#straight

[[BTF]Gator]

i just dont understand what the fuss is about.

It is obvious the green ones are right, and better humans, and that the purple ones are wrong and some kind of mistake.

[quadz]

What happens to our species, when the only guy on earth with the genes to allow a human to safely cope with AIDS ends up being gay and not passing on that chance mutation thru sex?

But you can't use evolution as an argument against itself.

[Art]

Some of this seems vaguely familiar.

 

[Whirlingdervish]

huh?

I didn't imply that DNA was the only factor that causes a person to be gay. In this circumstance it wouldn't matter anyways.
I've repeatedly stated that we don't know for sure if there even is a physical difference in gay people.
There would however be a physical difference in someone who developed a mutation that allowed them to fight off AIDS or live symbiotically with it.

The person who had this trait would be much more useful to our species if they were a heterosexual who could pass it on, rather than a homosexual who would probably choose to not have sex with a member of the opposite sex and thus save our species from extinction.

I suppose you'll ask if the guy would be less useful to the species if he was heterosexual but sterile, so I'll answer that too: yes. He would be even more useless than a gay person in this situation, as a gay person could suck it up, and do someone of the opposite gender. the sterile guy has no choice.

Considering the number of possible combinations that a complex structure like DNA presents, a combination of 2 traits that don't have much to do with each other, doesn't seem all that unlikely or interesting. I'd say inevitable, but definitely not interesting.

I was simply trying to imply that:
IF our society decides that homosexual behaviors are entirely acceptable,
THEN the rate of people having heterosexual intercourse would probably decrease and our species would have a much greater risk of dying due to an inability to adapt at the rate we currently do.

Sex between 2 organisms that results in conception (heterosexual intercourse) is the most common and most effective way for DNA to be "shuffled" and rearanged into new fairly-random combinations of genes. If the rate at which this is done changes, then our ability to adapt as a species is directly affected.

(yes I know this seems like a scientifically based foundation for homophobia, but I swear it's not meant to come off that way..)

[Art]

Sorry to interupt you guys, but why aren't the gays around here defending themselves?
NI-UX, where are you!!!?

Ok, carry on.

[Whirlingdervish]

ooh cheap shot! 

Niiiice.

[quadz]

I didn't imply that DNA was the only factor that causes a person to be gay. In this circumstance it wouldn't matter anyways.
I've repeatedly stated that we don't know for sure if there even is a physical difference in gay people.

I've been assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a genetic basis for at least some cases of homosexuality.

[Whirlingdervish]

you got it! I do tend to believe that many people are openly gay because our society accepts openly gay people.
There may have been lots of gay people who've lived before now, but the societies they lived in were for the most part unaccepting of homosexuals, and thus the numbers of openly gay people who lived gay lifestyles were much lower.

While I would consider myself wrong to assume that all gays are forced to be gay by their DNA, I do believe that choice is a major factor no matter what your genes say.

I didn't mean to make it seem like this would be an instant change in society either.
It would take thousands of years and many generations of humans just to scrub away the anti-gay legacy of our ancestors that has insinuated itself into our nature.

we'd actually have to breed a whole generation of people who think that being gay is a-ok for the end-times scenario described above. chances of this are, as you say, very unlikely.


on a side note, our society also doesn't officially condone abortion, illegal immigration, and the use of narcotics.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean we don't have any babykillers, illegals and dopeheads!

You also shouldn't forget about people who smoke cigarettes!
Lots of us started doing it 'cause we thought it was cool and socially acceptable, and it literally makes you cough and gag and get lightheaded when you first start doing it.

[quadz]

I think the "gay savior" argument (homosexual carrying anti-AIDS gene) is kind of a false dilemma.

To clarify, I don't think the "gay savior" argument is very useful, because one can easily turn it around, and say:

Suppose a person was born with genes that rendered an individual extremely more susceptible to AIDS than we currently are.

[Whirlingdervish]

that's a good point.
evolution is very unpredictable (by nature) and not entirely proven to be beneficial.
entropy abounds!

[quadz]

you got it! I do tend to believe that many people are openly gay because our society accepts openly gay people.
There may have been lots of gay people who've lived before now, but the societies they lived in were for the most part unaccepting of homosexuals, and thus the numbers of openly gay people who lived gay lifestyles were much lower.

If our society openly accepts gay people, I'd suggest it is a very recent cultural shift.

[Whirlingdervish]

So your argument seems to be that 's better for the species to intimidate gay people into breeding, than letting them just be gay?

[quadz]

So your argument seems to be that 's better for the species to intimidate gay people into breeding, than letting them just be gay?

[metaL]

i think this has gone too far.

regards,

metal

[Whirlingdervish]

I wouldn't be so brash as to say who should not breed, based on intelligence or strength of will or any other relative criteria. I also do not condone pressuring people into doing things that they don't want to do.
(with the sole exception being people who need to STFU..lol.)

I just think everyone who benefits from society and chooses to engage in sexual activities, should make a contribution to the gene pool, no matter how gifted (or not) their offspring would be. I wouldn't want people to do this because they were forced too, but rather because they want to. It could be a really dumb ugly kid, who's genes shape the future and the survival of our species.

Is it too much to ask, that everyone who has sex should at least have one child over the course of their life?
should gays be exempt from the arduous task of raising children because they choose not to have sex with the opposite gender? I have to worry about making kids, every time I do the deed, but one day I would love to have children of my own and I relish the prospect of being responsible and having a damn good reason to be.

I'm pretty sure it would be good for almost everyone to put someone ahead of themself and parenting and creating a family, seem like the most meaningful ways for this to happen with the greatest potential for happiness all around. I think gays stand a huge chance of missing out on one of the best aspects of being a human by choosing to be sexually deviant.

they're also depriving the gene pool of their potentially useful mutations.