People against same sex marriage.

[Divine_Malevolence]

I quite enjoy the efforts you go through to use indents.

[GSK Lives]

Misty Moonsilver

-In Lesbians, depression and anxiety is far higher than heterosexual women along with Bacterial Vaginosis.

Care to show the causation to that correlation there?

[Bogotanian]

Yoshpet

Glorious Leader Luna

It's harmful

It can't well be beneficial nor benign given it effects reproductive rates negatively (ignoring technology and social loopholes what gets rid of the negative effect anyway)

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, just not with each other. Think of closeted gays who have started families, gay couples that use surrogates, etc. Ignoring social and technological factors makes no sense since those are legitimate aspects of our environment. Another environmental aspect you're overlooking is that breeding out of control is not desirable. There is a limit to our resources and productivity, which is why population control is a thing. We do not want to grow into a population so large that people cannot meet their basic needs.

Homosexuality is not causing any tangible problems, so it's unfair to call it harmful.

In terms of reproduction, homosexuality is not a beneficial mutation. Minus the modern world with artificial methods, historically it has not helped reproduction. I mentioned your other point about breeding out of control a while back in another thread. Perhaps a "beneficial" aspect to homosexuality historically has been population control and culling off certain members to ensure that other members survive and get more resources. I guess that had some implications so I was called a bigot for saying that. Homosexuality could be a form of population control, which would make it beneficial for everyone else, but not for the people and animals that are culling off and (historically) have not been able to reproduce.

[Dilseacht]

Banning gay marriage won't force gays and lesbians to be straight. By all means, go ahead; personally the only contingency I place on it is that religious groups that are against it shouldn't be force to marry a gay couple in their church. Its a two-way street, let's not set up speed bumps on the freeway, ye ken? But I honestly really don't understand how banning two gay people from marrying each other is somehow going to make them straight, or make them split. Being Greek Orthodox myself, I have my viewpoints on the matter of homosexuality and the like, HOWEVER, I really think the "going on the attack" is...well, kind of a "protestant" phenomenon, as I have always been taught the your inward battles with your own sins should be more urgent to you then some gay couple getting married that you don't even know :/

[Yoshpet]

Bogotanian

In terms of reproduction, homosexuality is not a beneficial mutation. Minus the modern world with artificial methods, historically it has not helped reproduction. I mentioned your other point about breeding out of control a while back in another thread. Perhaps a "beneficial" aspect to homosexuality historically has been population control and culling off certain members to ensure that other members survive and get more resources. I guess that had some implications so I was called a bigot for saying that. Homosexuality could be a form of population control, which would make it beneficial for everyone else, but not for the people and animals that are culling off and (historically) have not been able to reproduce.

Occurrences of homosexuality do not impede population growth in a significant way. The problem you suggest homosexuality poses is an artificial one, based on your preconceptions of how organisms are supposed to behave. You may as well suggest that the development of rationality and abstract thought are harmful mutations as they allow us to make choices like abstinence from sex, or invent and utilize contraceptives. This is just a weak argument altogether.

[Yoshpet]

Glorious Leader Luna

That's why i said Technically

not Ignoring social and technological factors then its benign.

But note the when Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany tried to encourage reproduction of the endangered Humboldt penguins they failed because the males were "gay"

I don't understand how the word "technically" is supposed to justify a framework where we ignore various relevant factors to a situation and focus instead on cherry-picked details that may be construed as damaging when removed from the big picture.

To even address the topic of gay penguins not breeding we'd have to delve into all kinds of issues, like human effects on penguin ecology, the impact zoos have on the animals they contain, our limited understanding of biology, penguin sexuality, etc. You don't really expect me to take that at face value after my last response, do you?

[Bogotanian]

Yoshpet

Bogotanian

In terms of reproduction, homosexuality is not a beneficial mutation. Minus the modern world with artificial methods, historically it has not helped reproduction. I mentioned your other point about breeding out of control a while back in another thread. Perhaps a "beneficial" aspect to homosexuality historically has been population control and culling off certain members to ensure that other members survive and get more resources. I guess that had some implications so I was called a bigot for saying that. Homosexuality could be a form of population control, which would make it beneficial for everyone else, but not for the people and animals that are culling off and (historically) have not been able to reproduce.

Occurrences of homosexuality do not impede population growth in a significant way. The problem you suggest homosexuality poses is an artificial one, based on your preconceptions of how organisms are supposed to behave. You may as well suggest that the development of rationality and abstract thought are harmful mutations as they allow us to make choices like abstinence from sex, or invent and utilize contraceptives. This is just a weak argument altogether.

You said yourself that breeding out of control is not a beneficial trait, and historically homosexuals have been an answer to this, implying that homosexuality prevented breeding out of control. I am sure that heterosexual animals were supposed to reproduce to spread their genes, hence why the p***s and v****a were meant to connect. I was just taking the argument you presented to its logical conclusion, that homosexuality acted in the past as a form of population control. But again, what is beneficial to others isn't necessarily beneficial to some. It may be beneficial to a robber to steal from someone (he gets more money) but it's at the expense of the robbed person.

[I AM R U]

Bogotanian

Yoshpet

Bogotanian

In terms of reproduction, homosexuality is not a beneficial mutation. Minus the modern world with artificial methods, historically it has not helped reproduction. I mentioned your other point about breeding out of control a while back in another thread. Perhaps a "beneficial" aspect to homosexuality historically has been population control and culling off certain members to ensure that other members survive and get more resources. I guess that had some implications so I was called a bigot for saying that. Homosexuality could be a form of population control, which would make it beneficial for everyone else, but not for the people and animals that are culling off and (historically) have not been able to reproduce.

Occurrences of homosexuality do not impede population growth in a significant way. The problem you suggest homosexuality poses is an artificial one, based on your preconceptions of how organisms are supposed to behave. You may as well suggest that the development of rationality and abstract thought are harmful mutations as they allow us to make choices like abstinence from sex, or invent and utilize contraceptives. This is just a weak argument altogether.

You said yourself that breeding out of control is not a beneficial trait, and historically homosexuals have been an answer to this, implying that homosexuality prevented breeding out of control. I am sure that heterosexual animals were supposed to reproduce to spread their genes, hence why the p***s and v****a were meant to connect. I was just taking the argument you presented to its logical conclusion, that homosexuality acted in the past as a form of population control. But again, what is beneficial to others isn't necessarily beneficial to some. It may be beneficial to a robber to steal from someone (he gets more money) but it's at the expense of the robbed person.

That's a very poor analogy - for one thing, there is a clear victim in your scenario. In the case of gay marriage and homosexuality in general, there is no victim. It literally does not effect non-homosexual people in any way. Even heterosexual couples sometimes choose not to have children or are unable to, and there is no repercussions for such things in anyway, except for how it effects their lives, personally.

Homosexual disinterest in or inability to have children (which isn't a thing, but assuming it is based on basic, non technologically assisted reproduction) would only be a problem if the human race was dying out, and a vast majority of the remaining human population were homosexual. This isn't the case, has never been the case, and never (speaking logically, ignoring extreme, unlikely and illogical hypothetical) will be the case.

[Sugarbeary]

Vitani Diallo

spacehere Because apparently being straight or gay is a choice and people should 'choose' their gender so they can get accepted by society?

Because apparently being a murderer or serial killer is a choice and people should 'choose' their demographic so they can be accepted by society?

[Reverend Flagg]

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

[Divine_Malevolence]

LoveLoud837

Because apparently being a murderer or serial killer is a choice and people should 'choose' their demographic so they can be accepted by society?

The ever loving ******** are you going on about?

[Michael Noire]

marriage is an institution designed to build families and rear children. Gays should be putting some of their Pro gay marriage ad and protest money into medical and legal mechanisms designed to provide for children in non traditional homes. Mechanisms such as genetic engineering, cloning, host mothers, adoption, and normalizing the regulations on all of these issues.

right now there's a big gap in adoption. For whatever reason, all the attempts to adopt by most people seems to imply you need a big mansion on a hill somewhere, meanwhile, all the stories of foster kids describe these battered homes and sinks full of dirty dishes with drunk dads in stained wife beater shirts.

I'm not sure how the adoption mechanism is filtering all these kids away from good families and into these extremes of yuppies and drug addict crack houses.

But there ya go. 50% of marriage is about kids. Omitting that aspect of marriage means you might as well have a civil union instead, since the economic benefits of marriage are intended to rear children.

[Lady Victorianna Sharpe]

Same-sex marriage? How disreputable! I cannot even imagine such a thing!

[GSK Lives]

Michael Noire

marriage is an institution designed to build families and rear children. Gays should be putting some of their Pro gay marriage ad and protest money into medical and legal mechanisms designed to provide for children in non traditional homes. Mechanisms such as genetic engineering, cloning, host mothers, adoption, and normalizing the regulations on all of these issues.

right now there's a big gap in adoption. For whatever reason, all the attempts to adopt by most people seems to imply you need a big mansion on a hill somewhere, meanwhile, all the stories of foster kids describe these battered homes and sinks full of dirty dishes with drunk dads in stained wife beater shirts.

I'm not sure how the adoption mechanism is filtering all these kids away from good families and into these extremes of yuppies and drug addict crack houses.

But there ya go. 50% of marriage is about kids. Omitting that aspect of marriage means you might as well have a civil union instead, since the economic benefits of marriage are intended to rear children.

So childless straight couples should forfeit all benefits as well?

And civil unions do not get even close to the benefits of a marriage, several not having a thing to do with children.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Why is it that everyone always says that gay couples can't reproduce with each other?

liiiiiiiiike

trans people do exist