I mean really it could encourage the children to be hetero.
Or it could make them gaymosexual because this post discourages heterosexuality in an appealingly humorous way.
But like i said- if obama got reelected, gays would take over
We're just trying to prevent a possible straightosexual epidemic here.
Lawl! Like, I toootally respect heterosexuals and all, it's just they need to keep their heterosexuality to themSELVES. Also, again, I TOOOTALLY respect it, it's just well (lawl!) I don't think you straights should have have the right to marry either. My religion dictates it, and if you disagree then gersh, stop religiously persecuting me already! ALRIGHTBYELOL xoxo
I mean I have straight friendz lol but the bible says its a SIN.
It worries me when someone can fake write like this so convincingly...
At first, I was eager to see some of the comments on this post. But now I realize that most people on amirite agree with this, so there won't be much controversy.
It's not controversial at all. Only 16 people voted NW. This is just preaching to the choir; this website is very pro-gay, and there have been a bunch of POTD's like this.
ARE YOU DISAPPOINTED ANON? WELL? ARE YOU???
Where's Helen Lovejoy when you need her? "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"
I just hate it when people make out in public. Whether you're heterosexual or homosexual, it's awkward and uncomfortable...stop it XD
Don't let Wendy's catch wind of this...
Correct me if I'm wrong but did this post used to have an "OMFG" 'before think of the children' ???
I don't like people making out in public. It makes me feel weird in my jibbly bits.
When you get the opportunity to do it yourself, it will rock your world and you'll get your chance to annoy everyone else with your happiness. Believe me, my friend, it's the best feeling EVER. haha
I've done it and presently do it.
Oh, then perhaps I was too quick to judge you as a non-hypocrite! hehehehhehehehe
It was a joke
Yes because of course I'm being deadly serious!
This reminded me of Martin Rochlin's "Heterosexual Questionnaire".
It's a shame they don't have a "near copy+paste, minus one 'omfg'" citing option, huh?
Really though, they're corrupting this generation
Seriously? How is holding hands offensive?
Seriously? How is holding hands not offensive? I mean, do we really want to expose young children to that sort of heterosexual behavior?
What's wrong with trying to preserve innocence..? I mean, holding hands is one step closer to heterosexual porn. EW.
I wasn't under the impression that holding hands is sexual in anyway...
I see what you're saying here, and I agree that both should be able to 'flaunt' their sexuality in public, but I'd like to point out that homosexuality is, biologically speaking, unnatural and disadvantageous. When it comes to the social aspect, both should be treated equally, but we still have to consider that if all or a large portion of humanity did somehow (flaunting is not a possible way) become homosexual, we would most likely die out.
tl;dr Homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally, but it is better to have a population 90% hetero than 10%.
Dude. Homosexuality is natural. If there was ever a time that humans were gonna die out from homosexuality, I think everyone, even the homos, would be like "We gon die. Let's make more babies."
I said socially they're equal, but biologically, the reson people enjoy sex is purely for reproduction. If you only enjoy sex with people with whom you can't reproduce, there is something wrong. I use the term unnatural not to mean that you are not naturally like that, because I think everyone knows gay people are naturally homosexual. I use the term to mean like for example, if we genetically modified a cow to be bigger, the cow itself would be unnatural because it is not the way nature intended, but it is not necessarily bad. A 10% homosexual population is probably a good thing, I'm just saying that one orientation is essential of continuity of species, while the other is not.
And by forcing them to make babies, it is a violation of human rights. Therefore, they must do it purely by choice. It can be assumed that not all will want to and think, "if I don't make children, then someone else will." and then eventually, there won't be enough genetic diversity.
As I said, I treat and see homos and heteros as equal, but fundamentally, homosexuality is an error, the same way blue eyes are technically an error.
Error as in it's not supposed to be that way. Not all errors are bad. For example, I made a miscalculation in my maths test which cancelled out my wrong method. That was an error, but it was good.
In this case, an error would be a mutation in the genes. It's not supposed to be there, but its presence doesn't mean the organism with it is at a disadvantage. I n fact, without mutation, there probably wouldn't be any life left on Earth. I find this somewhat amusing since you share a name with one of the X-Men. Sorry if that offends you, but I just noticed that.
We can be errors together.
I'm blue-eyed, gay, and a ginger as well. Maybe you're my long lost triplet.
" If you only enjoy sex with people with whom you can't reproduce, there is something wrong"
Dude, I don't see a problem here. Fucking someone who can't be pregnant? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me
Sorry dude - much respect to you (usually), but this view of yours is utterly retarded and backwards. As someone else already pointed out, the view that homosexuality would bring down the human race is frankly insulting and ridiculous. You are assuming that gays would NOT understand how to continue to the human race, or could not grasp the concept of their own destruction. In this view, you are insulting gay people everywhere, and basically saying that the "disorder" is tantamount to apocolypse. And you're wrong. If the world even could be all gay, people would still see the need to reproduce, and so would, and it's especially easy now we have techniques other than shagging to make babies. Women can be artifically inseminated. In fact, it might be a preferable system, as it would certainly stop the spiralling and destructive rate of population growth (brought about by straight people btw). As for it being a violation of human rights...no one says the government will force it. That's another insult --- why wouldn't the gays wish to have children? You truly suppose we're so different?
Yeah sorry I didn't consider the artificial ways. I see your points now though. It looks pretty good on paper, but there are probably going to be problems. THere always are at some point with surrogate mothers. There'll be the issue of why the biological mother can't see her kid, and a whole bunch of other stuff, including why only the lesbian couple have to do this, and how the men get off totally scot free. It could work, and it's quite good in theory, but some people will have a problem with it in practice.
The current way things work is utterly riddled with problems, pitfalls and weaknesses, and yet we still carry on like it's nothing. And it seems no matter how many ways homosexuality is proved to be natural, and no matter how gays prove themselves as equals, the world continues in its despicable and misguided views that homosexuality is something to be looked at as a weakness or defect. It is the job of younger generations to show once and for all that this disgusting outlook is a shambles, based on nothing more than ridiculous and hateful doctrines that have NO place in the world today. Being gay is NOT a weakness - but being IGNORANT is! And to anyone who prescribes to the view that gays are defective, or unnatural, or problematic - I say "go to hell!"
To address more specifically the points you raised here. Legal issues are easy to resolve, in the form of disclaimers, wavers etc. Surrogate mothers are prepared now for such things as straight people use them when they can't have children themselves. How dramatic a change do you suppose would be needed to the current system? What do you mean that only the lesbian couples have to do this? I don't understand. And as for some people having problems. The world is just like that --- no matter what any leader decides, there will always be opposition, even if the thing is clearly right and fair. It's not a reason NOT to do it.
That's awesome. You just summed up most of what the majority of amirite stands for on this topic in 1200 characters.
Well, I work in advertising - summing up everything in a limited space is what I'm paid to do. But you didn't answer my question in there...
Oh sorry... I think I missed those two lines... I mean if everyone is gay, then a lot of lesbian will become like birth mothers, and be objectified or dehumanised, since the men look at them mostly for their genes and not who they socially are.
In a couple with only men, neither has to go through the trouble of pregnancy or birth, but potentially both members in a lesbian couple will have to, probably sometimes not even for their baby.
It doesn't really matter does it? The world isn't going to go 100% gay at any time ever. Or for that matter, it will probably never exceed 20-30%.
First of all, when would the scenario EVER come up that people are FORCED? I don't understand how or why you draw this conclusion. You once again are harboring under the delusion that gays would need to be coerced or forced into childbirth in some totalitarian way because they'd be totally unwilling. There would be plenty of willing surrogates if it meant the survival of the human race.
Your take on this issue is a little disturbing to me. You still seem to view homosexuality as a crippling and devastating phenomenon. And while the world may not become 100% gay (I believe I already covered that anyway), what we're talking about here is a principle. And we're talking about what YOU brought up, referring to homosexuality as a danger or defect. And saying that we'd have to resort to such ridiculous measures if there were a high proportion of gays.
Hey, whoa, I already said it's probably a good thing to have homosexuality exist. I just get the feeling that if a large percentage were gay, there would be a lot of problems. Like alcohol. Drinks are awesome, far more so that any non-alcoholic drink, up to around 40%, but after that, they burn your throat.
You know how a lot of pretty girls are stuck up? if we do the 'everyone needs a surrogate mother' thing, there is a high chance that good genes will become a commodity. They may also not want to carry or give birth to preserve themselves. So they'll just give their eggs to a real surrogate. Since love is out of the equation, men will have to pay, probably hefty sums, just for the egg. This is dehumanising to women and a great obstacle to men.
Look, you and I and most on this site are probably in the smarter portion of the world, but we have to remember that the majority is not going to be able to see the impending extinction that selfishness will bring about. If everyone went along with it, like in a utopia or something, it would work out. But there will be a huge percentage of people with a 'someone else will do it' attitude', effectively reducing
the reproductive population to the top maybe 20%. That's about 1.5 billion people. Seems good for natural selection, right? That might be a problem in itself, and it would apply to straight people too. We can assume that all smart people have a few of the same genes. After the extensive genetic differentiation humans have undergone in 2 million years, eliminating that much diversity based on a characteristic, could result in inbreeding at some point, and we all know what that leads to.
Remember, I said it's good to have gays in the world, but unless everyone becomes as smart as you, there will have to be dehumanising laws to maintain genetic diversity. This is not to say gays are less smart. I'm assuming the same percentage of stupid gays as stupid straights we have now.
I don't think you give the human race enough credit. You think the level of diversity and breeding we have now is acceptable? It's diverse I'll give you that and there's no chance of in-breeding, but the current level of population growth is utterly unsustainable and destructive. The world ending by there being too high a proportion of gays is pretty ludicrous a notion anyway. But our current path is very real --- too many people, not enough food, devastating environmental shifts. Don't you see the level of mindless speculation in your posts? Where are you getting these ideas? Did you consider that if surrogacy became the norm, it would probably be subsidized, thus removing the burden on the individual? Did you also consider that subsidy could also mean financial or social incentive for people to be surrogates? You don't have to educate everyone to PhD level to get them to see the advantages. It seems to me you're not thinking all the possibilities through.
The current population is unsustainable. Theoretically, people will die out based on geographical location, which would have little effect since inter-continental reproduction is rare. However, this method might shrink the gene pool according to global genes. YEah, there would probably be a lot of incentives and stuff to be a surrogate, but as with any commodity, the person holding the highest grade will have monopoly and can ask for a much larger sum off the record or something. The system can work very well, but humans are naturally selfish and this create a new market which can be dominated literally by birth right and no one can do anything about it.
Like I said, in theory it will work well, but in practice there will be many problems. Even with incentives, that would mean people with rich governments reproduce much more than people in less developed countries. Then it starts a vicious cycle which may result in the whole population being in North America, Europe, and China.
That being said, I'm just giving the worst case scenario and even in practice, any problems wouldn't likely be insurmountable.
Basing a realistic opinion purely on the worst-case scenario is warping your view into something very difficult to accept.
I never said it can't work, just that it's not foolproof.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with an iota of sense that wouldn't know that NOTHING is foolproof. It doesn't make it a thing to be discarded. Democracy, due process, civil rights --- not a foolproof one among them. But they remain desirable and within our reach.
I could have sworn I said I was playing devil's advocate somewhere... apparently not...
It doesn't really matter whether you are not - perhaps I am. A good debate is one where it's not necessary to explicitly state it. Good debaters will know. I was once asked to argue for the banning of south park in the UK - I was chosen to do it because I'm the biggest fan of it. My teacher called it a "test of debate skill" - and you know...I won. I turned a tiny minority of votes into a sweeping majority. I know you're just conveying third party thoughts sometimes, you don't need to tell me. but it doesn't mean i won't attack those thoughts. And atacking those thoughts is by no means attacking YOU.
Holy crap. Have you gotten employee of the year yet?!
I am...quite frankly...a really terrible employee. Mainly it's because the job I do right now makes we want to kill myself. It's SO boring...but I'm just running out the clock now - not long to go and I'll be on my way back home and then on to a new job in Paris.
Nature made sex pleasurable for the purpose of reproduction. Or else, people would be like, "Wanna make a baby?" "Nah. What a waste of energy." It would be against a gay person's natural choice to have hetero sex, so it would either violate human rights to continue our existence, or end up with very low genetic diversity, and probably end up like the Cavendish banana almost did.
I really can't believe you don't even consider the notion that sex is not actually a necessary part of reproduction any more, what with artificial insemination, surrogacy etc. Your take on this is utterly backward
Well, yeah. Everything you're saying is pretty true, but you're arguing a point that hasn't been made. lol. The post is purely about the social aspect. But to contribute to the conversation anyway: You don't have to have sex to have a baby. Plenty of women can impregnate themselves to avoid anyone doing something they don't want to do. Also, the 9:1 ratio is purely hypothetical. Homosexuality, like you said, is a genetic anomaly and could never occur so much it overcomes the norm, especially since gays aren't exactly popping out babies like it's nobody's business. (Technically, there may be some genetic link to it, but I think you know what I mean)
I mean the social thing is an extension of the biological thing. In tribal times, social and biological were almost the same, but now civilisation has separated them. However, human brains are wired for tribal times, not civilised (children that grew up outside civilisation are like tribesmen rather than a city person) When homosexuality first became visible, it was a new change and people treated it like they would as tribal people. Now, it is being integrated into civilisation and we can treat it as a more or less advanced race would. There are still some mental stragglers, hence the anti-gay hate.
Alright. I see where you're coming from now, but I don't think people really think like that. At least not anymore. Considering we have over 7 billion people on the planet, and we're reproducing much faster than we ever were before, people feel very secure about existence. Some just don't like abnormalities. Being gay is different and people find it weird or gross. Most people have grown up knowing men and women love each other and then they find out that's not always the case and they get confused. Gays are screwing up the innate social order they have believed in for as long as they have lived and they just don't always want to accept it. Luckily, that's not so much the case anymore, but it's obviously still an issue, hence the post and what not.
Yeah probably... I've been watching Frasier recently and I notice I'm starting to totally miss the more obvious concepts and jumping straight to the deepest underlying ones...
Just a note, I said the reproduction thing is far outdated, but still ingrained.
Oh, I understand now and I see what you're saying. I have to say I agree with you there. I never really thought about it that way.
I see what you're saying. Nobody would force them to have sex, but they would probably do it by choice. And you don't have sex just to reproduce. You do it for pleasure, a lot of times.