www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:...Case in point - homosexuality exists, yet somehow we are not dying off as a species.

In fact we're doing a fantastic job overpopulating the planet. I think maybe some of the people who think sex is purely for procreation should stand with their pelvis next to an open microwave for a minute or so on high. We're far more likely to use up our resources and go extinct due to overpopulation than to wither away because homosexuals usually don't reproduce.

And homosexuals can still knock up a hetro. They only need to do it a few times in there life and the human population ticks along.

Teaos wrote:And homosexuals can still knock up a hetro. They only need to do it a few times in there life and the human population ticks along.

That's what I meant by "usually don't reproduce", Teaos. Many do, but Harvey's point against homosexuality is still invalidated by all of the dumbsh*ts who think it's okay to have six, eight, or ten kids. The non-reproducing, or lightly reproducing homosexual population has the right idea. They balance out the morons who spit kids out like an assembly line.

Teaos wrote:And homosexuals can still knock up a hetro. They only need to do it a few times in there life and the human population ticks along.

I think we're ticking along even without homosexuals adding to the birth rate, as Tsuki pointed out. And individually, as indicated byt the fact that adoption is still an option, we've got more kids than parents anyway.

Mikey wrote:...we've got more kids than parents anyway.

Well, more kids than good parents, or people who even want to be parents at least. Is there a "depressed at the state of human civilization" emoticon?

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...we've got more kids than parents anyway.

Well, more kids than good parents, or people who even want to be parents at least. Is there a "depressed at the state of human civilization" emoticon?

That's what I meant. I don't have a very small photo of myself, or I'd send it to use as that smiley you're looking for.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...we've got more kids than parents anyway.

Well, more kids than good parents, or people who even want to be parents at least. Is there a "depressed at the state of human civilization" emoticon?

That's what I meant. I don't have a very small photo of myself, or I'd send it to use as that smiley you're looking for.

Something like this? Smaller, of course.

Mikey wrote:Harley - you keep saying that survival of our species is dependent on procreation, and your implication is that from a species-survival standpoint, the existence of homosexuality is antithetic. However, what you're missing is that survival of our species patently does NOT depend on EVERY ADULT procreating. Case in point - homosexuality exists, yet somehow we are not dying off as a species.

In other words heterosexual portion of the population is sufficient to overcome the limitation of the homosexual population. How does this change the fact that homosexual portion is in fact limited?

Tsukiyumi wrote:In fact we're doing a fantastic job overpopulating the planet. I think maybe some of the people who think sex is purely for procreation should stand with their pelvis next to an open microwave for a minute or so on high. We're far more likely to use up our resources and go extinct due to overpopulation than to wither away because homosexuals usually don't reproduce.

Procreation != population growth. If every woman has 2.1 child on average we will ensure the continuation of human species with zero population growth. If there is no procreation human population will be extinct in 80-100 years and then it won't matter how many resources we have and how polluted the planet is. You still haven't provided a more important purpose to sex than procreation. Obviously no one is saying that sex cannot be used for procreation AND fun or fun alone as long as there is someone to continue the species.
And of course I never said that homosexual population itself is a threat to human survival since they represent a small portion of the human race. How does that change my original point that heterosexual has more options and thus is natural for parents to want their child to be heterosexual?

Teaos wrote:And homosexuals can still knock up a hetro. They only need to do it a few times in there life and the human population ticks along.

Heterosexuals can also knock up a hetero and actually be sexually attracted to that hetero. As I said many times: heterosexuals can do everything homosexuals can plus be sexually attracted to a person they are having a child with. Therefore heterosexual has more choices.

Harley Filben wrote:Procreation != population growth. If every woman has 2.1 child on average we will ensure the continuation of human species with zero population growth...

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?

Harley Filben wrote:If there is no procreation human population will be extinct in 80-100 years and then it won't matter how many resources we have and how polluted the planet is.

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.

Harley Filben wrote:You still haven't provided...

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.

Harley Filben wrote:Heterosexuals can also knock up a hetero and actually be sexually attracted to that hetero. As I said many times: heterosexuals can do everything homosexuals can plus be sexually attracted to a person they are having a child with. Therefore heterosexual has more choices.

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

and ultimately, there are so many breeding machines, as in china before lethal termination of second children, and the Indian countries that end up with like 15 kids to completely balance out homosexuals, who are actually still far less common than heterosexuals. So some happen to have an attraction to the same sex and reproducing is difficult for them. And? For every homosexual couple there must be at least 15 heterosexual couples. If you work on half of the straight couples making kids, thats still at lteast 7 babies, probably more? How are we suddenly going to die out if heterosexuals, who can easily reproduce, far outnumber homosexuals? i simply dont see how its possible

According to the last census the Gay population stands at about 3% here.

Reliant121 wrote:and ultimately, there are so many breeding machines, as in china before lethal termination of second children, and the Indian countries that end up with like 15 kids to completely balance out homosexuals, who are actually still far less common than heterosexuals. So some happen to have an attraction to the same sex and reproducing is difficult for them. And? For every homosexual couple there must be at least 15 heterosexual couples. If you work on half of the straight couples making kids, thats still at lteast 7 babies, probably more? How are we suddenly going to die out if heterosexuals, who can easily reproduce, far outnumber homosexuals? i simply dont see how its possible

Exactly. The concept that the small minority of homosexuals would even make a dent in the massive birthrate, especially from third-world countries, is ludicrous. Like I said, look at the World Clock. Even at 70 million a year positive population growth, we'll still be overwhelmed in twenty years.

Harley Filben wrote:In other words heterosexual portion of the population is sufficient to overcome the limitation of the homosexual population. How does this change the fact that homosexual portion is in fact limited?

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.

Mikey wrote:

Harley Filben wrote:In other words heterosexual portion of the population is sufficient to overcome the limitation of the homosexual population. How does this change the fact that homosexual portion is in fact limited?

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.

The only way that will happen is if some homosexual disease that is incurable is spread to heterosexual populations, like HIV and AIDS was MEANT to do. even then its not likely.

Waaaaaaay to much stuff has passed since I was last here to comment on it. And we're totally off the idea that heterosexuality would be produced as a side effect in Trek or the real world and onto more of a Gataca type fixing.

One thing though. Someone mentioned the reduced chance of finding a partner. Lets say homosexuals make up 3% of the population. So if you're on a long Voyage on an intrepid class (141 crew), you have an all too high a chance of "being the only gay Eskimo in the tribe" especially since there may be crew that aren't sexually compatable with humanity, and it isn't enough to just have more than one homosexual. One gay and three lesbians still means a long Voyage for the gay.

On the other hand there are the holodecks. I'd hate to be the guy who has to clean those out......