Reasoning showing that heterosexuality is evil

[Rhondazvous]

The purpose of heterosexuality is to breed. But just because you practice heterosexuality behind closed curtains without breeding doesn't mean to say that it is any less evil because breeding may still occur. And even if you are infertile then you are helping to normalise and encourage heterosexual acts amongst in other people who might well breed. Unfettered heterosexuality leads to the most ugly possible picture. A society where heterosexuality is the norm, strict gender roles that restrict personal freedom, and anyone who does not partake in heterosexuality or breeding being ostracised. This has historically been the case but thankfully we are now progressing beyond that.

Breeding means creating a new human with a capacity to suffer. From a child's perspective everything revolves around them until they suffer enough to realise that it does not. And if they don't go through this process then they grow up to be a narcissistic sociopath like Trump who cannot function properly as an adult causing more suffering to everyone else around them while unable to find happiness themselves.

By being alive it meas that your death will most probably cause grief to someone later on, especially if you die early. So breeding to satisfy your own biological instinct comes at the expense of someone else's grief. The planet is overpopulated as it is and pollution causes many deaths a year. Unless you are raised vegan and stay that way for life then living means inhumane and barbaric suffering inflicted on thousands of animals to feed you and clothe you. But even if we were all vegan it would not halt the 6th mass extinction.

There is no such thing as free-will. We must accept that we are biological automata with instincts to breed and propagate our species. Abortion can reduce net suffering and should be encouraged where possible, but it would be better to have contraception in the first place which also has the benefit of stopping sexually transmitted diseases, which also cause suffering.

Breeding is the only thing that differentiates sex between heterosecuals from sex between homosexuals. Now if you say that breeding is evil then, well, you seem to have a problem with human beings in general, since homosexuals are the by product of breeding.

[Edwardo Piet]

The purpose of heterosexuality is to breed. But just because you practice heterosexuality behind closed curtains without breeding doesn't mean to say that it is any less evil because breeding may still occur. And even if you are infertile then you are helping to normalise and encourage heterosexual acts amongst in other people who might well breed. Unfettered heterosexuality leads to the most ugly possible picture. A society where heterosexuality is the norm, strict gender roles that restrict personal freedom, and anyone who does not partake in heterosexuality or breeding being ostracised. This has historically been the case but thankfully we are now progressing beyond that.

Breeding means creating a new human with a capacity to suffer. From a child's perspective everything revolves around them until they suffer enough to realise that it does not. And if they don't go through this process then they grow up to be a narcissistic sociopath like Trump who cannot function properly as an adult causing more suffering to everyone else around them while unable to find happiness themselves.

By being alive it meas that your death will most probably cause grief to someone later on, especially if you die early. So breeding to satisfy your own biological instinct comes at the expense of someone else's grief. The planet is overpopulated as it is and pollution causes many deaths a year. Unless you are raised vegan and stay that way for life then living means inhumane and barbaric suffering inflicted on thousands of animals to feed you and clothe you. But even if we were all vegan it would not halt the 6th mass extinction.

There is no such thing as free-will. We must accept that we are biological automata with instincts to breed and propagate our species. Abortion can reduce net suffering and should be encouraged where possible, but it would be better to have contraception in the first place which also has the benefit of stopping sexually transmitted diseases, which also cause suffering.

*puts his consequentalist hat on*

There isn't a thing you have said that im disagreeing with!

---

sustain an erection 11 times a day on average.

Wow I am lucky if im erect one time in a week!

[I_am_not_mafia]

Breeding is the only thing that differentiates sex between heterosecuals from sex between homosexuals. Now if you say that breeding is evil then, well, you seem to have a problem with human beings in general, since homosexuals are the by product of breeding.

It's evolution and the compeition for energy that leads to a capacity to suffer. It can only exist by extinguishing the life of other organisms. The right wing Christians should particularly understand this as they practice the most extreme form of social Darwinism with the idea that all resources should feed up to keep the rich in utmost luxury while the poor lower their health and shorten their lives. The economically fittest, i.e. the richest, should survive over the poor who die en-masse. If we bred less then the population would diminish over time leading to more resources, less pollution, lower house prices etc. There would be fewer people to fail. Our current social economic system requires that a small fraction of the population fail because all money is debt and because of interest there is wil never be enough money in existence to pay off all the world's debt. So a smaller population means fewer people suffering.

---

Better plan would be to leave this place to the dolphins and cats.

The world would be left with rotting dolphin carcasses left on door mats of empty houses.

Sounds like modern art.

[The Grand Nudger]

I assume you're going to need prisons to house all the deviant heteros in this brave new world.  I'd like to be considered for the position of warden.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I assume you're going to need prisons to house all the deviant heteros in this brave new world.  I'd like to be considered for the position of warden.

Good idea. Make them single gender prisons and it will encourage homosexual acts for sexual relief. Especially if we play the prisoners lots of heterosexual porn, punish them for acting straight and leave them only with each other to act on their fantasies. It would be straight conversion therapy.

Prisons are correctional facilities after all.

[ignoramus]

Are sexy realistic blow up dolls exempt?
I see no reason?

[Edwardo Piet]

That reminds me I should go ahead and order myself that fleshlight.

[Rhondazvous]

1. The whole idea of sex having a purpose or any natural thing having a purpose stinks mightily of theism. The universe doesn’t have a purpose. It just is.
2. There are homosexuals that I know in real life and right here on this forum whom I love very much, so I’m not going to vindicate my heterosexuality by putting homosexuality down. Vice mother fucking versa, why try to vindicate homosexuality by putting heterosexuality down? If you’re secure in your sexuality, whatever it may be, you won’t have to do that.

[The Grand Nudger]

To say that the purpose of a sex organ (or sex) is reproduction is simply an acknowledgement of one of it's biological functions.  Sex, and by extension sex organs also serve the biological function of relieving stress. This is not a complete list.

Theistic teleology is normative teleology, and an acknowledgement of biological function, or the purpose of the function, is not an acknowledgement in any meaningful sense of a normative teleology. Whether or not we can meaningfully comment upon a natural, non normative teleology..itself, relies on some shaky shit...and isn;t demonstrated in any way by reference to function, or purpose of function. These things are artifacts of language, as many subtle and counterintuitive things are.

[Edwardo Piet]

1. The whole idea of sex having a purpose or any natural thing having a purpose stinks mightily of theism.  The universe doesn’t have a purpose. It just is.
2. There are homosexuals that I know in real life and right here on this forum whom I love very much, so I’m not going to vindicate my heterosexuality by putting homosexuality down. Vice mother fucking versa, why try to vindicate homosexuality by putting heterosexuality down? If you’re secure in your sexuality, whatever it may be, you won’t have to do that.

. . . it's a parody thread.

Although I do actually agree with the arguments from my consequentialist perspective

But then again... my own personal tastes and urges are in direct conflict with my moral views anyways. I'm an anti-natalist but if I ever fell in love with a woman and we both wanted kids, I'd go for it anyway... because I'm selfish.

Likewise... even though my fertile self having sex with a fertile woman even with full protection still produces a chance of a baby and she may choose to not have an abortion . . . . and morally speaking I do think more people=worse for this planet . . . my desire and urge to get laid for purely selfish reasons is a lot stronger than my moral drive. This is why on CL's thread about asking if I was a moral person I did end up calling myself a good person because on balance I am. And I'm kind of a normal person. I'm certainly not a bad person. But amoral is really a better answer because I don't even follow my own moral values a lot of the time. But I'd say I'm a good person by most people's standards because my selfishness is purely normal and healthy. And I do avoid obvious moral evil which is all I think that is required.