Tech said:
Drewski said: just think about this...what is the point of being gay? once you are gay you render your natural uses as an animal/mammal/human useless. you are basically disrespecting your family and everything they stand for (im sure being gay isnt even close to anything your family beleives in otherwise you wouldnt have one, as explained in the second sentence) because you are refusing to extend the legacy of your family which can be traced generations back. but if another mans love is more important to the future exesistance of your whole families legacy then i guess gay rights are great.
I agree with some parts, the genetic material is lost and it isn't the optimal situation for the person's parents or relatives. Yet the natural selection will take care of gays, people shouldn't be the ones doing it. It's their choice. They want to live their lives that way, and others shouldn't have anything to say about it. Just live your own life happily, and accept the fact that others have the same right too.
I disagree with all parts of what both you and Drewski said. Natural selection isn't going to "take care of gays." I don't even know where you get this idea. Maybe because you're implying since gays can't reproduce they will eventually all die out? If someone is gay, they are going to die either way. That does not mean that since they died without reproducing there won't be any more gay people in the world.
And Drewski, your argument is based on wild assumptions. "Once you are gay you render your natural uses as an animal/mammal/human useless." Incorrect, gay does not equal sterile. Now I understand that most gay people aren't going to go around extending their bloodline, but they are not without, what you are claiming, their natural uses. Are infertile males or females disrespecting their families because they can't carry on their bloodlines? That's another wild assumption by the way. I'm pretty confident my family doesn't find respect in bloodline extension. My dad might be happy that my sister just had a child, but my brother has made it pretty clear he doesn't plan on having children, and my dad could care less. Maybe your family stands for "extending the legacy" (I'd hate to break it to you, but not too many families even have any legacy), but not everyone's. Not to mention your argument would only be applicable where there is an only who is gay or the other siblings don't have children. It only takes one to extend the bloodline.
Who says extending your family's bloodline matters anyway? You're not gonna live forever, ya know. So if I my family eventually dies out, I'm obviously not going to be around to see it happen, so who cares? Maybe you do, but there go your wild assumptions again, not everyone does. I also doubt being gay isn't something a family does or does not believe in. How many families do you know had kids so they could just have kids? Most parents fall in love and all that jazz. I've never met anyone who has parents that were like "Yeah, we just had sex so we could extend our family legacies." Get out of the caveman era, people don't reproduce just to reproduce.
-------------------- !
|