Does homosexuality lead to the extinction of human beings?

[Bud Bundy]

That would be impossible. People couldn't adopt more babies than the amount that are born. And if more humans decided to not procreate than to do so, it would lead to our extinction, which is why not having babies is bad for the human race.

Homosexuality is wrong any way you look at it. That's not to say people shouldn't have a right to do what they want to do. But in no way does homosexuality benefit the human race.

are you against birth control as well?

 

[88m3]

lol...

 

[ltheghost]

Men with men. Aids. No reproduction. Aids spreading. Std's spreading. Men having lust for men. Women with women. This leads to the hellfire but does it lead to the extinction of the human race logically speaking?

Its been around since ancient times and we are not extinct yet, so your answer is no....Don't forget Alexander "The Great" was a booty boy.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

are you against birth control as well?

I wouldn't say that I'm against homosexuality, but birth control is temporary sterilization and homosexuality is permanent. People who use birth control are just postponing pregnancies not stoping them all together.

 

[Higher Tech]

Its been around since ancient times and we are not extinct yet, so your answer is no....Don't forget Alexander "The Great" was a booty boy.

A lot of those Romans in the history books were ball lickers too.

I think the media has people thinking there are a lot more homos out there than there really are. I dont think it will ever be enough to affect humanity. Definitely not enough to make man extinct. Even if that were the case, just because they're gay dont mean they're dumb. Im sure the butch lesbos would just take the D from whichever one of the male homos does the fukkin. Its sort of a win win. It would probably kick start hetero sexuality again. But people dudes would desire butchy ass chicks. And 100 years later they still would and no one would have an explanation as to why everyone like fat chicks with crew cuts.










I need some sleep brehs

 

[the cac mamba]

the answer is yes

why is this even a debate? you posed a question that could never happen, but if it did happen then it would be true. where is the discussion in this?

awful thread from this fukkin idiot

 

[Fervid]

Yes and that's why homosexuality is a crime against humanity.

The irony. No, religion is a crime against humanity. Humanity's oldest enemy.

Homosexuality has been around as long as humans have with nothing to indicate it is increasing. Human population has steadily grown. [\thread]

 

[inndaskKy]

If the majority of the population chose to adopt instead of having their own children, the human race would go extinct, too. In other words, what you are using is not logic. What would happen in an extreme, unlikely hypothetical case doesn't reflect on the inherent value of something.

There is the flaw in your analogy. Adoption by straight people doesn't mean two people can't also have children of their own. So it's not the adoption that leads to an analogous result but the decision not to have children. That decision, which is supposedly inherent to homosexuality if one discounts artificial insemination, would indeed be detrimental to the human population, proving your opponent's point.

 

[The Real]

That would be impossible. People couldn't adopt more babies than the amount that are born. And if more humans decided to not procreate than to do so, it would lead to our extinction, which is why not having babies is bad for the human race.

Homosexuality is wrong any way you look at it. That's not to say people shouldn't have a right to do what they want to do. But in no way does homosexuality benefit the human race.

There is the flaw in your analogy. Adoption by straight people doesn't mean two people can't also have children of their own. So it's not the adoption that leads to an analogous result but the decision not to have children. That decision, which is supposedly inherent to homosexuality if one discounts artificial insemination, would indeed be detrimental to the human population, proving your opponent's point.

You're concentrating on the wrong part of the argument. It's not meant to be a clean analogy- it's the structure of the argument that's important. Let's introduce a second example to clarify further. By the structure of the original argument, birth control and getting your tubes tied through surgery are bad because if everyone used them all the time, we'd go extinct. The point is that the categorical imperative is a bad way to structure arguments from the get-go.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

no, because very few humans are homosexual

Also, some homosexuals return to being heterosexual or bisexual...

But of course the popular agenda does not acknowledge this, because they want to force everybody to believe that people are simply born homosexual, but there is evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is more complex than that...

Also, culture/religion will make sure that people keep living double lives for many years to come, they will have dutiful sex for procreation, and get their leisurely homosexual sex on the down low..

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You're concentrating on the wrong part of the argument. It's not meant to be a clean analogy- it's the structure of the argument that's important. Let's introduce a second example to clarify further. By the structure of the original argument, birth control and getting your tubes tied through surgery are bad because if everyone used them all the time, we'd go extinct. The point is that the categorical imperative is a bad way to structure arguments from the get-go.

First off there is a big difference between birth control and sterilization. Birth control helps us manage pregnancies and bring children into the world in more favorable conditions. Humans actualy benefit from using birth control.

In my opinion it is wrong for a person to purposely sterilize themselves before procreation. If we all sterilized ourselves before we made children the human race would cease to exist.

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the argument. Things that hinder the success of the human race are inherently wrong.

 

[inndaskKy]

You're concentrating on the wrong part of the argument. It's not meant to be a clean analogy- it's the structure of the argument that's important. Let's introduce a second example to clarify further. By the structure of the original argument, birth control and getting your tubes tied through surgery are bad because if everyone used them all the time, we'd go extinct. The point is that the categorical imperative is a bad way to structure arguments from the get-go.

My point is not that it's bad, but that if everyone were gay, no more babies indeed would be made. The birth control, again, is a bad analogy because you can stop using birth control at any given moment to have children and then start using it again. A gay couple can't (again, if you discount arteficial insemination) decide to have children at any given moment.
As for getting your tubes tied, it agrees with the point about homosexuality. If everyone tied their tubes before they had kids (and assuming it is irreversible, which it actually isn't) then mankind would go extinct as well.
That is the only point being made here.

 

[Higher Tech]

Yall really think people would be so disgusted by the opposite sex that they would let humanity cease to exist? Regardless of what you'd like to believe, homos would be hetero for the sake of saving the world.

 

[The Real]

First off there is a big difference between birth control and sterilization. Birth control helps us manage pregnancies and bring children into the world in more favorable conditions. Humans actualy benefit from using birth control.

In my opinion it is wrong for a person to purposely sterilize themselves before procreation. If we all sterilized ourselves before we made children the human race would cease to exist.

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the argument. Things that hinder the success of the human race are inherently wrong.

Once again, it's about the structure of the argument. The point is that many things which are "good" or neutral in one context would be "bad" if everyone did them. We don't have to even restrict it to reproduction. Fundamentally, that is a bad way to argue, since it doesn't tell us anything about the inherent qualities of anything.

As for "success," that's a very loaded term, and certainly not a scientific one. The idea that the "purpose" of life is to reproduce is not a scientific one when you make it a moral imperative. What scientists mean when they say that (and frankly, it's misleading language, so it's partially their fault) is that it's a strong general tendency that exists within living beings. It's an empirical descriptor of something that happens, not a moral guideline or the basis for morality- something that should happen. So in short, the idea that we should base morals on what hinders the human race can only be subjective, and thus requires consensus, not an objective basis, and furthermore is dangerous insofar as it ends up in potential tyranny.

 

[mbewane]

Just for the sake of argument, let's not forget it's the children of heterosexuals who've been fukking up the world up until now.