Replies

Neither can heterosexuals so I'm not sure what your point is.

Here's my point. Let's take a "Jamestown Colony" situation, i.e. people having to survive in a state of nature, or harsh conditions.

Heterosexuals can do it because they can have children to (eventually) share the workload and care for the previous generation. The heterosexual "means" of sex is what the human body is designed for, thus there aren't the horrendous diseases and health problems that homosexuals have etc. Heterosexuals are also far more emotionally mature to deal with such a situation, and would construct social and moral structures (nuclear marriage, standards of moral behavior, helping out neighbors, etc.) that would engender survival. Homosexuals, being naturally self-destructive, immature and selfish, could not bring themselves these things.

In short, if you took a group of 200 heterosexuals and put them in a state of nature, and then came back a year later to see how they were faring, some would have died but most likely could hang on. Take a group of 200 homosexuals in the same situation and you'd come back a year later to find 200 skeletons and a bunch of fat buzzards. Homosexuals are far too immature, selfish, and self-destructive to survive in a situation like that.

They can only survive in the context of a heterosexual society. Thus, we can live without them, and they can't live without us. Thus we can regulate their behavior, and because their behavior is uniformly negative and destructive to society (higher health costs, child molestation, etc.) we should.

I have never seen you rant about hetrosexual sin.

Your example lacks reality.

Homosexuals are the progeny of heterosexuals. For instance, if my daughter turns out to be a lesbian, she will be as capable as any other woman to contribute to any society, large or small.

Furthermore, homosexuals do marry and have children, especially when that’s necessary for the survival of their society. In poor societies where children are considered to be their “social security” and “medicare” wrapped into one, most homosexuals marry and procreate

Your logic is compelling. For instance, let's get rid of those silly old legal technicalities for investigations of accused paedophile priests (the rest of society can survive without men who won't boink women, but they as you have explained cannot survive without the rest of society) and just string 'em up. They have no right to a fair trial -- as you'll agree, since you believe that nobody at all has such a right.

They can only survive in the context of a heterosexual society. Thus, we can live without them, and they can't live without us. Thus we can regulate their behavior, and because their behavior is uniformly negative and destructive to society (higher health costs, child molestation, etc.) we should.

There were numerous assertions that you made that I disagree with but I've decided to address just the one that I have copied here.

Handicapped people would also fall into the group of those that could not live without "us". Presumably this means that we have the right to regulate their behavior. Is this your stance?