If the next generation grew up thinking it was alright to have same sex relationships, there would not be many generations after that. What about reproduction???

I needed to borrow this one for a bit. That's about all there is to the post itself (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=744348), but it comes from a topic about adoption and homosexuality (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29478).

So it's real simple; the poll above should be pretty obvious.

Thanks to our associate Jolly Rodger for the quote and something to think about.

no worries, I have more from where that came from....
Look, sorry that did come out a bit wrong, a better way of saying it would have been, "if all of the next generation were growing up having same sex relationships then there would be not many generations after that.
Although I can't not admit to posting it, so come on let loose.
At me

by the way i voted no..... as for the reason above

Actually, I do admit I'm still in a mischevious mood after chewing someone out, but more to the point I don't understand the argument at hand, so ... It seemed like a good idea at the time. And besides, we might become famous. Imagine if on MSNBC one day (yeah, right) some pundit spouts off with the point and another counters, "An unscientific poll at a strange Canaussie website says you're wrong."

It would, in fact, make my day.

However, I will go so far as to make the more serious point that I don't think even the restated point is necessarily anything we really need to worry about. Unless, of course, the traditionalists, conservatives, and homophobes are correct and gays are just a bunch of people choosing to expose themselves to massive social prejudice for a sexy thrill. And that, well, it doesn't seem to be panning out that way.

Naturally, the next generation might answer differently from the current, but I don't think they're all going the way of buggery and carpet.

Ok....

Even if a straight person was raised to believe that a homosexual relationship was okay, they'd still be turned on by the opposite sex and want to have sex with them.

The chances of them being repulsed by having sex with another of the same sex would be much lower, and the chances of them actually having sex with another of the same sex would be a bit higher, but they just wouldn't be turned on the same way they'd be turned on by someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, humans will continue reproducing out of control.

Without social expection/limitation, why would people stop doing what comes naturally for them? I think this poll is a bit stupid, of course heteros would keep having sex with opposite sex.
Unless your looking for the percentage of people who are closet homosexuals, who would stop having sex with women.

Why don't you ask something serious, like
"If they stopped showing queer eye for the straight guy, would you stop paying an interest in women's high heel shoes, even though you never wear them?"

I think this poll is a bit stupid
Couldn't have said it better myself, brilliant!

I think this poll is a bit stupid

As is the point it measures. Thanks. I was trying to be polite about it.

Why don't you ask something serious, like
"If they stopped showing queer eye for the straight guy, would you stop paying an interest in women's high heel shoes, even though you never wear them?"

I've seen Queer Eye, and I still don't pay attention to women's high-heeled shoes unless they're stepping on me.

Oh, what do you know! Looks like we don't need to be worried about the continuation of the human race... not on that front, anyhow. Big surprise. (sarcasm)

The good news. All you guys are safe from me.
The bad news. I leave that as an exercise for the student.

Why oh why do we absolutely have to force others to live up to some weird unnatural standards?

In the Roman Empire, same sex relationships were allowed. Is there a deficit in Italians? Did they die out within a few generations?

Look, sorry that did come out a bit wrong, a better way of saying it would have been, "if all of the next generation were growing up having same sex relationships then there would be not many generations after that.
Although I can't not admit to posting it, so come on let loose.
At me
I don’t really have to say much more, except read through a thread before you comment on it..

If the next generation grew up thinking it was alright to have same sex relationships, there would not be many generations after that. What about reproduction???

? ? ? ? ?

lol :D LoL :D LOL :D

Someone's been on the crazy pills lately.

- N

<i>"In the Roman Empire, same sex relationships were allowed. Is there a deficit in Italians? Did they die out within a few generations?"</i>

No, but the empire became so decadent that it died.

No, but the empire became so decadent that it died.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm).

. . . ;)

I believe that over population is and will continue to be a greater problem than the reduction (?) in population that might be caused by homosexuality. I do not think that there will ever be more than a temporary surge in straight homosexuality. The homosexuals will never be able to outbreed the heterosexuals on a consistent basis. I also believe that men and women bring different strengths to the table so that in most situations, a male-female pair will perform better than a male-male or female-female pair will. If the human species decides to commit racial suicide then that is a choice as long as it doesn’t take the entire eco-system with it.

<i>I also believe that men and women bring different strengths to the table so that in most situations, a male-female pair will perform better than a male-male or female-female pair will.</i>

Right on! Thank you.

This might be somewhat helpful....
Let's look at my boyfriend's mother.
She has three sons, each one two years apart. Two of them are straight, and one is bisexual. The bisexual one doesn't blame his mother for what he is, but thinks it's ok because of what she is. Their mother has only been a lesbian for about 5 years. Before that, she was married to their father. So they were never deprived of having a male role-model.

"if all of the next generation were growing up having same sex relationships then there would be not many generations after that.


And if the whole next generation grew up being carpenters (like good ol' Jesus) then we'd soon run out of building materials and we'd all be homeless!

I really don't know who is suggesting that we try to make the next generation gay, just that we try to make them beat gay people less than previous generations.

I really don't know who is suggesting that we try to make the next generation gay

You know, it could be that homophobes are still frightened by the classic Michael Swift piece.

Seriously. Check this out:

Sharp, Randy. "Homosexual activist predicted takeover of nation". American Family Association Online, June 10, 2004. See http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/takeover.asp

It looks like they're still stuck in 1987.

You know, it could be that homophobes are still frightened by the classic Michael Swift piece.

Seriously. Check this out:

Sharp, Randy. "Homosexual activist predicted takeover of nation". American Family Association Online, June 10, 2004. See http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/takeover.asp

It looks like they're still stuck in 1987.


I'm not sure what's more amusing about that, the fact that Michael is such a little drama queen (Too bad they didn't have LiveJournal back then or I have a feeling that's where that would have been printed) or the analysis with it's half-truths, muddled facts and reactionary sentiment to fairly mundane and non-threatening events. Of course I qualify the later just to try to deny this cathartic little smile creeping across my face as I read the article again.

Over all, however I'd say that this piece displays a very common mistake made among many gay activists; We use irony to try to help illustrate our point of view and how ridiculous it is that we should be treated as we are. . . but those who we'd hope are listening don't understand irony! Seriously, don't even get me started on gay pride parades, shortly it seems to me that they have generally had this effect:

Us: "Oh no! look at us we're big bad homosexuals who are out to destroy your way of life and corrupt your children with deviant behavior!"

Them: "Oh no! Do you see? they're big bad homosexuals out to destroy our way of life and corrupt our children with deviant behavior! We've got to do something!"

Sort of like a black man calling his friends a nigger in the 18th century, you know? A white person overhearing would probably figure he's admitting racial inferiority, perhaps it's the same way with the homosexuals, a little too early to revel in the stereotypes and labels thrown at us for the casual observer to feel that we don't really mean it.

I suppose it would be rather boring if they were just "Gay Solidarity" parades, but come on. . . assless chaps in public? The American people take cowboys very seriously and that's just pie in the face to them!

Over all, however I'd say that this piece displays a very common mistake made among many gay activists; We use irony to try to help illustrate our point of view and how ridiculous it is that we should be treated as we are. . . but those who we'd hope are listening don't understand irony!

It's hard to measure the cash value of irony, and that seeming confusion on the part of conservatives faced with ironic truth is the bane of American liberals and leftists. We do have a sense of humor. It's just that when we laugh at some misfortune on Fear Factor, it's a contemptuous assessment of what we feel we're up against in terms of changing the fundamental attitude of the country toward such long-despised notions as reality, society, and truth. Because our senses of humor don't rely nearly so exclusively on a punch-line in which someone is hurt or defamed, liberals are characterized as elitist. To the other, when we are willing to show that "Joe Sixpack humor", people get really pissed. Try getting lectured by a provocateur punk on what's wrong with giving the people what they seem to demand in a given marketplace. It's funny, to be sure, but it's also sad.

Remember also that when the article was read into the Congressional Record, it was edited to remove its original identification as satire. Yes, these conservatives have a sense of irony. It's just a very childish one that acts as if they have a say in who gets hurt by the necessities of humor.

Talk about arrogant; the pretentious conservative fear of elitism is mere Freudian projection. In fact, American conservative politics seem characterized by Freudian defense mechanisms.