Hitchen's Challange

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
Why not? Homosexuals can, and do father children.

That cannot be sustained.

Well it's your absurd hypothetical of course, but there is no reason gay men cannot father children, as they often do.

Women giving birth to children then have them taken away. Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.

So what, you asked what would happen if everyone were gay, well they're not are they, the number of gay men and women remains pretty constant. So it's an absurd question, some people are gay, so what?

Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes - people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.

So now being gay is genetic, you have spent pages claiming it is unnatural, so which is it?

 

[Sheldon]

The original statement was '...life will not persist if all were homosexual...'

Which is firstly wrong, and secondly absurd since everyone is not nor is ever going to be gay. In any society that exists or has ever existed roughly 2% to 4% are gay, so what? The human population is increasing exponentially, and that is a threat to the existence of the human species if it remains unchecked, we are not going to die out because some people happen to be gay.

 

[Sheldon]

DNB said: ↑
The point was that behaviour affects one's personality and character.

You seem woefully misinformed.
Personality and character affect ones behaviour.

A dog barks because it is a dog. It isn't a dog because it barks.

Absolutely true, and of course no amount of barking will turn one into a dog. as you say his views on gay men and women is woefully ill-informed, as blind bigotry always is of course.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

I'm firmly planted right in it, thank you. It's you that is having some problems understanding here.

Gender is a social construct that humans concocted and has nothing to do with biology. "Masculinity" or "femininity" for example, have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with human perceptions and interpretations, which have changed over time, and continue to change (thankfully). Calling a man that you think is "feminine" a "sissy" or something has gone out of style, thankfully, as it is a completely made up construct.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A man has a penis, and a woman has a vagina - are you able to figure the rest out?

Those are biological traits.

I understand this very well. It is you that is having a hard time "figuring the rest out."

Does a person have certain gender traits just because they have a vagina? If so, what are they? Is everyone with a vagina a "feminine" person?
Does a person have certain gender traits just because they have a penis? If so, what are they? Is everyone with a penis a "macho" person?
Do tell.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point was that behaviour affects one's personality and character.

That doesn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But it has equally, and more so, devolved into decadence and peculiarities - were you aware that some people even believe that it's ok for a man to have sex with another man?

It's evolved to a point where we don't judge people based on solely on their sexuality (well, most of us, anyway).
I don't think there is anything inherently immoral in two men being in love or having sex. Because there isn't. The only reason you apparently do, is because you think the Bible is against it. A Bible that relies on bronze age morality where slavery is perfectly fine. Sorry, but your moral compass is busted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That cannot be sustained. Women giving birth to children then have them taken away. Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.
Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes - people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.
Surrogate parents only work on a very small scale.

What are you talking about?

 

[DNB]

No idea what your point is. You argued that homosexuals cannot father children. They can, and do.
Imagine a world where there are no heterosexuals. Gay men donate sperm for gay women to bear children. Then there are all the bisexual couples. A perfectly practicable system.

Like I said, how many women are willing to give up their children that they carried around for 9 months?

 

[DNB]

From the Oxford English Dictionary...

Gender - Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

You're welcome.

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

 

[DNB]

You seem woefully misinformed.
Personality and character affect ones behaviour.

A dog barks because it is a dog. It isn't a dog because it barks.

People's personalities change in time due to what they practice, or refrain from doing.

 

[DNB]

But as gay men can father children and gay women can bear them, it could quite easily persist.

Go tell that to the first 100 women that you meet, you'll barely get 10 to agree.

 

[ppp]

Go tell that to the first 100 women that you meet, you'll barely get 10 to agree.

Why exactly does this even matter? You seem to be wingeing for the sake of wingeing

 

[DNB]

Those are biological traits.

I understand this very well. It is you that is having a hard time "figuring the rest out."

Does a person have certain gender traits just because they have a vagina? If so, what are they? Is everyone with a vagina a "feminine" person?
Does a person have certain gender traits just because they have a penis? If so, what are they? Is everyone with a penis a "macho" person?
Do tell.

Yes, of course. Those that are not, are the exceptions, obviously.

 

[DNB]

That doesn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

Maybe you asked an unrelated question?

 

[KWED]

Like I said, how many women are willing to give up their children that they carried around for 9 months?

Why would they have to give them up? Plenty of lesbian couples have children.
Also, there are hundreds of surrogate births in the UK every year, and the number is increasing rapidly.
So your claim that the human race could not survive without heterosexual couples is demonstrably wrong. Just let it go.

 

[KWED]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

If that is the best response you can produce to a dictionary definition that completely refutes your argument, you know you have nowhere left to go.

 

[KWED]

People's personalities change in time due to what they practice,

What people do is determined by their personality and character. A person who is gay doesn't become more gay by being gay. That's just nonsensical.

or refrain from doing.

I agree that if people fight against their innate character it can cause problems.
Imagine if people told you that being straight was "depraved and demented" (your words) and you had to be gay, and you forced yourself to have gay sex, despite finding it "abhorrent" (your word). How do you think that would make you feel?

 

[KWED]

Go tell that to the first 100 women that you meet, you'll barely get 10 to agree.

Unless they were biologically illiterate, they would all agree with me. Because it is a biological fact.
Your disapproval of human biology doesn't change it.

 

[Sheldon]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

HE was quoting the dictionary definition of the word. So claiming a word means what it does not is what's "off it's rocker."

gender
noun

1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.