Thread: Does religion benefit society as a whole?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Also, just not wanting kids. I don't want any. I have no qualms with scheduling a vasectomy. Reproduction =/= moral righteousness. Also, infertile creatures are born in the plant and animal kingdoms all the time.

And for your population argument, homosexuals make up such a small percentage of the population that they don't have any noticeable impact on a large scale...yet. But you said it yourself. If they aren't reproducing and having families, then it naturally follows that they aren't contributing to overpopulation. Catholics and the devout with 17+ kids have that job wrapped up all on their own.

Also, I think you don't quite understand how data and sourcing works. you don't always need a source to back up common sense...or when a claim goes against your beliefs. The burden of proof actually rests on the person making the claim of improbability...which would be you. You implied the claims that homosexuality is a choice and that everyone who is straight wants children as long as they have the means and lack severe personal trauma. The burden of proof is on you, and I refuted the latter with my personal lack of desire for children. I'm financially secure, mentally sound, and perfectly happy. I simply do not want children. Is that so strange?

Strange? Why would it be strange? I just stated reasons that aren't by choice in which straight people can't have children. So you want me to state sources of a claim made my "SomeDreamer" about animals being homosexuals? I understand that not everything needs a source but I also understand that if you throw something out as if its a fact then you need to provide the source.You do this to have some sort of credibility. You can agree with me to this right? What's with stereotyping Catholics? So your saying people with religious beliefs are responsible (I use this loosely) for the overpopulation in a larger scale. Or am I mistaken.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Strange? Why would it be strange? I just stated reasons that aren't by choice in which straight people can't have children. So you want me to state sources of a claim made my "SomeDreamer" about animals being homosexuals? I understand that not everything needs a source but I also understand that if you throw something out as if its a fact then you need to provide the source.You do this to have some sort of credibility. You can agree with me to this right? What's with stereotyping Catholics? So your saying people with religious beliefs are responsible (I use this loosely) for the overpopulation in a larger scale. Or am I mistaken.

First off, the burden of proof regarding homosexuality does rest with Somedreamer. Never said it didn't. For that, I offer this. And I quote:

The reason Bonobos are perceived to be a matriarchal species is that females tend to collectively dominate males and commonly engage in casual sexual activity, as well as significant homosexual contact.

And of course, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far from being restricted to bonobo chimps.

Second, this forum is for discussion, not for writing research essays. Every little thing doesn't need a source. If you're dubious, you have all the powers of google at your own fingertips. If you can present a compelling counterpoint challenging our statements, we can start dragging sources into this.

Third, my point was for many homosexual couples, there are couples that have way more children to make up for any difference gay people make. I've just never met or heard of an atheist couple giving birth to 17 or more children on purpose. There tends to be a spiritual belief (or severe psychological problem, e.g. Octomom) behind that kind of madness. In the end, it's a large collective effort on behalf of most of the world's population that's driving us to overpopulation.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Strange? Why would it be strange? I just stated reasons that aren't by choice in which straight people can't have children. So you want me to state sources of a claim made my "SomeDreamer" about animals being homosexuals? I understand that not everything needs a source but I also understand that if you throw something out as if its a fact then you need to provide the source.You do this to have some sort of credibility. You can agree with me to this right? What's with stereotyping Catholics? So your saying people with religious beliefs are responsible (I use this loosely) for the overpopulation in a larger scale. Or am I mistaken.

You are fully priviliged, of course, to ask for a source saying homosexuality helps the population.That idea was thrown out there, (though no one did so assuming this was fact.) But asking for a source about homosexuality doesn't do anything to address the more important question which is, "If homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals don't reproduce, is it wrong to nor have kids in general?"

Originally Posted by Mario92

First off, the burden of proof regarding homosexuality does rest with Somedreamer. Never said it didn't. For that, I offer this. And I quote:

And of course, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far from being restricted to bonobo chimps.

Second, this forum is for discussion, not for writing research essays. Every little thing doesn't need a source. If you're dubious, you have all the powers of google at your own fingertips. If you can present a compelling counterpoint challenging our statements, we can start dragging sources into this.

Third, my point was for many homosexual couples, there are couples that have way more children to make up for any difference gay people make. I've just never met or heard of an atheist couple giving birth to 17 or more children on purpose. There tends to be a spiritual belief (or severe psychological problem, e.g. Octomom) behind that kind of madness. In the end, it's a large collective effort on behalf of most of the world's population that's driving us to overpopulation.

Or else the couple just likes to have a large family. 10 kids sounds crazy today, but that is purely a cultural bias that makes it sound so strange. It isn't unmanagable, people have done it for generations. You can site overpopulation, but we aren't overpopulated yet. Because when we are, we will just start dying off. We aren't immune to critical mass. Rather, we have the ability to raise our carrying capacity. While we can say that we should reduce population from an intellectual stand-point, (I agree with this as much as anybody,) I don't see grounds for an argument stating that we should do it from an ethical stand-point. We won't kill off nature by overpopulating. Nature will kill off us until we are at a reasonable population.

Originally Posted by SomeDreamer

When it comes to straight people deciding not to have kids, would you seriously doubt that? At any rate, a friend of mine have relatives who decided not to have any children in exchange of more personal freedom. Besides that it's the way I plan to go to. There's even articles around the web with people trying to get into dating, but having a hard time due to life changing decisions like that. I don't understand why it sounds so unreasonable to you.



Oh yes, also mentioned that in my post... but you used the point of not being able to reproduce as a negative towards homosexuals (you know, the whole not keeping the life cycle going thing), so why threat fertility any different?

When it comes to homosexual behaviour in animals it has been studied and observed in several species, but I will admit that there's is quite a lot of debate going across the table from both sides, especially since it is so controversial when it comes to subjects like this. Other things of debate is whenever to interpret their behaviour as something identical to ours (in forms of logic).



Already answered above.

And instead of throwing source requests all over the place, I'd like you to try and answer the arguments presented instead, surely you must have some reason behind it to have formed these oppinions?

I never asked for a source to straight people choosing not to have children. I asked for a source of your claim of animals having a homosexual orientation. Which you answered partially. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. If you chose not to have children then who am I to complain. My Uncle actually doesn't have children and I don't see him having any in the near future. Before you say this refutes my reason of a Negative towards homosexuality. I will say it doesn't for the many other reasons I've said. I throw pleads for sources when one claims something to be a fact with out any real evidence back it up. Reasons? Every thing I've said I've said with reasoning and logic and this is what is being debated hence this discussion.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

You mean aside from not being able to reproduce and keep the life cycle going. Not to mention diseases which are believed to come from homosexuality (I said believed and am not saying it's a fact) but I don't have a source for this so I won't say more on it.

Ok, well if a lack of procreation in a relationship is considered unethical, then, as others have said, you would also need to condemn all straight couples who choose not/cannot have children. It's only fair. One could also make the argument that in a world where overpopulation is becoming increasingly dangerous, a couple who chooses not to have children could be considered a godsend. So maybe it's a virtue instead of a vice? I can tell you for a fact that there will never be a shortage of men who are willing to have sex with women, so any argument which says homosexuals are hurting the species by not having children is not a valid argument. Their effect on the species is literally infinitesimal.

As for the diseases, you do know that straight people spread STD's too, don't you?

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

See the post I reply to with Mario.

I saw it. It doesn't refute what I said. It is remarkable to me how unoriginal Christianity really is. Actually, it's remarkable how so few people realize it.