I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore. It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Anima Wrote: Are you saying you would like to go down the moral argument in regards to teleological purpose of biological existence?

So then, ignoring the marriage part, should infertile/sterile straight couples be allowed to have sex? After all, they can't fulfill the "teleological" purpose of sex....

Hey Anima get you own ideas and stop ripping off others, i.e. mine.
You ass, your are saying mostly the same thing I am but, you do write it better.
Call if you need some more of my ideas.

---

(June 29, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm)Ace Wrote: Nemienovic:
You didn't address what I said. What is the problem with same sex relationships? Procreation, slippery slope and religion aside.

So wait are we arguing just for fun or are you asking for serious replay?

If serious, a  same sex relationship is not the issue. I think people have an issue more with them being told  that their type of fucking is the same as someone else type of fucking, regardless of what you are fucking.

there is a quote/reply button under every post, might want to use that

I am hitting the reply but, it is not doing that thing were it shows who i am responding to. do you know what it could be that I am doing wrong? Appreciate the help !

(June 29, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore.  It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

On the contrary, vitro fertilization still requires a man and women. Simple biology, the sperm is male and the egg is female. The one gender can not create the other genders egg/sperm. In other words no women can or do make sperm and no man can or do make eggs because of the body biological make up, sperm and egg is tied to their born gender. Even with vitro the heterosexual act is done by combining the sperm and an egg.

I.E. Lesbians need sperm and Gays need an egg (that is if they are providing the opposite ingredient. If not then both need to find a donated sperm and a donated egg)

Even in the inside of a transgender their original biological make up is still in-tacked. The tran man still has all of his female organs and the trans women still has her male organs. One would actually die if any attempted to change the inside make up to the opposite sex that is not already assigned. It is impossible to do!!

(June 29, 2015 at 10:11 pm)Ace Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore.  It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

On the contrary, vitro fertilization still requires a man and women.

On the contrary, requiring a man and a woman, and requiring a man and a woman to copulate are two different things.

The point being made, is that the sperm and egg of a homosexual can still be used to make a baby. When you make the argument that society needs kids, you were making a reasonable(though not really a good one) argument against supporting homosexuality, up until 1977.

Lesbians

(June 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: As you may or may not realize our survival isn't based solely on making kids. The basis of our continued existence is cooperation.

Umm how dose that provide or keep humans from continuing to exist? Please explain?

Realistically I would say that the argument, "humanity needs offspring" stopped being a remotely acceptable notion shortly after the industrial revolution.

The world has 7 billion people and growing, resources just aren't abundant enough to support that population and we're on the verge of tipping point with Global Warming. Society doesnt need kids, it needs education and birth control yesterday.

And regardless, the 2-4% of the population who are homosexual aren't going to make such a massive dent in the situation by not having kids. Let's be real.

(June 29, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 10:11 pm)Ace Wrote: On the contrary, vitro fertilization still requires a man and women.

On the contrary, requiring a man and a woman, and requiring a man and a woman to copulate are two different things.

The point being made, is that the sperm and egg of a homosexual can still be used to make a baby.  When you make the argument that society needs kids, you were making a reasonable(though not really a good one) argument against supporting homosexuality, up until 1977.

-----------------------------------------------------
So no matter what homosexuality has to be in the equation? Good/ bad, old/young, white/black, right/wrong, thin/fat, small/tall . . . . .?

The point being made, is that the sperm and egg of a homosexual can still be used to make a baby.  

Yes by using the Lesbian (women egg) and the Gay (men sperm) i.e. a man and a women or women man

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Are you agreeing that the nonreligious argument, "humanity needs children" is irrelevant because you understand that homosexuals can also have children?

If so we can move on to the next nonreligious argument against homosexuality!