism about this and im NOT saying homosexuals are mutants but wat about genetic mutations... they do (in most cases) hinder on a certain organism of that species... even though mutations lead to evolution blah blah blah dont make me go into Darwin's theories...but as u said these traits wuld have disappeared when they aern't infact traits at all simply just something that culd naturally occur due to either genetics, or have nothing at all to do wiht genetics, as i believe u are not born gay just as u arent born with any judgement (besides mum=mum etc.) and cannot clearly understand nething to do with lifestyle choices at that time....xD

 

[Se!zuRe.]

On your reproductive views:

- You could, theoretically, have an entirely homosexual society where all romantic partnerships were same sex while IVF is used so individuals can have children. Each child then gets two mums and two dads. Such an idea is not at all implausible in the context of the gay and lesbian community. In fact, it's what many lesbian couples do (though sometimes they will have sex with a man, for reproductive purposes, rather than use IVF). Homosexuality does not equal a lack of reproduction, it just means an alternative social structure.

OK if u will read my previous comments posted earlier in the thread although this IVF may occur in humans to think that animals culd exist with it is totally BS as they dont have the evolutionary intelligence that us as humans do indeed have.... we were on the subject matter of animals and now it has been brought into the topic of humans...??
/endraGE

 

[Se!zuRe.]

Homosexuality has existed since the very beginning, several thousand years ago, yet the human race is still going strong with no sign of imminant extinction.

Next.

This is actually very interesting and infact has ZERO relevance to the topic at hand seeing wats being discussed is a completely homosexual species... although over time the human race has had homosexual people i do believe not every person in history was gay.... i wuld still go on the idea that in historical times the majority of the population was indeed heterosexual... along with this and IVF i dont see how this technology would have been readily available in historical times and seeing i wasnt there i cant disprove the idea of gays still having children but i do believe the pressure put on people back then would probably have leaded to them keeping it a secret...xD

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Firstly, i doubt you have studied philosophy(NTB), because if you have you would no what the hiearchy of being is and too suggest i made it up makes me laugh, mostly at you.

Oh ok. Can you point out which philosopher suggested that the hierarchy of beings should be based off of the ability to "nourish itself, grow and reproduce" ? I'd be quite interested in his justification because it really does seem rather stupid. Personally I still believe you've just made this up, but we'll see.

Thirdly despite your passionate attempts to enlighten me, i still believe that humans are not animals like dogs or cats.

Humans are not cats and dogs or even very similar, however they are all animals, we're all animals sharing the same genetic history. Whether I can 'enlighten' you to this fact or not doesn't really bother me.

Now the next is a bit more philospophy im sure youll accuse me of making up so i wont bother.

Ok man don't want to go being all smart around us stewpid hedz

Also, im am not saying homosexuals ARE lower on the hiearchy of being.

So you just brought up the whole thing about reproduction, liger's etc after talking about homosexuality for the fun of it?

I think homosexuality reduces humanity to animals in that it denies the human will's ability to overide instinctive behaviours which govern animals.
Also, philosphically a living organism is able to nourish itself, grow and to reproduce. The first two are for the survival of the individual. The last is for the survival of the species. If an organism is unable to reproduce, than philosphically it lower in the hiearchy of being. Am i saying mules and liger which do not have the capacity to reproduce are lower on the hiearchy of being? Yes.

But the abnormality as dagwoman willingly refers to it, causes them not to fulfill this capacity.

But they do, so many people classed as 'homosexuals' end up with children.

I know some people are infertile and some choose not to have kids.

Can you answer the question then? Are they lower than bacteria because of their inability to reproduce?

I think of it like this- if everybody was a homosexual, than humankind would cease to continue. Doesnt that say something about homosexuality?

If people were homosexual and never engaged in sexual relations with others then yes, that's possible. However in reality (where I think most arguments should be fought) homosexuals do still compromise to have children and homosexuals are a tiny minority, will continue to be as far as we can invision into the future.

If everybody were women, then humanity would cease to continue. Does that say something about women?

The fact is that not everybody are women.

lol much better than I put it.

And ive already said i do believe that humans are in fact higher than animals.

If this is a counter-argument to DHJ's point, I think you should acknowledge that homosexuals are (like women) humans

And ive told you thats where the base of each of our arguments lie so we wont agreee on anything.

Actually the whole point about humans being 'higher' than animals has little point (at least to me) in this debate.

I think dhj's response is a little empty.

Do you have the capability to show how it's 'empty'?

And gay couples do not reproduce by their own merit so i got no idea wat ur trying to say there.

Neither do females.

how come given the same amount of time no other animal has evelved to the extent we have.

Different environmental conditions?
Different genetic mutations?

Take your pick.

There isnt much evolution in the HSC course is there. I came first in bio in the prelim HSC. How did u go?

Please, put it back in your pants, there really is no need for people to go about flashing their credentials.

You haven't heard of a thing called free will, not everyhing we are capable of doin we should be doin. Difficult concept for an athiest to understand.

Just replace the word 'atheist' with 'theist' and you might realise how low your statement sounds.

I dont see the point of debating ith an athiest as you dont think of higher power in the right way.

Well I think you should anyway, because all the clue's you've got are the same as the ones we do... i.e. you don't know what your 'higher power' desires.

Biology- survival of the fittest. Most favourable charateristics are passed on for the good o the species yeah? I dont count homosexuality as an adaptation designed for survival.

Homosexuals are less likely to have children. We need less children in the world compared with our amount of resources. While I don't think that's WHY homosexuality 'came about', I do think that nonetheless now homosexuals are a force for good in the survival of our species.

We did not eveolve into elephants becaue it did not favour our survival. Did you study 2nd year biology?

You don't always just 'get' what you need to survive. Humans could use a completely different body that could survive for longer, live off less etc... But those genetic variations didn't take place.

 

[dagwoman]

Firstly, I don't take all homophobic comments as a personal attack on myself. I don't think my replies are fuelled by this, either. However, it is a topic I feel very strongly about, and I'm not afraid to defend it. I would do just the same for other topics, e.g. abortion, which has nothing to do with me.

Secondly, the fact that gay people cannot have children naturally is stupid and not a legitimate reason for homophobia. We've gone through the fact that:
1. Not everyone is gay
2. The world is overpopulated as it is
3. Women can't reproduce by themselves either

If you can give another reason for why gay people are bad and inferior, we can debate that, because the discussion about reproduction is pointless.

As for your very amusing comment about biology, there is a whole focus on "Evidence for Evolution" in the syllabus. I won't comment on your "I'm coming first- what are you ranked?" BS because someone has already instructed you to put it away. I don't need to justify my ability to a year 11 student.

So please, someone bring on more VALID points for discussion. The reproduction angle has been done and proven invalid.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

This is actually very interesting and infact has ZERO relevance to the topic at hand seeing wats being discussed is a completely homosexual species... although over time the human race has had homosexual people i do believe not every person in history was gay.... i wuld still go on the idea that in historical times the majority of the population was indeed heterosexual... along with this and IVF i dont see how this technology would have been readily available in historical times and seeing i wasnt there i cant disprove the idea of gays still having children but i do believe the pressure put on people back then would probably have leaded to them keeping it a secret...xD

Yes. In historical times most people were still heterosexual.
Full marks for you in stating the obvious.
Yes, IVF wasn't around for Alexander the Great. I think you mistake the argument. We are arguing that gay people existed, not that they had a family, lived with their same sex partner and raised children because gay marriage was illegal then. (Assuming we are talking about places such as Victorian England, Rome etc)

However, as has been argued extensively in the gay marriage thread, gay people in places such as Africa, America (native americans) and islanders actually had gay marriages, in which they raised children. Obviously, this requires one of the gay persons to have sex with somone of the opposite gender (or adopt the orphaned children of the tribe) because as you *brilliantly* pointed out, IVF didn't exist a hundred years ago.


Exclusive homosexuality in a species cannot exist because homosexuality is not reproductive sex, therefore it is silly to talk about.

 

[Se!zuRe.]

Yes. In historical times most people were still heterosexual.
Full marks for you in stating the obvious.
Yes, IVF wasn't around for Alexander the Great. I think you mistake the argument. We are arguing that gay people existed, not that they had a family, lived with their same sex partner and raised children because gay marriage was illegal then. (Assuming we are talking about places such as Victorian England, Rome etc)

However, as has been argued extensively in the gay marriage thread, gay people in places such as Africa, America (native americans) and islanders actually had gay marriages, in which they raised children. Obviously, this requires one of the gay persons to have sex with somone of the opposite gender (or adopt the orphaned children of the tribe) because as you *brilliantly* pointed out, IVF didn't exist a hundred years ago.


Exclusive homosexuality in a species cannot exist because homosexuality is not reproductive sex, therefore it is silly to talk about.

hmm as u can seee people were indeed posting about children in gay marriages and someone besides myself did post about IVF for gay couples... so incase ur infact mentally retarded or are just too lazy too read the previous posts we actually were talking about gay couples that have familes... as u may also see i stated very clearly i wasnt sure if in historical times gay people did concieve children and i was simply stating a valid point although seeing u have to be a complete smart ass and some how try and prove me wrong even though i never claimed to be right gl to u on that one...

 

[skip89]

Homosexuality has existed since the very beginning, several thousand years ago, yet the human race is still going strong with no sign of imminant extinction.

Next.

I wasnt saying that homosexuality is a threat to humanity's existence. So minka you are not so bright, i wont bother with you.

 

[skip89]

The only decent rebukes to my arguments have been from KFunk.
He is right. Without my religious beliefs i would have no problem with sexuality whatsoever.

I would also have no problem with rape, murder, paedophilia, stealing and polygamy.
Because hey, we are just animals.

 

[dagwoman]

Are you implying that people have to be religious to have morals? That's extremely offensive. Furthermore, rape, murder etc. are choices, not sexualities we are born with. I don't see homosexuality as a moral issue. You do. Why is that?

 

[skip89]

And to NTB, liger's and mules do not have the capacity to reproduce. Homosexuals do.
And i have acknowledged time and time again the theological roots to my beliefs

 

[dagwoman]

I'm not aware of any time you've explained why you disagree with homosexuality. All you've said is that your religion disagrees with it.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Its hard to respect an argument that is in disagreement with an issue soley because their religion disagrees with it.

Particularly if their religion is some sort of Christianity, where we are all sinners, and such "disagreement" is a personal matter (that you do not become homosexual yourself), not something you condemn and judge others for.