Fair point but it was in relation to the article about the film. Can't see the point of saying that people aren't defined and then go and define them. Seems a bit of a peculiar thing to do.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

1. No, but they are far less likely to have children for obvious reasons. I'm not getting into a Pythonesque 'right to have babies' debate on that one.

Current society does not entirely view homosexuality as 'normal' just yet even though bisexuality and varied tastes have been part of many previous cultures. I'm certain that many gay people feel the pressure of that and perhaps a degree of guilt that comes with feeling 'different'. I am not gay so I can't speak for gay people. Neither could I speak for all gay people if I was gay. I can only make an observation.
I hope my son is straight because it is a lot easier to be in a majority in terms of sexuality and lifestyle. I would also not want him to miss out on having children and the progression in a relationship and of the self that that brings.

They aren't it's true but they are far less likely to continue your line...just a fact of life. Given a choice, I want my line to continue.

It's not a failing as, in most instances, it isn't a choice. Also I think recognising facts about reality shouldn't make someone unhappy.

To give an example using infertility. You don't wish to make your infertile son or daughter feel worse about the fact that they are born infertile. They are not a lesser person. But by the same token, given a choice plenty of parents would prefer that they were fertile......I think this is just common sense.....You could replace infertile with short or being born ugly.

I agree with you that if you bring your child up loved regardless of what they are then they certainly shouldn't feel to blame by what nature has given them.

I have two male toddlers and I adore them. Me, not viewing all sexualities as equally useful doesn't change that regardless of what they are. They are Stirlings and that is all they need to be.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2017 8.21am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

On an evolutionary basis having gay relatives is a massive boon for your gene pool and children. Biologically speaking a gay sibling will massively benefit the life opportunities of your your kids, specifically because they can't biological have kids, meaning their sole means of passing on traits is through relatives, notably their niece and nephews. It surprised me as a childless man how quickly to take to concern over how you can switch resources towards your siblings children when you have none. That pool of additional resource financial and emotional serves a massive evolutionary role

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Of course having kids is more valuable than not having kids. Some people are more suitable to it than others but there's no equality here...unless you are into warm words of course....plenty of that about.

You should judge your own behaviour's 'valuableness' by projecting out what the result would be if everybody did what you do.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2017 9.34am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Essentially I agree.

Some behaviours in life are more useful to society than others. Most of us are combinations of useful and un-useful behaviours. Society often doesn't really reward people along a societal value system as its measure for value is strictly financial....hence why a nurse earns nothing compared to a footballer yet performs a far more valuable role in terms of serious impact.

Each individual's life is unique of course though we all fall into various groups that can be generalised over for convenience. So within that context we can discuss the 'usefulness' or not of those groups to some societal aim or other.

It's important though to stress that this isn't a 'blame game'. It's just a recognition of reality rather than a warm flow of words. As stated no one is to blame for their inherent nature.

If I were to be critical it would be directed at certain individuals I've met in life....I can think of two successful male teachers....individuals who were very moralistic and idealistic about how others should behave....Yet when you learnt about their own life you quickly saw how self absorbed and selfish they were..not bad people, just not exactly examples either....neither of them had children of course.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2017 11.01am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Is Anne Hegerty the new Dr.Who?

I was talking in terms of evolutionary theory. Gay siblings are an advantage, from an evolutionary perspective, to your kids, because the only means they have of passing their traits / genes into the next generation is through ensuring those related to them prosper.

They represent an additional resource beyond your parents that can benefit you, that won't be using their resources on their offspring.

Even if other species, an infertile wolf, for example, is a benefit to the pack in ways that an fertile one - its a disposable resource for the pack, to protect and benefit the pack - It cannot reproduce and if we take the idea of evolutionary biology, its acts to protect the pack (and may even adopt cubs that are orphaned).

Assuming we accept that passing genes and traits on is the functional drive of living species (and we're talking in a biological paradigm here). The more gay people related to you, the better your prospects.

Because we're talking evolutionary theory and biological paradims, individual behaviour isn't considered - its about a species wide scenario - and the basis of evolutionary theory is the imperative to pass genes on into the future generations.

Evolution tends towards scenarios were everything serves a value that occurs frequently in nature - although that role might not be beneficial to the individual themselves.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The childless - gay or otherwise - are a boon to other people's kids because we* contribute to society with our work output and our taxes, without adding our own kids who would otherwise be drawing from the same resources as everyone else's kids.

* I am childless by choice, and have recently made that choice permanent [snip]. My wife and I decided that, if we ever want kids, we will adopt. Neither of us being so arrogant to think that the world cannot go on unless our genes are perpetuated.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You are just repeating the same points and I've already pointed out the problems inherent with this theory.

It's not proof of anything of course but I recently came across an interview with Dawkins where he refers to this theory and briefly stated that he also doesn't believe it.

A complete argument from authority of course and so as such no proof of anything but still, he's a pretty big hitter. So if he doubts it I'm waiting to hear your answers to the problems with the theory.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2017 6.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)