sicsempertyrannis:Stop being so obtuse; the likelihood of venereal diseases, AIDS, etc is much greater with homosexual men than heterosexual men. Last time when it came down to this, statistics won the day over your appeals to emotion.
And my guess is that they are much greater among heterosexuals than lesbians. What is your point?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Wow. Just wow. It never ceases to amaze me when somebody like Byzantine shows up on the scene with his great evolutionary, social, or biological "reasoning" as a case against homosexuality to cover up their innate hatred of something that repulses them.
I have been a promiscuous bisexual now for seven years, and I have never come down with aids, HIV, or any STD. I do this by practicing safe sex. I don't get it? Whatever.
As for the whole evolutionary dead end or "extending" your life by having children BS, is just that, BS. I never have, nor will I ever, have any children. I have no interest in having my own. I'm quite happy being the "cool uncle" in my family.
All of this is just subjective, though. It's not a consistent line of thinking with everybody. It's your own personal view, nothing less, nothing more. Maybe it's time for Byzantine to get off his make-believe "moral high horse" and grow up. This is the effing 21st Century, for godssake. This sort of "byzantine" attitude should have died out by now, in my not most humbles of opinions.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Byzantine:I am pretty sure I don't want another man's **** anywhere near my *******, so speak for yourself. But again, if you need guidance in such matters, it's real simple: which is most likely to get you grandchildren?
I meant as a species. I was not referring to what you want personally. How do you know that homosexuality isn't the result of evolution? Anyone can speculate on why things 'are' using evolution as the grounds for their argument. What if Homosexuality evolved as a direct reaction to the fact that two heterosexual adults often can not raise a heterosexual child for the life of them? Maybe it is a sociobiological development that homosexuals exist because statism has lead to hunger and poverty, now we can have productive members of society that do not create yet another mouth to feed.
The point is who knows? I don't think you can argue that evolution is guided by the same invisible hand as the market and that the ultimate goal of all evolution is to create another copy of yourself... we simply do not know that much about life.
The point is not that they don't produce them. The point is that they will never produce them in numbers even approaching a significant amount. And in the event a society ever does, then within a couple of generations it will be replaced. And you can rage against biological reality all you want, but that's what's going to happen.
Too bad biological reality so far has not led to the extinction of homosexuality... probably because a belief that it should hinges on ignorance of it?
For those couples who don't practise safe sex, quite high. Again, there's a reason for those social mores.
Fixed.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:biological reality so far has not led to the extinction of homosexuality... probably because a belief that it should hinges on ignorance of it?
Hear, hear.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Does it really matter if someone likes or hates homosexuality? Usually on topics of personal preference, we usually just leave it at that. Someone can like or hate something and have some rationale for it, but as long as they don't force anything on me or people close to me, I don't really care.
All this stuff about "attitudes changing" is the kind of trash I want to get away from. I hear it about homosexuality (which I don't feel strongly about either way, since it doesn't matter to me) global warming, oppression against the poor, minorities, etc... Other people's attitudes just don't matter. Their actions do.
If we didn't have to deal with the problem of government, this stuff would only matter to us as much as it applies to us. The constant spotlighting of this issue in the mainstream media is more of a red herring than anything.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?
Individualist: Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?
It's legitimizing the government as the sculptor of culture and society, so I'd say no. It's not the government's business what a union of people is. And why make it people? Why not people with animals? I think a move from marriage-licensing to the granting of a civil union between people is more a win for marxism than liberty. Some marxists believe that the government should change according to the will of the people and the "attitudes of today". And it is doing that.
"Granting" is still licensing. Most people don't understand what a license is. A license is permission to do something illegal. The state makes marriage illegal, without a license. The state makes opening a business illegal, without a license. You must petition for, and obtain explicit permission from the state to do these things.
Tweaking the licensing system is really just tinkering around the edges.
Jon Irenicus: Too bad biological reality so far has not led to the extinction of homosexuality... probably because a belief that it should hinges on ignorance of it?
I'm not even touching the morality of the practice; just pure evolutionary biology. Homosexual unions will never take root other than among a sliver of the populace. Always and everywhere, its practitioners will be pruned back by natural selection--condoms or not. In that regard, homosexuality is no different than cystic fibrosis. A society that encourages homosexual unions and other outlier practices will eventually face its own extinction. That is the reason behind the instinctive repulsion by unnatural acts among the majority of the populace and, consequently, why monogamous sexual unions get priority among most societies.
Of course, with our large cerebrums, such instincts can be overcome, and then the Gods of the Copybook Headings will be back.
Individualist:Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?
In that event, just draw up a contract outlining the parties' mutual rights and responsibilities, like homosexuals are already free to do.
Byzantine:A society that encourages homosexual unions and other outlier practices will eventually face its own extinction.
you have no backing for this. Couldn't an argument be made that Homosexual couples on a whole are more productive then heterosexual couples because they do not need to spend huge amounts of time raising their offspring? I know this is the reasoning behind free market wage gaps between men and women. If we assume that and we trust the invisible hand then we must conclude that they have a positive effect on the economy they are part of and thus raise the life quality of those around them (the majority being heterosexuals).
It seems to me that if you believe evolution is a matter of genes trying to procreate copies of themselves then homosexuals will never create a majority. However I think the societies that tolerate homosexuality will have greater quality of life, hell... seems that way today doesn't it?
Justin Laws:I never have, nor will I ever, have any children. I have no interest in having my own... This sort of "byzantine" attitude should have died out by now, in my not most humbles of opinions.
This sort of "byzantine" attitude should have died out by now, in my not most humbles of opinions.
Q.E.D.
You are going to die out.
Byzantine-minded folks who value children and sexual reproduction are going to live on.
Solarist: It seems to me that if you believe evolution is a matter of genes trying to procreate copies of themselves then homosexuals will never create a majority. However I think the societies that tolerate homosexuality will have greater quality of life, hell... seems that way today doesn't it?
I don't think I ever said the practice shouldn't be tolerated and yes, tolerant societies are nice, depending on what they tolerate.
Byzantine:Byzantine-minded folks who value children and sexual reproduction are going to live on.
No, you're going to die out too. Someone else will live on.
liberty student: Byzantine:Byzantine-minded folks who value children and sexual reproduction are going to live on. No, you're going to die out too. Someone else will live on.
Yes, and the vast majority of them will have the same sexual practices and attitudes toward children as me. Which, of course, you realize is what I'm saying.
Byzantine:I don't think I ever said the practice shouldn't be tolerated and yes, tolerant societies are nice, depending on what they tolerate.
So you want to live in a society that tolerates homosexuality? What about exstinction?! Dont come back and argue semantics of the word tolerate with the word encourage to me, I don't see how it changes your argument.
Byzantine:Yes, and the vast majority of them will have the same sexual practices and attitudes toward children as me. Which, of course, you realize is what I'm saying.
I realize what you are saying. You value your life by your genes being carried forward.
Not everyone does. You should be happy you have less competition in the gene pool and future generations of Byzantines will rule the universe.
liberty student: Byzantine:Yes, and the vast majority of them will have the same sexual practices and attitudes toward children as me. Which, of course, you realize is what I'm saying. I realize what you are saying. You value your life by your genes being carried forward. Not everyone does. You should be happy you have less competition in the gene pool and future generations of Byzantines will rule the universe.
I do not value this, myself. However, 4 years ago, two of my friends got married to each other, and the male friend found out he was impotent. They asked me to be a donor, so they could have a child.. they are raising my genes as I type this. I don't care if the child ever knows she is carrying my genes. But I have been the "cool uncle" whenever I've seen her. So I guess my genes won't die out after all?
Well, in any case. However you believe, Byzantine, I would say that marriage/unions are not the matter of the state. It shouldn't be something they regulate, for whatever reason. I know what you are saying, but it just doesn't make since some central-seated seat of power some 3000 miles away from you, or anyone else, should have any power over an individual's personal life.
I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.
And the rest of them will be homos. As it alwyas was. There is no point.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap