Gay Reproduction may be more Moral than Straight Reproduction

[s2a]

If we all turned gay tomorrow, the propagation of the species would be lessened perhaps but by no means stopped. The overpopulation problem would be reversed. If all non-humans animals turned gay tomorrow, it would be the end of the species (without human intervention.) This is NOT TRUE of humans. Obviously WE KNOW how reproduction occurs and we would perpetuate other generations because we want to. How? Artificial insemination would occur for the squimish. Others would take one for the team through heterosexual (yuck) intercourse. Gay people can still do that and make it work but it is a chore. Gay people would have heterosex to get pregnant and homosex because it's hot and fun and enhances bonds with their same sexed loved one.

If we all turned gay tomorrow, the problem of abortion and unwanted or less wanted children would eventually be resolved almost completely!

If the motivation for getting pregnant were unhooked from the motivation to feel sexual pleasure we would have emaculate birth control.

If a gay pill comes out, clearly, we should all take it!

Likely.

Albeit unlikely.

If "pleasure" were the only motivation involved in procreation, then unpleasant sex would render what sort of outcomes?

Your final offered premise is also absurd, as I am straight, and can not produce any progeny with my wife.

You were saying...?

Straight marriage has only one purpose then? If straight people can not make babies, then...what? After 25 years, what are we to do? Just have fun having sex as often as possible?

Or maybe, you are just really dumb?

 

[Uberpod]

Likely.

Albeit unlikely.

Exactly.

If "pleasure" were the only motivation involved in procreation, then unpleasant sex would render what sort of outcomes?

Emaculate birth control. Intentional births only. All children would be wanted, planned for, and
never aborted or neglected.

Your final offered premise is also absurd, as I am straight

Yow were supposed to take the gay pill!!

and can not produce any progeny with my wife.

(assuming you can't actually have children - - ) You might as well stay straight then -unless you need better curtains.

You were saying...?

Straight marriage has only one purpose then?

I don't recall saying that.

If straight people can not make babies, then...what? After 25 years, what are we to do? Just have fun having sex as often as possible?

That does not sound so bad. I never suggested that straight people couldn't have babies. That's crazy. I only suggested that straight people stop existing!!

Or maybe, you are just really dumb?

Could be both.

 

[s2a]

Exactly.

Emaculate birth control. Intentional births only. All children would be wanted, planned for, and
never aborted or neglected.

Cool. I await your latest stats of immaculate births, since i heard they are rather rare.

Yow were supposed to take the gay pill!!

I nearly forgot what was for lunch today. Sooo...there is a pill that can MAKE people gay now?

(assuming you can't actually have children - - ) You might as well stay straight then -unless you need better curtains.

No need to assume..We can not. Even with curtains wide open in mid-day.

Anyway, you had a profound point to make?

That does not sound so bad. I never suggested that straight people couldn't have babies. That's crazy. I only suggested that straight people stop existing!!

I'll allow any that read your comments to draw their own conclusions.

That may not serve you well, but this ain't twitter, is it?

 

[Estro Felino]

If we all turned gay tomorrow, the propagation of the species would be lessened perhaps but by no means stopped. The overpopulation problem would be reversed. If all non-humans animals turned gay tomorrow, it would be the end of the species (without human intervention.) This is NOT TRUE of humans. Obviously WE KNOW how reproduction occurs and we would perpetuate other generations because we want to. How? Artificial insemination would occur for the squimish. Others would take one for the team through heterosexual (yuck) intercourse. Gay people can still do that and make it work but it is a chore. Gay people would have heterosex to get pregnant and homosex because it's hot and fun and enhances bonds with their same sexed loved one.

If we all turned gay tomorrow, the problem of abortion and unwanted or less wanted children would eventually be resolved almost completely!

If the motivation for getting pregnant were unhooked from the motivation to feel sexual pleasure we would have emaculate birth control.

If a gay pill comes out, clearly, we should all take it!

Fortunately that will never happen.
I do agree that the world is overpopulated but that doesn't imply that homosexuality is the solution.
Vasectomy can be a solution.

By the way lots of women take the pill and never get pregnant.
I don't understand why women are afraid of taking it. My friend Ginnie does, and she got thinner.

 

[dgirl1986]

Fortunately that will never happen.
I do agree that the world is overpopulated but that doesn't imply that homosexuality is the solution.
Vasectomy can be a solution.

By the way lots of women take the pill and never get pregnant.
I don't understand why women are afraid of taking it. My friend Ginnie does, and she got thinner.

I was on the pill a couple of times for non contraceptive reasons. It made me loopy.

 

[Willamena]

I was on the pill a couple of times for non contraceptive reasons. It made me loopy.

Damn pharmacies, ruling the world.

 

[dgirl1986]

Damn pharmacies, ruling the world.

LOL by making people loopy?

 

[Uberpod]

LOL by making people loopy?

That's why a pill to make you fruity is better!!

 

[Uberpod]

Personally, I believe that the only ethical/moral method of reproduction is that which I believe God designed. In other words, I believe that only vaginal sexual intercourse without contraception between one man and one woman is the only way that is moral to reproduce.

So - do you rail against test tube babies and such?

 

[MD]

Well this is an usual thread, reproduction is an extremely powerful natural urge. Many things exist for reproduction: sex, love, hate, jealousy, etc. It is the primary goal of every species to procreate, species which fail to do so die off.

The idea of not having kids is a Western social construct, which is why it is so heavily reliant on immigrants. Without immigrants Western culture would die out, which in many ways is happening already in Europe as the Islamic population rises.

There is only one way to solve over-population, colonize other worlds.

 

[gsa]

Well this is an usual thread, reproduction is an extremely powerful natural urge. Many things exist for reproduction: sex, love, hate, jealousy, etc. It is the primary goal of every species to procreate, species which fail to do so die off.

The idea of not having kids is a Western social construct, which is why it is so heavily reliant on immigrants. Without immigrants Western culture would die out, which in many ways is happening already in Europe as the Islamic population rises.

There is only one way to solve over-population, colonize other worlds.

Technically, there is no species goal to procreate, just a tendency on the part of an individual organism. There are also organisms that reproduce asexually, and it is entirely conceivable to imagine a future society where the reproductive process is entirely dissociated from sexual activity. Assuming that there was a viable (and presumably affordable) alternative to sexual reproduction, there might be a number of benefits to doing so, including the health of the mother and fetus. Of course, it is possible to imagine both utopian and dystopian consequences of widespread ectogenesis. One the one hand it would eliminate the health complications of pregnancy and might reduce the threats to the fetus, on the other hand it could eliminate certain bonds between mother and child or result in total social control over reproduction (which may or may not be desirable). The technology, when combined with social regulation, could offer a means of resolving the population problem. I tend to think that the population issue is really more a matter of resource use and allocation, rather than strict carrying capacity, but so far we haven't developed a system that can reasonably accommodate billions of people.

Sadly, research into this area is restricted by reactionary legislation.

 

[MD]

Technically, there is no species goal to procreate, just a tendency on the part of an individual organism. There are also organisms that reproduce asexually, and it is entirely conceivable to imagine a future society where the reproductive process is entirely dissociated from sexual activity. Assuming that there was a viable (and presumably affordable) alternative to sexual reproduction, there might be a number of benefits to doing so, including the health of the mother and fetus. Of course, it is possible to imagine both utopian and dystopian consequences of widespread ectogenesis. One the one hand it would eliminate the health complications of pregnancy and might reduce the threats to the fetus, on the other hand it could eliminate certain bonds between mother and child or result in total social control over reproduction (which may or may not be desirable). The technology, when combined with social regulation, could offer a means of resolving the population problem. I tend to think that the population issue is really more a matter of resource use and allocation, rather than strict carrying capacity, but so far we haven't developed a system that can reasonably accommodate billions of people.

Sadly, research into this area is restricted by reactionary legislation.

Asexual reproduction is so distant from us from an evolutionary perspective that it's like comparing aerobic to anaerobic cell metabolism. Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily superior to asexual reproduction, which is why it's so ubiquitous in the majority of species.

I also don't think it's conceivable at all to imagine a society like the one you've mentioned for many reasons. The majority of heterosexuals still want children and I think a substantial percent of homosexuals do as well. Social conditioning is trying to push people away from that, but the instinctive drive is too powerful to stop it completely. Also individuals who don't have kids because their genes aren't heavily geared towards reproduction will lessen over generations. Only those who wish to have kids will do so, and as such individuals with genes geared towards child rearing will increase. Future generations will have a higher degree of genes geared towards child rearing and I would be willing to bet that the link between sex and reproduction will increase rather than decrease.

Also you are forgetting the bonds between a father and the infant. In almost all cultures (except maybe in some Caribbean and Western nations), fathers overwhelmingly play a large part in bonding with infants. Social regulation would negatively affect them as well.

We have enough resources for people. We don't have enough resources for everyone to live like the average middle class American, but the problem lies with distribution rather than quantity. The American dream is unsustainable for the world.