#straight

[quadz]

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

but "morally right" differs in different societies.

It's not a good ruler with which to measure the world since the units of measure are not always the same.

A sliding scale of evolutionary usefullness would be more productive and probably easier to apply to all groups of people.

yeah I've already stated that but it's just over looked.

In that case fine I can state it like this. TO ME, it is  not morally right. It's disgusting. To you, maybe it's morally right!

Pretty much a endless argument. So much fun!

[Whirlingdervish]

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

yeah.

vibes, you're morally unacceptable. 

[Whirlingdervish]

let's see him refute that!

 

[quadz]

[quote author=j

[quadz]

it's just not in his make-up to be turned on by women.

It's not in my make-up to be turned on by fat chicks, but I'd still do one if it meant the saving the species from extinction.
Can gay guys do the same? Probably.. but they wouldn't.

I'm not so sure about extreme hypotheticals like that.  Who knows...  But lesbians have been known to artifically inseminate.  I wouldn't doubt a gay man would be willing to be a sperm donor, even if the thought of doing a chick makes him feel, like the thought of doing a guy makes you feel.

Anyway, sexual orientation is really such a tiny component of what makes up the gestalt of an individual's persona or psyche.  It's weird that it gets so blown out of proportion.


Regards,

quadz

[Whirlingdervish]

but I'm generalizing about gay people as a group!

I don't need a smaller ruler that only pertains to individuals when I'm trying to measure the merit of the collective actions of gays as a whole.

On the individual level, gayness is morally right for whoever thinks it is and can only be measured against the results of that one person's actions and their level of satisfaction/happiness.

On a societal level(or even at the species level), gayness can be more easily measured to a consistent rubric that won't change depending on the circumstances.
I prefer to not get into the motivations of individuals as they are too various to comprehend.

results are easier to measure anyways, and even more so with a larger sample group to observe.


BTW the fat chix analogy was an attempt at humor to lighten the mood. I wasn't serious.

[jägermonsta]

Anyway, sexual orientation is really such a tiny component of what makes up the gestalt of an individual's persona or psyche.  It's weird that it gets so blown out of proportion.

[Whirlingdervish]

god that's creepy.

[[BTF]Gator]

but "morally right" differs in different societies.

It's not a good ruler with which to measure the world since the units of measure are not always the same.

A sliding scale of evolutionary usefullness would be more productive and probably easier to apply to all groups of people.
In the short term, we may be insulated from our choices by our society, but how do we insulate the society from the dangers of becoming apathetic regarding some of the most vital causes of our societies' existence.

without heterosexual intercourse, there would be no society, and no humans, and no gays.
Using my ruler (of evolutionary usefullness) being gay and not caring that people are gay are equally useless and can lead to a dangerous erosion of the inclinations that keep us breeding successfully, and thus existing.

simply put, excessive amounts of gayness (or is it gaity?) among individuals in a society could concievably be the end of that society.

It seems obvious to me, we are on the verge of overpopulating this planet right now.  i find it hard to believe that society could "devolve" if left to its own instincts and desires of sex with whoever it felt like.  Even if heterosexuals became a minority, at this point, there would always be enough to keep the species alive.

[quadz]

but I'm generalizing about gay people as a group!

I don't need a smaller ruler that only pertains to individuals when I'm trying to measure the merit of the collective actions of gays as a whole.
[...]
On a societal level(or even at the species level), gayness can be more easily measured to a consistent rubric that won't change depending on the circumstances.
I prefer to not get into the motivations of individuals as they are too various to comprehend.

OK.

[jägermonsta]

Keep in mind, Hitler was in group A, and Alan Turing was in group B.

Oh gezzz... now that can go any which way with a number of people. 

[Whirlingdervish]

If being heterosexual doesn't have some sort of specific importance placed on it, the species stands a greater chance of being snuffed out by it's own indifference and by events/situations that we can't adapt to.

I'm not saying that everyone would end up gay, I'm just saying that the reason we have heterosexual tendencies in the first place is to keep the gene pool full of new mutations that will increase our ability as a species to adapt to changes in our environment (whatever they may be). It is our purpose to further the species by living, mutating and breeding.

As the percentage of heterosexuals decreases, the rate of people being born with new and possibly useful genetic mutations will suffer.

We could end up a useless evolutionary dead-end because we didn't protect and listen to our instincts to breed in a way that makes us much more adaptable than a-sexual organisms..

Consider AIDS for example.
it is a deadly virus that our species contracted from another species and we are incapable of surviving it because we are not adapted to living with it like the primates that we got it from.
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?

answer: we become extinct.

(this may be hypothetical, but you probably get the point. I use hyperbole and hypothetical situations a lot, I know.)

[quadz]

[quote author=j