The "Gaystapo"

[Cromarty]

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

Adoption, not reproduction

The fact that they able to adopt/that there are kids needing to be adopted kinda shows that having people not inclined to reproduce (and not all heterosexuals want to reproduce, bare in mind) is kinda a good thing.

[Zaras]

Because we all know everything's about the reproduction. What about the celibate? Or the asexual? Are they disordered too?

Yup-a-roo

Urgh, with that answer, you remind me of Ceaușescu. I hope you're proud of that.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Adoption, not reproduction

Not necessarily. There's surrogates with in vitro sperm from one of the males in a gay relationship, or donated sperm for lesbian couples.

All right, half a point to Gryffindor. But a tenet of natural slection is not only being fit enough to reproduce, but also mate selection. The surrogate's not keeping the child, so she places no real naturally driven judgement on the male. And the lesbians never actually meet the sperm donor to decide on them. Even if she did, her interest in him is half-hearted as the other lesbian being considered as the true mate

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Adoption, not reproduction

The fact that they able to adopt/that there are kids needing to be adopted kinda shows that having people not inclined to reproduce (and not all heterosexuals want to reproduce, bare in mind) is kinda a good thing.

Not according to nature, and the question was what wasn't natural about homos

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Yup-a-roo

Urgh, with that answer, you remind me of Ceaușescu. I hope you're proud of that.

My thinking was more Darwin based

[Cromarty]

The fact that they able to adopt/that there are kids needing to be adopted kinda shows that having people not inclined to reproduce (and not all heterosexuals want to reproduce, bare in mind) is kinda a good thing.

Not according to nature, and the question was what wasn't natural about homos

Nat-ur-al: Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Hmm?

[Bottle]

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

Adoption, not reproduction

My friends Adam and Andrew have a gay father. Their biological father. Who had sex with their biological mother.

Being gay doesn't make somebody impotent or infertile. Plenty of queers have babies "the old fashioned way."

And, plenty of straights don't. My aunt and uncle have been together for thirty years and have no children, and are now past the age when they can possibly have any. I assure you, they have had a really lot of straight sex.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Not according to nature, and the question was what wasn't natural about homos

Nat-ur-al: Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Hmm?

(Takes a bow) Pardon my vagueness.

Not naturally sound

[Bottle]

Not necessarily. There's surrogates with in vitro sperm from one of the males in a gay relationship, or donated sperm for lesbian couples.

All right, half a point to Gryffindor. But a tenet of natural slection is not only being fit enough to reproduce, but also mate selection. The surrogate's not keeping the child, so she places no real naturally driven judgement on the male. And the lesbians never actually meet the sperm donor to decide on them. Even if she did, her interest in him is half-hearted as the other lesbian being considered as the true mate

You can believe whatever you want about homosexuality, but kindly don't spout BS and call it "natural selection" or "evolution." As a scientist, I find it cringe-inducing, like listening to one of the hideously off-key failures who think they can make it on American Idol.

[Dagnia]

I find the church's analogy to be tasteless, but not entirely untrue. Other gay people who do not toe the line of a pretty narrow liberal/socialist ideology are treated as pariahs. With recent advancements in how they can get their word out, those who don't have been able to "come out" more, but you still risk being avoided or even shouted down if you do not think the way they do.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Adoption, not reproduction

My friends Adam and Andrew have a gay father. Their biological father. Who had sex with their biological mother.

Being gay doesn't make somebody impotent or infertile. Plenty of queers have babies "the old fashioned way."

And, plenty of straights don't. My aunt and uncle have been together for thirty years and have no children, and are now past the age when they can possibly have any. I assure you, they have had a really lot of straight sex.

Then those straights suck too

In nature the merit of an individual is determined by how capable they are to reproduce as much as possible. Also, by how fit of a mate they are able to select.

A gay or lesbian getting children with in-vitro and a surrogate, adopting, or having straight sex just to get a kid are not placing as much importance on mate selection as a straight would. Look at the animal world. those guys never reproduce, and only keep reoccuring because homosexuality is most likely a recessive trait, meaning it can skip a generation. that's the only reason it can exist in the wild

[Trotskylvania]

I find the church's analogy to be tasteless, but not entirely untrue. Other gay people who do not toe the line of a pretty narrow liberal/socialist ideology are treated as pariahs. With recent advancements in how they can get their word out, those who don't have been able to "come out" more, but you still risk being avoided or even shouted down if you do not think the way they do.

Help, help, I'm being repressed!!!!

Damn liberal/socialists gays, oppressing those other gays.

[Zaras]

Urgh, with that answer, you remind me of Ceaușescu. I hope you're proud of that.

My thinking was more Darwin based

But your excessive focus on reproduction makes me think of a Communist dictator instead...

[Reactionary Vanguard]

All right, half a point to Gryffindor. But a tenet of natural slection is not only being fit enough to reproduce, but also mate selection. The surrogate's not keeping the child, so she places no real naturally driven judgement on the male. And the lesbians never actually meet the sperm donor to decide on them. Even if she did, her interest in him is half-hearted as the other lesbian being considered as the true mate

You can believe whatever you want about homosexuality, but kindly don't spout BS and call it "natural selection" or "evolution." As a scientist, I find it cringe-inducing, like listening to one of the hideously off-key failures who think they can make it on American Idol.

What was scientifically unsound?

[Reactionary Vanguard]

I find the church's analogy to be tasteless, but not entirely untrue. Other gay people who do not toe the line of a pretty narrow liberal/socialist ideology are treated as pariahs. With recent advancements in how they can get their word out, those who don't have been able to "come out" more, but you still risk being avoided or even shouted down if you do not think the way they do.

Help, help, I'm being repressed!!!!

Damn liberal/socialists gays, oppressing those other gays.

i guess you don't mind minority frontmen repressing individuals within their group for collective advancement.

[Avenio]

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction?

Reproduction isn't the be-all-and-end-all for evolution, you know. Kin selection (Mentioned in Darwin's works, strangely enough), is an important function in nuclear family-based species like ours, and non-reproducing individuals, like homosexuals or even non-reproducing heterosexuals, play an important role in the survival of social species.

They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Of course, if they were a 'vestigial segment of the population', one would expect that those particular traits would have faded away long ago via natural selection. The fact that we've had homosexuals appearing in human societies for thousands of years speaks volumes.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have said that the state runs a monoploy on marriage, if they were not involved, they wouldn't have a monopoly.

If the people who had a monopoly... didn't have a monopoly... they wouldn't have a monopoly.

This is my 'no shit?' face.

Hospitals will adhere to this anyway. How is it a significant problem? They are married. How does this change anything? What is the difference between a union made by government of the people? It's still a union, it's still a marriage. It does not change anything. Why does government need to get involved? So hospitals will suddenly stop letting you see your significant other because the government ins't involved? Is that your point?

Hospitals DO limit access and authority to make decisions. Already. Because they can. Because the government doesn't yet force them to accommodate wishes regardless of how many people in the relationship have vaginas.

The difference between you and I, here... is that you're talking about some imaginary world... and I'm talking about what actually happens.

And how does this change anything? Marriage isn't a deciding factor on citizenship, it is part of it.

This post can best be described by considering the solid waste products moving southward out of a north-facing male cow.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

My thinking was more Darwin based

But your excessive focus on reproduction makes me think of a Communist dictator instead...

My apologies. I didn't mean to use it as a reason to judge homos (I hate flamers, not all gays). I was just pointing out that they are scientifically inferior, as per our understanding of evolution

[Grave_n_idle]

This doesn't really answer my question. Perhaps a better question is how do you oppose homosexuality? You seem to draw a distinction between "tolerance" and "acceptance" so if you can, could you explain how you oppose homosexuality in a way that is tolerant, but not accepting? Pardon me if I don't quite understand what you're trying to say with those two terms.

Well, for a start, it's not homosexuality per se that I and many others oppose. Homosexuality is a disorder, so opposing it per se makes no more sense than opposing, say, C hepatitis. It is the promotion of homosexuality as something normal or even cool, that people oppose.

Tolerant opposition would, in practice, appear simply as refraining from physical violence and verbal abuse, while at the same time making very clear that the ideas these people promote are unacceptable and will not be accepted. Be a homo all you want if you so insist on it, but live with the fact that it doesn't mean the rest of society has to pretend they like you.

I was nodding along in agreement. Then I realised you were talking about 'homosexuality', not 'homophobia'.

Make that one small correction, and we're going to get along fabulously.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Of course, if they were a 'vestigial segment of the population', one would expect that those particular traits would have faded away long ago via natural selection. The fact that we've had homosexuals appearing in human societies for thousands of years speaks volumes.

Or sentences. It's a recessive trait. It's not represented in every individual carrying the code, and so it appears thanks to the straight ancestors who allowed their line to come to the cul-de-sac that they are

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

Adoption, not reproduction

Turns out that even gay men have sperm, and even gay women have eggs.

(Individual mileage may differ, obviously).

[Trotskylvania]

But your excessive focus on reproduction makes me think of a Communist dictator instead...

My apologies. I didn't mean to use it as a reason to judge homos (I hate flamers, not all gays). I was just pointing out that they are scientifically inferior, as per our understanding of evolution

No, they're not. Science only describes and interprets. It does not make value judgments.

Sexuality simply isn't binary. While some people might be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, they're the outliers on the bell curve, The majority of people are biologically bisexual, to varying degrees.

[Trotskylvania]

Help, help, I'm being repressed!!!!

Damn liberal/socialists gays, oppressing those other gays.

i guess you don't mind minority frontmen repressing individuals within their group for collective advancement.

No, I'm mocking the idea of a monolithic gay movement advancing a "liberal/socialist" ideology. And given the poster in question's propensity to label everything he dislikes liberal or socialist, it is well deserved mockery.

[Grave_n_idle]

But your excessive focus on reproduction makes me think of a Communist dictator instead...

My apologies. I didn't mean to use it as a reason to judge homos (I hate flamers, not all gays). I was just pointing out that they are scientifically inferior, as per our understanding of evolution

As per your understanding of evolution, perhaps.

I actually have an understanding of evolution. So I disagree.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Reproduction isn't the be-all-and-end-all for evolution, you know. Kin selection (Mentioned in Darwin's works, strangely enough), is an important function in nuclear family-based species like ours, and non-reproducing individuals, like homosexuals or even non-reproducing heterosexuals, play an important role in the survival of social species.

i know about kin selection. But that's a secondary collective fallback to ensure a species as a whole. The lack of heterosexual motivation does diminish an individual's Darwinian merit.