Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Thats a very tough question, b/c certainly the way our intelligence works was in great part due to the way we have evolved.
What fascinates me about the human species, is that we were able to achieve things quite apart from protecting our reproductive descendants. Its what IMO sets us apart in many ways from the rest of mammalian world. The discovery of the fission bomb for instance was by and large completely against any sort of reproductive interest (although an argument could be made ... tbc). Still, what point is there in annihilating our own race?
The general thought in Evolutionary biology, is that while some such individuals will occur naturally with a predisposition towards being celibate for instance, they will not be favored statistically to reproduce, and hence you will only find a very small percentage of them with those types of genes at any given time in any given era. That applies to whole religions who choose celibacy. Even though the teachings might be passed on to new generations, one would think that they will in the long run die out relative to those who choose the normal path. Indeed, one sees this happen in many such institutions that have long gone the way of the history book.
So why then are Homosexuals flourishing, with an abnormally large percentage. Its an interesting question to an evolutionary biologist. Clearly, if the theory is right, they must serve some sort of group purpose, otherwise they statistically would have dissappeared thousands of years ago.
An example, slightly on a tangent, that springs to mind, is the case of bee's. Why do bees produce no offspring, since only the queen does. Why do they choose to remain celibate and in perpetual servitude to this hierarchy, when they clearly gain no apparent advantage for offspring? The answer is that the queen, carries parts of their genes.. Her offspring will contain an enormous multitude with a fraction of genes to each worker that came before. It is thus favorable to them to continue in that state of affairs, even more so than evolving towards finding a mate and being able to singularily reproduce.
Its kinda the same philosophy that makes us more likely on avg to gravitate and provide aid to close kin in families, rather than distant ones (who carry less of our genetic makeup).
What fascinates me about the human species, is that we were able to achieve things quite apart from protecting our reproductive descendants. Its what IMO sets us apart in many ways from the rest of mammalian world. The discovery of the fission bomb for instance was by and large completely against any sort of reproductive interest (although an argument could be made ... tbc). Still, what point is there in annihilating our own race?
The general thought in Evolutionary biology, is that while some such individuals will occur naturally with a predisposition towards being celibate for instance, they will not be favored statistically to reproduce, and hence you will only find a very small percentage of them with those types of genes at any given time in any given era. That applies to whole religions who choose celibacy. Even though the teachings might be passed on to new generations, one would think that they will in the long run die out relative to those who choose the normal path. Indeed, one sees this happen in many such institutions that have long gone the way of the history book.
So why then are Homosexuals flourishing, with an abnormally large percentage. Its an interesting question to an evolutionary biologist. Clearly, if the theory is right, they must serve some sort of group purpose, otherwise they statistically would have dissappeared thousands of years ago.
An example, slightly on a tangent, that springs to mind, is the case of bee's. Why do bees produce no offspring, since only the queen does. Why do they choose to remain celibate and in perpetual servitude to this hierarchy, when they clearly gain no apparent advantage for offspring? The answer is that the queen, carries parts of their genes.. Her offspring will contain an enormous multitude with a fraction of genes to each worker that came before. It is thus favorable to them to continue in that state of affairs, even more so than evolving towards finding a mate and being able to singularily reproduce.
Its kinda the same philosophy that makes us more likely on avg to gravitate and provide aid to close kin in families, rather than distant ones (who carry less of our genetic makeup).
notAFanB said:
What's seen as "natural" isn't neccessarily what's moral. If conditions were such that humans engaged in cannibalism of other races as a matter of survival, and later, as a matter of common behavior, would it be moral?
We have evolved to the point where we are no longer strictly a matter of our biology. We have inherited basic drives from the primitive "old brain" of mammals, and we have evolved some new drives based on our experience as a social animal, but these basic drives are filtered by our rational mind now.
We have the ability not to blindly follow our instincts and drives, which is good, because they are not always right. We are conscious of our actions and our own desires and are able to moderate them.
My view of homosexuality is that is a matter of switched wiring in the brain, just like left handedness. There is a path from the visual cortex to the primitive brain engaged in sexual attraction, and gay people just happen to have opposite wiring. Whether this wiring change happens in the womb, or during early childhood development, I do not know, but homosexuality is NOT a choice, anymore than your heterosexuality, or love of vanilla vs chocolate is a conscious choice.
(BTW, there many forms of such non-standard wiring, see Oliver Sack's books. Religious experience itself, such as feeling the presence of God, has been uncovered in research on epileptics, and replicated in the lab. Turns out it amounts to nothing more than artificial strengthening of connections between our mental map of our surroundings and our emotional centers, so that everything seems to be suffused with deep significance and meaning)
Hi there,
wow. This thread exploded. Sorry to barge in this late in the game.
I'd already be happy if there were something like equal-rights legal partnerships wherever possible, or ditch the concept of "marriage" as is completely. I'm not really bothered about tax breaks and other financial advantages nor the moral implications from such measures, but it's not really great to have to go to a newspaper if you want to visit your partner in a hospital as your partnership is not recognised as such and hence, you can't stay with your comatose spouse without applying certain public pressure, in many cases. Or the fact that, should your partner not be a citizen of the country you live in, he might have to leave as soon as the visa runs out while heterosexual couples can marry and everything's settled. I really would wish for abolishment of the sexuality distinction in such situations.
Here in Switzerland, at least some cantons have passed the necessary legislation already--even though it means you will only be registered if you can give documented evidence of a 7+ years, stable relationship. I wonder who figured that bit out as it's a) unfair (do heterosexual couples need to document their relationship in such a way when they want to get married or the partnership registered?) and b) frankly, quite stupid. You're more or less forced to get photographs of you and your partner with time stamps, write snail-mail from time to time even though you might live together, keep all plane tickets for further scrutiny, gather witnesses to the fact etc.--and keep the stuff for 7 years, too, always hoping the officials won't doubt the "evidence" in the end anyway. Silly.
As for HIV: here in, again, Switzerland, the vast majority of new infections has happened in the 18-35 age group of heterosexuals, the past few years. Before that, it was a tie between queer and straight. And I'm talking percents here, not absolute numbers. So much for "gay disease."
Regarding the natural/unnatural debate, I suggest interested parties have a look at Richard Dawkins's classic "The Selfish Gene". It's not alltogether easy to define "unnatural" by, say, "can't have offspring" or "it isn't the norm," not at all. Can be quite the opposite, really. Apart from this, I wonder why the "naturedness" should have any influence on a social code, nowadays. It's not as if the human species is dying out. I think people really need to redefine the term "family" as it's used nowadays, or scratch it alltogether, with all legal implications associated.
But please, boys and girls, lighten the mood a bit. Some people in this thread seem almost too involved to still argue objectively. Take a step back, relax, and try seeing the points of the "opposition." Building up and burning straw men, on purpose or not, doesn't really make for good reading matter nor does it help a discussion.
93,
-Sascha.rb
wow. This thread exploded. Sorry to barge in this late in the game.
I'd already be happy if there were something like equal-rights legal partnerships wherever possible, or ditch the concept of "marriage" as is completely. I'm not really bothered about tax breaks and other financial advantages nor the moral implications from such measures, but it's not really great to have to go to a newspaper if you want to visit your partner in a hospital as your partnership is not recognised as such and hence, you can't stay with your comatose spouse without applying certain public pressure, in many cases. Or the fact that, should your partner not be a citizen of the country you live in, he might have to leave as soon as the visa runs out while heterosexual couples can marry and everything's settled. I really would wish for abolishment of the sexuality distinction in such situations.
Here in Switzerland, at least some cantons have passed the necessary legislation already--even though it means you will only be registered if you can give documented evidence of a 7+ years, stable relationship. I wonder who figured that bit out as it's a) unfair (do heterosexual couples need to document their relationship in such a way when they want to get married or the partnership registered?) and b) frankly, quite stupid. You're more or less forced to get photographs of you and your partner with time stamps, write snail-mail from time to time even though you might live together, keep all plane tickets for further scrutiny, gather witnesses to the fact etc.--and keep the stuff for 7 years, too, always hoping the officials won't doubt the "evidence" in the end anyway. Silly.
As for HIV: here in, again, Switzerland, the vast majority of new infections has happened in the 18-35 age group of heterosexuals, the past few years. Before that, it was a tie between queer and straight. And I'm talking percents here, not absolute numbers. So much for "gay disease."
Regarding the natural/unnatural debate, I suggest interested parties have a look at Richard Dawkins's classic "The Selfish Gene". It's not alltogether easy to define "unnatural" by, say, "can't have offspring" or "it isn't the norm," not at all. Can be quite the opposite, really. Apart from this, I wonder why the "naturedness" should have any influence on a social code, nowadays. It's not as if the human species is dying out. I think people really need to redefine the term "family" as it's used nowadays, or scratch it alltogether, with all legal implications associated.
But please, boys and girls, lighten the mood a bit. Some people in this thread seem almost too involved to still argue objectively. Take a step back, relax, and try seeing the points of the "opposition." Building up and burning straw men, on purpose or not, doesn't really make for good reading matter nor does it help a discussion.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Hi antlers,
I see it pretty much the same way. "Being straight" or "being gay" is the sum total of the person's past as well as a, hmm, inherited "flexibility" to overrule or comply to the status quo of the environment you grow up in. In my opinion, it's neither wholly genetical nor environmental, it's a mixture of both, and then some. Anybody here familiar of the concept of "sex maps?"
93,
-Sascha.rb
Nice analogy. Chomsky, per chance?antlers said:
I see it pretty much the same way. "Being straight" or "being gay" is the sum total of the person's past as well as a, hmm, inherited "flexibility" to overrule or comply to the status quo of the environment you grow up in. In my opinion, it's neither wholly genetical nor environmental, it's a mixture of both, and then some. Anybody here familiar of the concept of "sex maps?"
93,
-Sascha.rb
That wouldn't happen to correspond with the population of heroin addicts, would it?nggalai said:
horvendile
Regular
I am a great supporter of Hume's law:
If one accepts that, the whole "natural" discussion suddenly becomes irrelevant in a discussion about morals.
Hume said:
If one accepts that, the whole "natural" discussion suddenly becomes irrelevant in a discussion about morals.
What a thread. Yes, animals get it on with their brothers and sisters, if it's got a hole it gets filled, the feathers are being ruffled and the fur is flying, so what? If you want an admission that humans are just animals, then you have to take it all in, not just the animal parts that support your cause of the moment. Gay bashing is also natural if you want to look at it that way, so maybe animal behaviour is not some ideal to emulate or use as an excuse. You can't complain about us not being evolved enough to accept all differences in our neighbors automatically and at the same time point to the animal kingdom as the standard. In the animal kingdom, there are no 14 page forum threads, you'd have a mild brawl for a half hour and whoever was left standing would walk away or eat the defeated.
Human being are not perfected creatures, there are flaws, just like animals, I think of homosexuality as a flaw, like someone born crippled at birth. Whether it's something enabled at birth or only a potential, it's still a flaw in the mix. Sure gays, like the handicapped, should be provided for in some way with equal rights under the law, but you don't break the legs of normal kids so that everybody is a cripple out of some sense of fairness or political correctness either. Nobody is better than anybody else, but they are not all equivalent either.
Hi Russ,
The numbers lean even more towards heterosexual HIV+s in the two groups "middle-class teenagers" and "middle-class >50." Seems as if the first group doesn't take the quite extensive AIDS education at Swiss schools seriously, while the other group apparently isn't aware that they might be vulnerable to the "gay disease." Switzerland doesn't have a huge Heroin problem, and most addicts appear to be in the late 20s to early 30s. About 17% of all HIV infections are drug related, but most of said infections are suffered by women, not men (drug abuse as way of infection makes about 30% of all female infections, according to the BAG).
A recent poll by the AIDS aid Switzerland was rather disturbing, though--while about 15% of all surveyed gay men practise sex outside of a relationship without condoms, more than 30% of all straight men never use condoms for one night stands or the like, about as many women don't ask for condoms in such situations as they are on the pill or use other contraceptives. The number of unprotected sexual contact outside of relationships has climbed, generally--people aren't too afraid of contracting HIV anymore. On the other hand side, about half of the surveyed still wouldn't have dinner with an HIV+ person as they are afraid that they might get infected by sharing food or drinking from the same glass. Quite often, when new acquaintances of mine hear that I'm gay one of the first remarks is "well, shame about AIDS. Are you taking the necessary precautions?" (on which I reply "sure. Do you?") as if it's directly linked to one's sexual preferences. Seems as if HIV is something that "happens to other people."
As I see it, the general public has "forgotten" a lot about HIV over the advent of first possible cures and tried-and-tested therapies. Apparently, the Swiss AIDS aid thinks similarly--the most recent Stop AIDS campaign is specifically aimed at middle-aged men, teen-agers and married couples. The gay populace has been targeted with custom-tailored ads for years, now (in mags, for example), but it's a first to have rather specific posters and TV ads--up to now, the Stop AIDS ads have always been very general ("Don't forget to don the helmet before you drive"-style).
I am told by a physician friend of mine that the trend described above is much the same in Germany and Austria. Perhaps it's related to the language, after all.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Not entirely, even though heteros are in the majority in that respect, too.RussSchultz said:
The numbers lean even more towards heterosexual HIV+s in the two groups "middle-class teenagers" and "middle-class >50." Seems as if the first group doesn't take the quite extensive AIDS education at Swiss schools seriously, while the other group apparently isn't aware that they might be vulnerable to the "gay disease." Switzerland doesn't have a huge Heroin problem, and most addicts appear to be in the late 20s to early 30s. About 17% of all HIV infections are drug related, but most of said infections are suffered by women, not men (drug abuse as way of infection makes about 30% of all female infections, according to the BAG). A recent poll by the AIDS aid Switzerland was rather disturbing, though--while about 15% of all surveyed gay men practise sex outside of a relationship without condoms, more than 30% of all straight men never use condoms for one night stands or the like, about as many women don't ask for condoms in such situations as they are on the pill or use other contraceptives. The number of unprotected sexual contact outside of relationships has climbed, generally--people aren't too afraid of contracting HIV anymore. On the other hand side, about half of the surveyed still wouldn't have dinner with an HIV+ person as they are afraid that they might get infected by sharing food or drinking from the same glass. Quite often, when new acquaintances of mine hear that I'm gay one of the first remarks is "well, shame about AIDS. Are you taking the necessary precautions?" (on which I reply "sure. Do you?") as if it's directly linked to one's sexual preferences. Seems as if HIV is something that "happens to other people."
As I see it, the general public has "forgotten" a lot about HIV over the advent of first possible cures and tried-and-tested therapies. Apparently, the Swiss AIDS aid thinks similarly--the most recent Stop AIDS campaign is specifically aimed at middle-aged men, teen-agers and married couples. The gay populace has been targeted with custom-tailored ads for years, now (in mags, for example), but it's a first to have rather specific posters and TV ads--up to now, the Stop AIDS ads have always been very general ("Don't forget to don the helmet before you drive"-style).
I am told by a physician friend of mine that the trend described above is much the same in Germany and Austria. Perhaps it's related to the language, after all.
93,
-Sascha.rb
I was referring to the lighter stance on heroin that Switzerland has adopted and Zurich's(?) heroin 'island'/park where its essentially been decriminalized.
Or have they ended that program?
Or have they ended that program?
Hi Russ,
Hmm. But I think we're going slightly off-topic, here.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Ah. OK. The methadone programs are still in effect, but generally, cocaine and THC derivates by far outnumber heroin abuse, here. They dismantled the "open" drug scene in Zurich somewhat, over the past years (first it was at the "Platzspitz" park, then the "Letten" bridge, now dilluted all over Zurich), but as you'll get fresh needles easy for free, the new HIV infections via drug abuse have dropped to about 17%, most of those being suffered by women as mentioned above.RussSchultz said:
Hmm. But I think we're going slightly off-topic, here.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Himself said:
Yes, animals get it on with their brothers and sisters, if it's got a hole it gets filled, the feathers are being ruffled and the fur is flying, so what? If you want an admission that humans are just animals, then you have to take it all in, not just the animal parts that support your cause of the moment. Gay bashing is also natural if you want to look at it that way, so maybe animal behaviour is not some ideal to emulate or use as an excuse. You can't complain about us not being evolved enough to accept all differences in our neighbors automatically and at the same time point to the animal kingdom as the standard. In the animal kingdom, there are no 14 page forum threads, you'd have a mild brawl for a half hour and whoever was left standing would walk away or eat the defeated.
As I stated before, anything that happens in nature is natural. Whether or not it is "morally" objectionable is another debate altogether. But that's been said before and did not need a long winded paragraph from you to say that.
So, your point?
Himself said:
Homosexuality is a flaw eh? The only way I can see this line of reasoning occurring is if you believe the flaw because of the inability to reproduce within a same-sex environment, because biologically, there are no other differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We are *physically* capable of reproduction with opposite sex members of the species. But psychologically and emotionally we are not attracted to those members.
But please, we've been down this road before no? If you've read this entire thread you'd know what a fallacious platform to stand on that is. So if it's not the social inability to reproduce, what other scientific reason is there for the "flaw" eh?
Silent_One
Newcomer
I thought you believe that the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is genetic, something that you are born with, that attracts you to members of your own sex. "Hard wired" into you. Is that not the biological difference?
antlers said:
Well antlers, I wanted to use less flattering commentary with regards to your " theorem’sâ€, words like illogical, unorganized, silly came to mind but instead I simply pointed out only a couple of issues with it.(probably if I wanted to waste the time it could be shredded.) Interestingly enough it was I whom thought your "code" work was juvenile.
Natoma said:
We can see why the definition of the natural family Father-Mother-Children is under assault. But Natoma really would like this definition changed/removed/destroyed.
amusingly enough it wasn’t that long ago that there really was no disputing the natural families definition and the suggestion of redefining it was preposterous and still is in my opinion.
Democoder said:
Democoder, I almost always agree with your arguments(you being libertarian and me .. mostly one, particularly with regards to monetary matters.) with the exception of this issue. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that a vow of celibacy for the rest of your life is un-natural. I am not suggesting that abstinence for the entire course of ones life is natural ether but rather to make efforts to not sleep with every woman (or if in the case of a woman: man) that you find attractive and avoid have many sexual relationships if at all possible rather then ‘going out to get laid’ mentality. Marriage is a social construct, but it is based off the natural family unit and the life time commitment raising a child is.
I am afraid that not most men f*ck anything in fact most men insist on f*cking females where their sperm actually matters. I don’t f*uk anything that moves nor would I equate my spouse with a thing to get off on. There is no question though men have a tendency to be considerably more perverse in their sexuality, case in point are homosexuals.
Before I go on I must explain myself on some matters. You see because I believe in free will (as opposed to destiny where one has no choice and whatever they do is irrelevant.) I believe that there is good and bad choices that I can make. Because I believe in free will I believe in good and bad behavior.
Democoder said:
While I don’t believe that homosexuality is good for mankind in anyway I do understand that it is possibly a natural occurrence. But as Vince has pointed out there are all sorts of undesirable nature that we don’t like or want. But with my argument with regards to the natural family Father-Mother-Children ought to be exclusive for the institution of marriage based on the fact that this is the most predominant institution of society for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact it just won’t die or go away either as all children have a one father and one mother and this is an exclusive arrangement that nature itself cannot deny, only a fool would try to deny the reality of the natural family.
Democoder said:
Because I believe in individual responsibility for ones actions and that I have a natural forming hierarchy of values because I believe in freedom of will I believe that it is good couples whom have produced a child from intercourse to be responsible for that child. the institution of the natural family within the marriage is connected with the fact that children are a part of this coupling and it is entirely a natural arrangement. In my humble opinion couples (or for that matter a family of insects.) do not equate a natural human family. If indeed homosexuality is a genetic affliction then I group it with other perversions indeed are also potentially a genetic disposition.(However the genetic predisposition for a shoe fetish is a rather unlikely event.) If homosexuality is a matter of choice then these people are needlessly imposing homosexuality on a society that doesn’t want it. Further it would disqualify the grounds that it is discrimination that they can do nothing about and not remotely comparable to race or gender discrimination.
I have a problem with the state interference here. The state ought not to use my tax money to teach my child that homosexuality is natural *and* acceptable when indeed they don’t know if it is a natural genetic predisposition at all. It may be that it is a matter of choice, in which case they are encouraging homosexuality experimentation that I believe is a perversion of acceptable sexuality. The state ought not to be forcing this moral conviction of the left on society. I don’t believe that homosexuality is good for your children or for that matter mine but that is what is being promoted. Unfortunately you make arguments for pan-sexuality and relativism Democoder anything goes right? Because there is no absolute right or wrong with regards to sexuality all matters of ‘sexual orientation’ or preference are acceptable as a result pansexualism is the reigning and ultimate ideal of sensuality, to say anything else is ‘intolerant’, right? Like never before the anus (that is purely for the excretion of waste.) has qualified equal status with the vagina and I believe that this is a wretched indictment (this alone is enough IMO.) of societies moral decay.
Democoder said:
Funny, it wasn’t that long ago when you absolutely suggested that indeed homosexuality was a genetic affliction, now you don’t know. If it is socialized like you mentioned then we ought not to promote it. But again it seems now not only are genes destiny but our socializations as well. Your hypocritical position here is that it is absolutely not a choice even though everyone would rather ice-cream over dirt. Absolutely people choose sugar over silicon hehe. If socializations are unable to be overridden then society is unchangeable, right?
I do know we are hardwired for reproduction, all we are doing is fooling our biology into thinking it is reproducing when we engage in anything other then heterosexual sex. I think it is the software that gets corrupted.
If homosexuality is a biological affliction then we can treat it or avoid it, maybe with gene therapy or screening of the genes that cause the behavior.Nature tries to on an ongoing basis.notAFanB said:
You could (from an evolutionary standpoint) theorize that (assuming homosexuality is genetic) the evolutionary purpose of such a thing is to cull some genetic defect from the gene pool.
Sebastian, there is a difference between desire and behavior. Like I said in another message, we have evolved beyond our primitive drives, that's why argument by what's "natural" is irrelevent. So, homosexual desire (or heterosexual desire) may be hardwired (as opposed to taught), but acting on that desire is where choice comes in.
When I say homosexuality is not a choice, I am talking about the desire, not the behavior. Sleeping and eating are also hardwired desires, but how you implement them is a matter of choice.
I do not know whether homosexuality is a genetic predisposition or a development of early childhood, but I do believe it is biological in nature, and not amenable to psychotherapy.
I'm a heterosexual. At an almost unconscious level, the sight of an attractive women, even in my perpiheral vision can stimulate me to turn my head and look, almost a reflex action (to the chagrin of my wife). I have no choice in this matter. The only choice I have is not to pursue these stimulations and be faithful to my wife.
I believe I have free will, but my consciousness is still seated on top of a primitive biological system with basic drives which I cannot ignore or switch off, but simply shape how I react to them.
Since as a libertarian, I view consensual behavior between any two adults as moral, I do not care if people with homosexual desires act on them. To the contrary, I think forcing them to be celibate, or engage in sexual desire which they find disgusting and lead a life of unhappiness is worse for our society.
I'd rather have happy, gay gay's, going to work everyday, living productive lives, than unhappy depressed gays living a life of loneliness for no good reason what so ever. This goes for people who like dressing as the opposite sex, engaging in BDSM, or any other kind of play behavior between two people.
Asking whether I want my kid to be homosexual is like asking whether I want my kid to be circumcized. I view circumcision as an anachronism in the modern age. And while I don't like it, I have to way the view that my child may be discriminated against or feel left out if he is not circumcized. He will feel "different" than most other men, may be teased on the boy's locker room during showers, etc.
The real question is: do you want your child to be different than everyone else, a freak, or conform to society's model, so he can partipcate in all the normal anachronistic rituals in society, even if you think his particular abnormality is not bad at all.
Even many homosexuals won't wish their child to be gay knowing the hurt and pain they will go through. I will tell you this: I wish my child isn't, for the above reasons, but if my child is gay, I will not react negatively and will be 100% supportive.
When I say homosexuality is not a choice, I am talking about the desire, not the behavior. Sleeping and eating are also hardwired desires, but how you implement them is a matter of choice.
I do not know whether homosexuality is a genetic predisposition or a development of early childhood, but I do believe it is biological in nature, and not amenable to psychotherapy.
I'm a heterosexual. At an almost unconscious level, the sight of an attractive women, even in my perpiheral vision can stimulate me to turn my head and look, almost a reflex action (to the chagrin of my wife). I have no choice in this matter. The only choice I have is not to pursue these stimulations and be faithful to my wife.
I believe I have free will, but my consciousness is still seated on top of a primitive biological system with basic drives which I cannot ignore or switch off, but simply shape how I react to them.
Since as a libertarian, I view consensual behavior between any two adults as moral, I do not care if people with homosexual desires act on them. To the contrary, I think forcing them to be celibate, or engage in sexual desire which they find disgusting and lead a life of unhappiness is worse for our society.
I'd rather have happy, gay gay's, going to work everyday, living productive lives, than unhappy depressed gays living a life of loneliness for no good reason what so ever. This goes for people who like dressing as the opposite sex, engaging in BDSM, or any other kind of play behavior between two people.
Asking whether I want my kid to be homosexual is like asking whether I want my kid to be circumcized. I view circumcision as an anachronism in the modern age. And while I don't like it, I have to way the view that my child may be discriminated against or feel left out if he is not circumcized. He will feel "different" than most other men, may be teased on the boy's locker room during showers, etc.
The real question is: do you want your child to be different than everyone else, a freak, or conform to society's model, so he can partipcate in all the normal anachronistic rituals in society, even if you think his particular abnormality is not bad at all.
Even many homosexuals won't wish their child to be gay knowing the hurt and pain they will go through. I will tell you this: I wish my child isn't, for the above reasons, but if my child is gay, I will not react negatively and will be 100% supportive.
nggalai said:
In the US the stats are quite differant. Clearly it is the gay plauge.
http://www.thebody.com/aac/apr2397.html
Further look at just how influencial their political movement is at finding funding for their deases in compairison with other more damaging ones.
Hard to believe isn't it?
Disease: AIDS
Research Funding: $1,950,000,000
Annual Deaths: 45,000
Funds per Death:$43,333
Disease : Cancer
Research Funding: $1,810,000,000
Annual Deaths 518,000
Funds per Death$3,494
Disease: Heart Disease
Research Funding: $708,000,000
Annual Deaths: 760,000
Funds per Death:$932
Disease: Diabetes
Research Funding: $295,000,000
Annual Deaths: 36,000
Funds per Death: $8,194
Disease: Alzheimer's
Research Funding: $243,000,000
Annual Deaths: 100,000
Funds per Death: $2,430
Figures taken from the Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress
http://www.afec.org/issues/homosexuality/aids.htm