rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/28/84)
> The simple truth is that there are no ill consequences to society caused > by homosexuality. Historically, this was not always the case: when the > Bible was written, not to procreate was dangerous to the tribe, which needed > all the members it could get. Even until recently, simple economics dictated > that society produce as many offspring as possible. Yet this is no longer > the case; indeed, given the current exponential growth rates of consumption > of every important resource we possess, it may be convincingly argued that > homosexuality is now a better adaptive behaviour for the species than is > heterosexuality. At the very least, however, it requires no independent > justification: it is at least a neutral issue. Someone I met many years ago postulated the same thing: that 2000 years ago, the most important things necessary for a society to keep itself (and its members) together was the production of new members (through giving birth to children) to maintain strength and productivity, and the fostering of military strength of the society to prevent external conquest. Today, two of the biggest threats to the existence of humankind are quick annihilation through total war, and/or slow annihilation through overpopulation possibly leading to starvation, death, and total war. With that in mind, should our lives be governed by ideas designed to benefit societies of thousands of years ago, ideas that are actual detrimental to society today? The first sentence in the original author's paragraph (brunix!sdo - Scott Oaks) says it all. If you doubt that, substitute in all instances of your arguments the words "people who like chocolate" instead of "homosexuals". (Or "chocoholics", to keep it short.) "Chocoholics shouldn't be teaching our children, because they might influence our children to be chocoholics." "This chocoholicism must be stopped before it spreads to our community and we have chocoholics dripping chocolate on our persons and property." "I don't like watching people eat chocolate; it's disgusting and rude, and when people eat chocolate in public, I have to hide such behavior from my children lest they be influenced to do the same." Or substitute ANY behavior or type of person you dislike. If the only reason you have for wishing to stop any such behavior (or to put down any such type of person) is because you don't like it/them, that's called imposing one's views on the rest of the world. Or attempting to do so. [Don't try extending the above analogy to smokers. Smoking spews filth into the air that makes people physically sick. What consequences do such aberrant behaviors as homosexuality and chocolate eating have?] -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr