www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:Really? The World Clock seems to disagree. Watch the Birth Rate and the Death Rate numbers, and keep in mind that abortions are only listed at the bottom. The numbers suggest something more along the lines of one child per 2.1 women, rather than every woman having 2.1 children to sustain zero birth rate. Where'd you get "2.1" from anyways?

Where did I claim there is no population growth today? I simply stated that procreation does not necessarily lead to population growth. 2.1 children per woman I believe is the current ratio needed for replacement, at least in developed countries, due to children mortality sex ratio etc.

Tsukiyumi wrote:No one said " no procreation". Besides, with modern techniques, two men or two women could have a child anyways - it would mostly be done in a lab, but they can still procreate. My last girlfriend was sterile, but we could've reproduced by replacing the DNA in the nucleus of someone else's egg.

In other words we can use our technical expertise to overcome the limitation of homosexuals. How exactly does this change the fact it is in fact a limitation? If your girlfriend's parents could've correct her infertility back when she was a fetus would that be wrong because we have the technology to help her later? Again, heterosexuals can do all the things you just listed so what is the problem?

Tsukiyumi wrote:Maybe you missed the memo, but most of us around here aren't playing that game anymore. Trying to refute opinions and speculation is a massive waste of time. If you think procreation is the most important purpose for sex, good on you. I happen to believe emotional and spiritual connection is the most important purpose. Offspring are a by-product of said connection. If you want to see it as just sperm meets egg, that's your choice.

You can think whatever you want. You procreate or species dies out and there will be no more generations to "spiritually connect".
EDIT: That of course doesn't mean people who choose not to have children are unethical. I am not passing moral judgment merely stating the facts.

Tsukiyumi wrote:And, thanks to science, as I've stated, homosexuals can reproduce with people they find attractive.

How? I am not aware that two men or two women can reproduce. And even if they could you still haven't answered what is the problem with parents simply eliminating the need for later complications in the womb.

Mikey wrote:It doesn't - it refutes the pre-backpedal argument that you made that having a percentage of the population being homosexual will lead to the end of the human race.

Then you won't mind quoting me where I said that percentage of the population being homosexual will lead to the end of human race.

That was hyperbole, of course, but on the one hand you stated that homosexuality was detrimental to the continuation of the species - when called on that, you then said that you merely claimed that it was a personal limitation. The "personal limitation" claim is pretty much a subjective comment, and I can't and won't argue against your personal beliefs; however, falling back to that from holding your original claim really doesn't help advance your position.

BTW Sunny - cookie for the Corky and the Juice Pigs ref.

Homosexuality is detrimental to continuation of the species. But detrimental is not the same as end of the species. The fact that humanity is faced with other factors such as large number of children per woman which completely offset any impact homosexuals might make doesn't change that fact.
You haven't provided a single reason why parents or more specifically mother would be bigoted if they chose to switch the sexual orientation of the fetus.

The fact that humanity is faced with other factors such as large number of children per woman which completely offset any impact homosexuals might make doesn't change that fact.

Actually, that's exaclty what that fact does - "...WHICH COMPLETELY OFFSETS ANY IMPACT... - your words.

And with that in mind, having a preference at all is most definitely a sign of prejudice. Such a prejudice may be natural or comman, I'll admit, but it is no less of a prejudice.

Mikey wrote:Actually, that's exaclty what that fact does - "...WHICH COMPLETELY OFFSETS ANY IMPACT... - your words.

Homicides are also offset by population growth as are earthquake or tsunami victims. That doesn't mean aforementioned events are not detrimental to the continuation of the species does it?

Mikey wrote:And with that in mind, having a preference at all is most definitely a sign of prejudice. Such a prejudice may be natural or comman, I'll admit, but it is no less of a prejudice.

So? Prejudice is only bad if it is unjustified and leads to needless suffering of other people. Heterosexuals have more choices than homosexuals. There is no discernible usefulness of the homosexual gene if such exists and no one is being hurt.

Harley Filben wrote:

Mikey wrote:Actually, that's exaclty what that fact does - "...WHICH COMPLETELY OFFSETS ANY IMPACT... - your words.

Homicides are also offset by population growth as are earthquake or tsunami victims. That doesn't mean aforementioned events are not detrimental to the continuation of the species does it?

You're going backwards... we both said that the breeder birthrate offsets any impact of homosexuality; now you're pointing out examples which are offset by birthrate, not which offset it.

Mikey wrote:And with that in mind, having a preference at all is most definitely a sign of prejudice. Such a prejudice may be natural or comman, I'll admit, but it is no less of a prejudice.

So? Prejudice is only bad if it is unjustified and leads to needless suffering of other people. Heterosexuals have more choices than homosexuals. There is no discernible usefulness of the homosexual gene if such exists and no one is being hurt.[/quote]

And since homosexuality hurts no one, and we've pointed out that it is not affecting the survival of the species, why bother with it? Let the breeders be breeders and the queers be queers.

Mikey wrote:You're going backwards... we both said that the breeder birthrate offsets any impact of homosexuality; now you're pointing out examples which are offset by birthrate, not which offset it.

How do they not offset the birthrate if fertile people are killed? In any case the point is that something doesn't need to have a visible impact on the overall human population in order for us to conclude it has detrimental effect on it.

Mikey wrote:And since homosexuality hurts no one, and we've pointed out that it is not affecting the survival of the species, why bother with it? Let the breeders be breeders and the queers be queers.

By all means yes. And let mother decide whether her child will be homosexual or heterosexual. If mother has a right to terminate the fetus then I honestly can't see the problem with mother switching the sexuality of the fetus. And if we have no right to judge a mother that decides to terminate the fetus because she doesn't feel like having a child then what right do we have to judge her if she choses that her child will be heterosexual?

Harley Filben wrote:

Mikey wrote:You're going backwards... we both said that the breeder birthrate offsets any impact of homosexuality; now you're pointing out examples which are offset by birthrate, not which offset it.

How do they not offset the birthrate if fertile people are killed? In any case the point is that something doesn't need to have a visible impact on the overall human population in order for us to conclude it has detrimental effect on it.

I was actually just responding to your wording. But to the point you mention, having an anecdotal detrimental effect is obviously not the same has having a more than nominal effect on the size and rate of growth of the entire species.

Mikey wrote:And since homosexuality hurts no one, and we've pointed out that it is not affecting the survival of the species, why bother with it? Let the breeders be breeders and the queers be queers.

By all means yes. And let mother decide whether her child will be homosexual or heterosexual. If mother has a right to terminate the fetus then I honestly can't see the problem with mother switching the sexuality of the fetus. And if we have no right to judge a mother that decides to terminate the fetus because she doesn't feel like having a child then what right do we have to judge her if she choses that her child will be heterosexual?[/quote]

I never said we should judge a parent (not just mother) who availed herself of that hypothetical opportunity, nor did I say that such a prejudice couldn't be defended by one who holds it; the point I'm trying to make is that parental choice is motivated by such a prejudice.

Mikey wrote:I was actually just responding to your wording. But to the point you mention, having an anecdotal detrimental effect is obviously not the same has having a more than nominal effect on the size and rate of growth of the entire species.

The effect is limited because the cause is also limited. A Earth spanning eaarthquake or a massive world wide tsunami would be threatening to the survival. As would sudden appearance of near 100% homosexuality.

Mikey wrote:I never said we should judge a parent (not just mother) who availed herself of that hypothetical opportunity, nor did I say that such a prejudice couldn't be defended by one who holds it; the point I'm trying to make is that parental choice is motivated by such a prejudice.

So you won't judge them but you still decide they are prejudiced? What are people who decide on abortion prejudiced against? The living? Mind you there is always a possibility that they are raging homophobes but since we can't read people thoughts the argument is pointless.

Harley, it would take artificial manipulation or a genetic disaster to trigger near 100% homosexuality to appear.

And is it actually right to take or change part of said person? Is it morally correct to alter my genes to genetically IMPOSE heterosexuality. Its the same with abortions, is it morally right to end the baby.

Personally, i believe neither is morally acceptable.

My stance on abortion is partially dictated by my faith (no, I'm NOT a right-to-lifer) so I will disqualify myself from THAT debate. How did we ever get on the possibility of even a majority, much less near 100%, of homosexuals in the species?

I am not by any means saying that 100% homosexuality is a realistic possibility. I was merely pointing out that impact of homosexuality on reproduction is limited by low numbers of homosexuals. If there were much more homosexuals reproduction would then be threatened. Again I am not, nor was I ever, suggesting that homosexuals are a threat to humanity in it's current state or that we should actively, as a society, try to limit their existence. All I am saying is that they are limited and that mother's decision to eventually switch from homosexual to heterosexual is justified by more than simple preference.
As for abortion/gene changing I am talking about the fetal stage where neural activity is still negligable (as in an insect) so we are not talking about a person at that stage.

Harley Filben wrote:...As for abortion/gene changing I am talking about the fetal stage where neural activity is still negligable (as in an insect) so we are not talking about a person at that stage.

Well, I do agree completely on that count.

Personally, I think this " designer baby" trend is an abuse of science. Fixing genetic defects that threaten health is completely different than deciding what color eyes the kid will have (probably based on what celebrity is "in" at the moment), or choosing whether they become gay or not. We'd have whole generations of people that look like they came off of an assembly line. Yuck.

Harley Filben wrote:I was merely pointing out that impact of homosexuality on reproduction is limited by low numbers of homosexuals. If there were much more homosexuals reproduction would then be threatened.

OK... we're in agreement on this point then. Discussions of "yeah, but what if they were the majority" are academic, and they are moot.

As far as abortion, I tend to think along the same lines as Judaism - coincidentally, not blindly: abortion is allowable in the case of pregnancy via rape or incest; it is COMPULSORY in the case that carrying the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother; it is not, however, a form of birth control or to be used simply to avoid an unwanted accidental pregnancy.

Actually it could be the younger set haven't heard that song.

Youtube comes through again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPcYrmMNRCg