gazit@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (03/31/89)
In article <78146WGN@PSUVM> WGN@PSUVM.BITNET (James Whitehead) writes: >This abominable lifestyle would never be selected by nature. Nature has some strange ways. Mice and rabbits multiply their number *fast*. Elephants and polar bears, and other animals with no natural enemy, multiply but in a slow rate. What's the point? Why there is no evolution advantages to elephants who multiply fast? Basic biology books explain that if there would be too many elephants there will not be enough food, and in the *long* run (which is the important one in evolution terms) they will run out of food and die. Nature gave them some mechanism to prevent them from doing it. What about human beings? We multiply fast (but not as fast as mice), and we destroy the ecological balance on this planet. Do we have any mechanism that can cause us to slow it? I claim that homosexuality *may* be such a mechanism. Homosexuality was popular in ancient Greek. A relatively high culture in an area with limited resources. That culture was quite successful. >Also, in the definition of life is the >ability to reproduce, and an argument could be made that homosexuals >aren't even alive since if they continue this gross lifestyle they won't >ever reproduce. One could then make a similiar comparison between >killing a homosexual and kicking a stone. What about 50 years old childless women? What about straights who decide not to have children and take some active steps (sterilization for example)? Why people who don't to help in the destruction of the world drive you so mad? >My Disclaimer: I do not discriminate against others on the basis of >race, or color. I do discriminate against others on the basis of >personality and sexual preference because i believe the person has >made a choice to live that way. And I believe that you (Jame Whitehead) made a choice to be an asshole. >'And when my girlie shakes her head, | James Whitehead Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "What is life? Life is the Nation. The individual must die anyway. Beyond the life of the individual is the Nation. But how can anyone be afraid of this moment of death, with which he can free himself from this misery, if his duty doesn't chain him to this Vale of Tears. Na!" -- Adolf Hitler
hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com (Newstrom Harvey S 96783) (03/31/89)
In article <78146WGN@PSUVM> WGN@PSUVM.BITNET (James Whitehead) writes: >This abominable lifestyle would never be selected by nature. Wrong! This lifestyle *has* been selected by nature. Not only in human beings, but in all of the higher life-forms on earth, including dolphins, monkeys, pigs, mice, rabbits, horses, deer, etc. >Also, in the definition of life is the >ability to reproduce, and an argument could be made that homosexuals >aren't even alive since if they continue this gross lifestyle they won't >ever reproduce. One could then make a similiar comparison between >killing a homosexual and kicking a stone. Then we should perform fertility tests on everybody and kill those who don't measure up. They are not really alive, but are parasiting off of the rest of the living. Old people past their prime to reproduce should be destroyed as well. Priests should also be outlawed for choosing a perverse sexual lifestyle that fails to reproduce children. I hope for your wife's sake that she can bear you children. If she should be found to be barren I assume you will kill her (because she is not alive) and remarry immediately. You couldn't choose to stay in a non-producing relationship, or you too would be "dead". >My Disclaimer: I do not discriminate against others on the basis of >race, or color. I do discriminate against others on the basis of >personality and sexual preference because i believe the person has >made a choice to live that way. You left out part of your reasoning. If you discriminate against everybody who made a choice of sexual preference, than you discriminate against everybody. I assume you only discriminate against those who made a choice different than what you chose. (Of course everybody must choose. It would be silly to claim that heterosexuals were born that way and homosexuals chose, because then you would be arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are born into separate categories.) Why discriminate against people who choose differently? Do you discriminate against coke/pepsi drinkers? What's the criterion for which choice is right? If you point out a group of people who decide which orientation is correct, could you turn gay if they suddenly say "gay is better"? Or are you going to do what you personally believe and feel, ignoring what other people might think? _____ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom)
kanov@bimacs.BITNET (Mechael Kanovsky) (04/04/89)
In article <14042@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <78146WGN@PSUVM> WGN@PSUVM.BITNET (James Whitehead) writes: > >>This abominable lifestyle would never be selected by nature. > >What about human beings? We multiply fast (but not as fast as mice), and we >destroy the ecological balance on this planet. Do we have any mechanism that >can cause us to slow it? I claim that homosexuality *may* be such a mechanism. > A much more efective way of balancing the number of humans on this planet is simply war. There was something I read about mice becoming homosexuals when they were put under stressful conditions. -- Mechael Kanovsky : BITNET kanov@bimacs.bitnet Math & CS Dept. : UUCP uunet!mcvax!humus!bimacs!kanov Bar-Ilan University : ARPA kanov%bimacs.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu Ramat-Gan Israel : CSNET kanov%bimacs.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@csnet-relay ! It is good to know the law ! ! but it is better to know the judge !
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (04/06/89)
In article <832@bimacs.BITNET> kanov@bimacs.UUCP (Mechael Kanovsky) writes: > >In article <14042@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >>In article <78146WGN@PSUVM> WGN@PSUVM.BITNET (James Whitehead) writes: >> >>>This abominable lifestyle would never be selected by nature. >> >>What about human beings? We multiply fast (but not as fast as mice), and we >>destroy the ecological balance on this planet. Do we have any mechanism that >>can cause us to slow it? I claim that homosexuality *may* be such a mechanism. >> > A much more efective way of balancing the number of humans on this >planet is simply war. That's how Easter Island became depopulated after the last tree on the island was felled. The island, you know, used to be filled with trees. Today none. There were religious upheavals, destruction of ancient artefacts (the toppled statues), clans slaughtering clans, inbreeding among the "royal" clan (racism) ... By the time the slave traders got there, there wasn't much more than a fraction or so of the population a couple hundred years before that time. And you got to understand, the only way for the people to get out was by wood-built ship (ergo they were stuck there). So it will be on a global scale unless all the major cultures and political institutions undergo major (revolutionary ?) change to accomodate the changed circumstances. Aliens will come here and look at our toppled skyscrapers and corroded automobiles and write their own Chariots Of The Gods to explain how we could operate a car when there's clearly no oil (left) on the planet.