^ But it isn't going to become the dominant way of living. And a little under-population might do the world some good, the way things are going!
Kirk Cameron's Comments
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
Heh, mostly speaking in hypotheticals, but very true on both accounts!
You make it sound like gay couples can't reproduce or, in Captain Picard's words, contribute to the propagation of our species. 
That's why some gay couples adopt kids. Ever heard of artificial insemination or surrogate pregnancy? And what about bisexuals? It doesn't mean they can't have kids with the opposite sex.
I think there will always be more heterosexuals in this world than LGBT. Even if the numbers were equal or if LGBTs outnumbered the straight population, humanity would always find a way to continue procreating. Reproduction is a natural biological aspect of all living things.
That's why some gay couples adopt kids. Ever heard of artificial insemination or surrogate pregnancy? And what about bisexuals? It doesn't mean they can't have kids with the opposite sex.I think there will always be more heterosexuals in this world than LGBT. Even if the numbers were equal or if LGBTs outnumbered the straight population, humanity would always find a way to continue procreating. Reproduction is a natural biological aspect of all living things.
I bring this up all of the time, but there's a legitimate argument to be made that having non-breeding members of a population can actually be beneficial to the whole group. It's kin selection: the idea that a non-breeding member of a society can help close relatives, increasing the likelyhood of survival of those individuals and their offspring, and thereby ensuring that some of the non-breeder's DNA survives in the offspring. And there are plenty of species that we can observe this in.
sometimes I think that we as humans are programmed to hate. just look at some of the people getting upset here. This iswhy I take the "i don't care what they do approach." The bible says lots and lots of things...
I'm amused at various - celibate - churchmen announcing that gay marriage isn't proper marriage because it can't result in children. That must be nice to hear if you're in a heterosexual marriage and can't have children because of fertility problems. Or if you got married when your wife was past child-bearing age. Or if you've chosen not to have children.
If people here can still talk about a TV show that aired over 40 years ago, I see nothing wrong with discussing news that happened less than 2 weeks ago.
That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that before.
Random thought: I wonder if it would be politically correct to refer to gay people as "non-breeders" from now on.
*giggle*
It's called kin selection theory: very interesting indeed.
In your first example, there is, sadly, something medically wrong with one or both of the individuals involved. In the second, they have passed beyond the biological point of having children so, again, nature provides the 'contraception', while in the last, while there may be a choice not to have children, the biological possibility is still there. It is never there in the case of a gay couple. I fail to see how people cannot differentiate between a biological failing and a biological impossibility. The Catholic rite of marriage asks the couple to be open to the children God may send them. If, through medical problems or 'old age' (I use the term lightly), they cannot conceive, then so be it. The openness to sharing with God in the creation of life is central to marriage as understood in the Catholic faith. Homosexual intercourse can never create life. That is why, regardless of what happens civilly, the Church can never change on this. Personally, I think the point of arguing over the definition of marriage has passed since our definition of family has changed radically over the years. Civil gay marriage will be understood on it's own merits. Sacramental marriage will always be something else. My argument is not with those seeking the civil redefinition, but those, perhaps smaller in number but present all the same, seeking the sacramental one. It cannot be what it cannot be.
^ That's fair enough. You can't compel the churches to change their rules. However, there have been much less rational responses than yours to the idea of civil marriage and that's what I was getting at. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, for example.
It is a read herring, though. There is no significant push to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.
There are, however, denominations that do perform ceremonies, and good on them.