Can someone explain this to me?

[trashcan]

I retract my argument. It's not worth the time arguing the philosophy of homosexual relationships on a tech forum.

[ariastar]

Also, would you say that couples who CHOOSE not to reproduce have "love without purpose," or are they okay because they are making a choice? How is this that much different from two gays who are together who are essentially making the choice to be with someone with whom reproduction can't happen at this time?

And do you really think we need more people born in this world? Already countless thousands of children are born who don't have families. Heaven forbid gays bypass passing on their genetics to adopt one of these children. They can't provide "nurturing protection" simply because they are so open-hearted that they happen to love someone of the same gender!

If the human species were all gay, this does NOT mean we'd die out. Most people would still be capable of reproduction. A fertile gay guy is no less capable of having a child with a fertile woman as a fertile straight man would be. I'm sure that if it came down to only gays being alive, humans would be fine. Have you ever heard of in vitro and artificial insemination? It happens now. Therefore, gays ARE capable of reproduction, making your "point" broken.

Answer my questions in a logical manner. If you can not answer the following questions, you have no right to talk:

If two gays being together are wrong because they can not reproduce with each other, why is it okay for an infertile man and an infertile woman to be together when they can't reproduce with ANYONE at all?

On what do you base the belief that gays love "without purpose"?

On what do you base gays neing incapable of "nurturing protection" for being gay?

To whose nature are they saying "*** you" by being together? What YOU think nature should be?

Would it not be saying "*** you" to their nature to deny who they NATURALLY are by being in a straight relationship?

[ariastar]

Originally Posted by Trashcan

I retract my argument. It's not worth the time arguing the philosophy of homosexual relationships on a tech forum.

Because you can't back up your argument.

[trashcan]

Originally Posted by AriaStar

Also, would you say that couples who CHOOSE not to reproduce have "love without purpose," or are they okay because they are making a choice?

If everyone "chose" not to reproduce, the species would die out. It's as simple as that. It's still their choice, but my argument is still completely reasonable.

Edit: and while love may be infinitely more complex than this statement can define, I still believe that the purpose of love is to ensure survivability of the species.

[ariastar]

Originally Posted by Trashcan

If everyone "chose" not to reproduce, the species would die out. It's as simple as that. It's still their choice, but my argument is still completely reasonable.

Edit: and while love may be infinitely more complex than this statement can define, I still believe that the purpose of love is to ensure survivability of the species.

So let all those people who have babies they don't want give their babies to gay couples who will love those babies. I this way, love IS ensuring the survival of the species.

Many women give birth and dump the babies in garbage cans. Biological reproduction alone does not mean survival. It does not even mean love.

And how many college kids go off and have lots of meaningless sex and end up with babies?

Love and reproduction are not connected. The inability to do one does not indicate the inability to do the other.

[trashcan]

Originally Posted by AriaStar

So let all those people who have babies they don't want give their babies to gay couples who will love those babies. I this way, love IS ensuring the survival of the species.

Many women give birth and dump the babies in garbage cans. Biological reproduction alone does not mean survival. It does not even mean love.

And how many college kids go off and have lots of meaningless sex and end up with babies?

Love and reproduction are not connected. The inability to do one does not indicate the inability to do the other.

What I said was that love is necessary for survivability. You clearly proved my point. If lack of love leads to dumping a baby in a dumpster, then lack of love leads to extinction.

[point5o]

Originally Posted by popltree2

I think we can ALL agree that there is still a lot of work to be done on the equality front, whether it be for sexual or racial (the word "racial" brings up a whole 'nother issue. I mean, humans and Klingons are different races, not white people and black people. But I digress...).

Originally Posted by popltree2

What I was getting at before was...
the word "ethnic" I think is more apt for issues of ETHNICITY (white, black, etc). If you want to say that humans are better than alligators, then you are a racist (or bored), not if you think white people are superior to black people or vise versa.

popltree2, I agree with your logic but that sadly isn't the reality. When discussing matters of race, it's assumed that race refers to ethnicity. And changing the way people speak isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ethnicist just doesn't have the same ring to it does it? Do you adhere to your scholarly post above and deservingly call someone an "ethnicist" rather then using the popular but erroneous "racist?"

[popltree2]

Originally Posted by point5o

popltree2, I agree with your logic but that sadly isn't the reality. When discussing matters of race, it's assumed that race refers to ethnicity. And changing the way people speak isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ethnicist just doesn't have the same ring to it does it? Do you adhere to your scholarly post above and deservingly call someone an "ethnicist" rather then using the popular but erroneous "racist?"

Well I am going to start using ethnicist...if I can pronounce it.

[casework]

Ethnicist sounds more like an "Ethnic Enthusiast" to me.

[bman]

I just read the first post, and I was like I know this is going to be good.

All I am going to say, since I don't want to start anything further, things are how they are, who cares.