Hmm, the community seems to be far more civil than I had first anticipated. Come on people, I have a bet to win! Flame! Flame like you've never flamed before! :P
If flames is what you're looking for @Malicron, you can get some fun reading this thread below:
Gay Romance, the title already says a lot of how infernal the flames were there ! It's one of the most flameful threads of this forum!
Another that wasn't so much full of flames is Add Drow (dark elf) race we were respectful but the discussion got itself heat fast enough. I got a lot of disagrees in this thread , and was one of the first times that the disagree button was questioned (maybe removed based on the bad use made in this very thread).
Look folks, I never said I hate gays (even though I have to admit I dislike the attitude of some gay people, such as them constantly portraying themselves as 'special' because of their sexuality, or themselves being overly arrogant and creating a whole 'horde-mentality' of 'being against my view makes you a homophobe'). I just said I think homosexualism isn't natural. That's all. Do I condemn gay people? Absolutely not. Every person has the right to be/become happy in life. What I hate is how the media and politics, and gays themselves, usually love to shove their sexuality down my throat. How they act like a bunch of overly sex-crazed monkeys during their gay parades (I've seen enough pictures, disgusting, to say the least). How the media eagerly portrays and follows them out of pure focus on money. How even politics use the gay argument in their favour to gather even more votes. It makes discussion between pro and con nearly impossible without the con party automatically being slandered and humiliated. Trust me, if you dare say that homosexualism is unnatural in certain jobs, you might end up getting into a court case and lose your job, leaving a mark in your personal history following you till the end of your days. You will always end up as a 'homophobe'. What amazes me most, is that this term is being used out of context so often. Homophobia means a fear of gay people. But not necessarily every person 'against' homosexualism, is afraid of homosexualism. It might be that they just have a different opinion. So please use the word in its correct context. Epecially the gay people who use it to brand others and thus tell them in fact to shut up, as they're not willing to go into a civil discussion. All of this is what makes me dislike the current fuss around the whole gay rights movement. I also am generally against the idea of gay people adopting children. I think a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up. I'm not talking about traditional father-mother roles here, but rather about a balance between the two genders. For example, will a male gay couple be able to explain menstruation to their adopted daughter? Will both parties be comfortable enough to talk about sex and protection during sex? There just are some things a child rather prefers to tell their mother or their father. Will a gay couple be able to be fully open and honest with their children about any subject? Just some things to wonder about, I think.
@kamuizin I don't want flames, per say, I just want posts! A flame war just strikes me as the fastest way to rack the posts up. I really don't want to loose my bet, as it only now occurs to me that @elminster and I never said what, precisely, we were betting. Gods only know what he'll want from me if I loose... 0_0
For example, will a male gay couple be able to explain menstruation to their adopted daughter? Will both parties be comfortable enough to talk about sex and protection during sex? There just are some things a child rather prefers to tell their mother or their father. Will a gay couple be able to be fully open and honest with their children about any subject? Just some things to wonder about, I think.
I think you just described the fears most expecting parents experience, regardless of their gender. Some people will handle it well, others won't. However, I would say that someone lacking empathy as a parent is not a symptom of gender imbalance but rather a symptom of bad parenting. If two men have difficulty raising a daughter... well, first I'd say that almost anyone has at least some difficulty raising a child of any gender, but beyond that I would say that those difficulties come from the same place as any parents having trouble dealing with what their child is going through.
This thread's dancing on the line, which is better than I expected considering where it started. I just want to continue reminding everyone that trolling and flaming are explicitly against site rules. I won't have people intentionally stirring up trouble here for the sake of entertainment, especially surrounding an issue about which people already feel very strongly.
@Dee: I guess you're right. Yet I still feel that parents of both genders would give more balance for the growth of a child. Anyway, I am urprised you didn't close this topic already after having read the OP's rather...rigid...post.
@Dee: I guess you're right. Yet I still feel that parents of both genders would give more balance for the growth of a child. Anyway, I am urprised you didn't close this topic already after having read the OP's rather...rigid...post.
Two good parents are better than one good parent, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. The whole "Kids need a male and a female parent in order to turn out right" is bunk ideology leftover from patriarchal religious traditions. The considerable body of research on parenting shows that gender doesn't seem to make a difference in quality of parenting. While there sometimes are broad differences between the way men and women parent their children, and there is more diversity WITHIN the genders than between them. So, there are good/bad mothers and good/bad fathers. Whether or not those two parents are of the same or opposite gender doesn't seem to matter.
I don't think I've read anything from you yet that explains the reasoning behind your views on homosexuality, aside from anecdotal accounts. Why do you think that having one male and one female parent is better than having two good male or female parents? Lots of empirical, scientific research has been done on this subject, the findings of which do not support your perspective. Or does it just feel wrong to you? If so, why?
Everyone here know that i have my reservations about abuse of freedom from minorities, but about adoption and homosexual fathers and mothers i have to state (not only say) a truth:
"Every adopted son/daughter of an homosexual couple comes from a previous problematic heterosexual couple".
I can argue about many points, but some truths need to be spoken aloud to avoid rhetorical fallacies.
@kamuizin: I disagree on that. What if the child comes from a (young) mother who got raped and got pregnant, not yet being mentally ready to take care of the child? The child would only have grown up miserably, the mother would have seen her future shatter to pieces. Not all people who put their child up for adoption are necessarily 'bad' people. Stop generalizing. @Mortianna: Coming from a traditional household myself, yes, it feels wrong to me. Maybe because I never knew anything different? How could you accuse me of not having had homosexual parents, or not being homosexual myself? I indeed can't fully imagine what these people go through, and I wish them happiness, but that still doesn't mean I have to accept homosexualism as something 'natural'. It still feels odd to me, because everything in nature points to the opposite. Man and woman naturally belong together. Somehow it is hard to see two people of the same gender together. But it indeed shows how deep and without boundaries love can be. Yet, whenever I see a guy acting with the mannerisms of a woman...it makes me feel odd for some reason. I can't really help it.
Btw, I wonder if gay people who want to adopt a child have ever thought about any possible consequences for their child... Personal issues concerning its own gender and finding its own identity, clashing with seeing heterosexual parents all around them (parents from their friends, 'normal' parents), and eventual, nay, almost certain bullying at school? Such things can leave deep psychological scars on children, you know.
Look folks, I never said I hate gays (even though I have to admit I dislike the attitude of some gay people, such as them constantly portraying themselves as 'special' because of their sexuality, or themselves being overly arrogant and creating a whole 'horde-mentality' of 'being against my view makes you a homophobe'). I just said I think homosexualism isn't natural. That's all. Do I condemn gay people? Absolutely not. Every person has the right to be/become happy in life. What I hate is how the media and politics, and gays themselves, usually love to shove their sexuality down my throat. How they act like a bunch of overly sex-crazed monkeys during their gay parades (I've seen enough pictures, disgusting, to say the least). How the media eagerly portrays and follows them out of pure focus on money. How even politics use the gay argument in their favour to gather even more votes. It makes discussion between pro and con nearly impossible without the con party automatically being slandered and humiliated. Trust me, if you dare say that homosexualism is unnatural in certain jobs, you might end up getting into a court case and lose your job, leaving a mark in your personal history following you till the end of your days. You will always end up as a 'homophobe'. What amazes me most, is that this term is being used out of context so often. Homophobia means a fear of gay people. But not necessarily every person 'against' homosexualism, is afraid of homosexualism. It might be that they just have a different opinion. So please use the word in its correct context. Epecially the gay people who use it to brand others and thus tell them in fact to shut up, as they're not willing to go into a civil discussion. All of this is what makes me dislike the current fuss around the whole gay rights movement. I also am generally against the idea of gay people adopting children. I think a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up. I'm not talking about traditional father-mother roles here, but rather about a balance between the two genders. For example, will a male gay couple be able to explain menstruation to their adopted daughter? Will both parties be comfortable enough to talk about sex and protection during sex? There just are some things a child rather prefers to tell their mother or their father. Will a gay couple be able to be fully open and honest with their children about any subject? Just some things to wonder about, I think.
You keep stating that homosexuality "isn't natural" with no evidence to back it up. You can say it as much as you'd like, but without evidence to back it up these are just empty words. Compelling points have been made against this statement of yours, namely: suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural simply because it does not lead to procreation is equivalent to saying that any sex between a man and woman without the explicit purpose of leading to procreation is unnatural; all sex for pleasure is unnatural in your view. Additionally, things such as eating good-tasting food for pleasure, instead of eating purely for survival, would be equally unnatural under this idea of yours. You should find the idea of eating a sweet dessert, an act done purely for pleasure and not survival, as unnatural as the idea of two men enjoying each other sexually.
You also keep talking about how offensive and in-your-face the behavior of gays is, you can't seem to stop judging every homosexual person based on the actions of a few of them such as pride parades and things such as a gay man wearing a gimp suit in public. It's funny that you find these as reasons to specifically detest gays, disregarding the behavior of samples of heterosexuals. For all the straight women showing their breasts for beads or t-shirts at mardi gras or on some stupid "girls gone wild" type of production, for all the straight men and women who have never met before grinding on each other, essentially dry humping, in night clubs all around the world and then engaging in just-for-pleasure one night experiences, for all the offensively revealing clothing that straight women wear and the crude sexual slogans on the shirts of straight men and women around the world, for these people you seem to reserve no judgment or negativity and you certainly don't seem to feel a need to apply their behavior to your feeling about all members of their sexuality. Straight people seem to get a pass from being generalized and judged on the same standards by which you are generalizing and judging homosexuals; and heterosexuals don't even have the excuse of a rational reason for being proud of being able to be open about their sexuality, which for homosexuals is obviously centuries of oppression by religious and other powerful organizations. Why do you think this double standard exists in your mind?
Lastly, your comments on parenting. All of these questions are borne of your preconceived dislike of homosexuals, you don't seem to be suggesting that single fathers have their children taken away from them. How will they teach their daughters about menstruation? Well, they'll do what they have to. Not every well-adjusted person comes from the perfect nuclear family, and plenty of not-well-adjusted people did come from such backgrounds. It does not necessarily take a man and a woman to raise a child, and two loving male or two loving female parents is most likely much better than being raised in public care.
Just my two cents, hopefully I didn't come off as offensive or aggressive, just arguing in the spirit of open discourse.
I hesitate to jump in actively, because my perspective on this is admittedly more academic than I'm comfortable with considering that we're talking about actual human beings and not lab rats, but it may offer some insight for anyone who has difficulty accepting alternate sexuality as "natural". So I'm hoping that all of my friends reading this know that this is in the interest of science, and not an attempt to objectify anyone's identity or freedom of choice:
My own theory as to the scientific reason for phenomena such as non-reproductive sexual behavior is that it has to do with population control within an ecosystem. As an ecosystem grows in population density, the need for procreation is lessened, and so the species puts less of its resources and efforts toward growing the population of that species. Frogs do this in reverse--when there are too few of them in an ecosystem, they can change their gender in order to "fill the ranks", so to speak.
Humans don't have the same biological talents, but being social creatures we do still seek companionship with other humans. But the need for procreation is less than it was, say, during the Stone Age, and so some humans look for relationships outside of the need to create more humans. So in that sense, homosexuality isn't just normal (and natural, for a species that is more than 7 billion strong), it's necessary in order to maintain an ecosystem that can survive with the resources available.
To wit: if we ever reached a point as a species where there were too few of us to keep the species going, you can probably bet safely that you'd find fewer of us refusing to follow the biological imperative, but until then, cutting down on the number of people adding more bodies to the ecosystem is probably a good thing.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that sodomy is part of the "natural" order of things (in the sense that your mouth is for eating, your rear is for getting rid of the stuff that you ate, and neither of them is anatomically developed to be a vessel for reproductive organs), but to be honest that has very little to do with sexual identity, and more to do with how that identity is expressed in the context of a sexual relationship.
Btw, I wonder if gay people who want to adopt a child have ever thought about any possible consequences for their child... Personal issues concerning its own gender and finding its own identity, clashing with seeing heterosexual parents all around them (parents from their friends, 'normal' parents), and eventual, nay, almost certain bullying at school? Such things can leave deep psychological scars on children, you know.
This is a completely victim-blaming and prejudice-perpetuating notion. Well, allow me to make a similar argument about another prejudice toward a group of people, racism. So, in this thought experiment, we are living in a racist society where let's say that people from South America are oppressed and disliked by a large majority of the "normal" people. Well, obviously before adopting children these thoughtless South Americans should consider the fact that they are responsible for these adopted children being bullied and persecuted on the basis of being the children of South Americans... do you see how ridiculous this is?
It's clearly the fault of the bullies and their parents and other adults in their life that perpetuate the bigotry, not the fault of those being oppressed and victimized.
@kamuizin: I disagree on that. What if the child comes from a (young) mother who got raped and got pregnant, not yet being mentally ready to take care of the child? The child would only have grown up miserably, the mother would have seen her future shatter to pieces. Not all people who put their child up for adoption are necessarily 'bad' people. Stop generalizing....
Still my statement is true, a rapist father from my account is a very bad heterosexual father.
Anyway that's not the point, i'm not raising this argument to state that the biologic parents are good or bad, that they're responsible or not, that's in fact doesn't matter. A very poor heterosexual couple that give away their children cos they can't raise them can be a couple of very good and nice persons that in fact are giving away their children for a better life, still they're not able to raise their own children properly, thus from an objective point of view (the same used to deny homosexual couples the right to raise an adopted children), those good, fair, nice... but poor parents, are problematic parents for their childrens given in adoption.
@Dee, other animals, even in danger of extintion also develop gay behavior. No, this doesn't make the behavior natural, in fact there are studies about epigenetic that have been well received among cinetific community. I'm no doctor so i would let another member with more knowledge on the subject to touch this better. A link for an article is below.
@jaysl659: Yeah, but it is through these displays of the homosexual community, which are widely shown to us through the media, that homosexuals present themselves. And keep on stigmatizing themselves. Why are gay parades even needed? Again, what is there to be proud about? Any minority has been oppressed at some time through history. Is that still a reason to hump another person of the same gender in public, in the face of small children? No, to me, that is a lack of decency. The media are powerful, but also dangerous tools. It are them who portray homosexualism in a certain way, and sometimes that results in the eye glass effect: some things get focused on and zoomed out, so that certain aspects of those gay parades are being focused on, shaping a wrong image. I am all too well aware of this, yet it are these images that appear in newspapers, on TV and on the internet. And when I see a naked homosexual couple taking each other from behind during a parade, can I help it that I feel some sort of shame? That I feel embarrassed and turned away? These feelings also apply for heterosexuals, by the way. I disgust the things you mentioned. I think people should have at least some moral standards and decency. I know that in night clubs there aren't just the gays dry humping each other. Yet, I'm talking about the way it is done. When it comes to the homosexuals, there is a whole hidden political and social layer hidden under their actions, what with their current attention being given from the media. It is hard to explain. Let me just tell you that they can have their freedom all they want, that still doesn't change the fact that I will feel comfortable when I see two men kiss each other. And it is my right to feel that way. Or not? Do I still have to be brainwashed by the media until thinking otherwise? Can I not have a personal opinion anymore? As I said: I do not hate gay people. But whatever the arguments may be, I will not accept their behaviour as natural. Still I wish them happiness. But the whole fuss around them is just too much for me. They themselves often don't see how politics and the media use them for underlying agendas and motives of their own. And that is the problem with political correctness. It prevents people from thinking critically, having an opinion of their own. Maybe these are empty words to you, well, then so be it. I'm getting fed up. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we, and continue this discussion in peace. Or maybe it is indeed time to close the topic, as I am tired of having to 'defend' myself times upon times again. Discussions like these are useless. I learned that years ago. Live and let live.
If minority don't fight for their rights, this is what happens, in some countries is a crime to be homosexual, 20 years ago more or less, in south africa be black meant that you're sub-human (the infamous apartheid).
In fact atm my country is living an bizzare inverse of this fact, the minority in power (corrupt politics) are using the military police to terrorize people in civic manifests (i'm from Brazil, specific Rio de Janeiro). I can give many statements, pictures and videos here of human right abuses being commited by governors of many states on Brazil regarding the use of police repression among other abuses.
Fight for rights is important Kitteh, don't diminish it. If no one had fought for freedom, know that maybe you could have been born as an slave today. Even if you say that you're white, how much time would be needed to extend slavery from black people to poor people that doesn't pay debts and therefore on?
By another hand, radicalism can lead to abuse of prerrogatives, and instead of fight to achieve isonomy, people can start to incentive promiscuity:
Warning - the following spoiler contain nude scenes, don't open it unless you're aged enough by the law of your country to have access to this kind of content.
Link removed. This site is PG-13, which means no nudity (even with a warning). ~Dee
Obs: This is light in fact, i live in Rio de Janeiro and i can say first hand that things tend to go a lot more heat than "only" this.
Just to state i support ppl rights in choose what they gonna do with their lifes (as long that doesn't invade a neighbor own freedom) and freedom to hate, for me at least, is stupid and fallacious (freedom to hate is freedom to constrain another in his/her freedom, therefore isn't freedom but tiranny). In my personal point of view, the existence of a gay parade is useless , not only for promiscuity reasons or because i don't agree, but mainly cos it's a lost of focus from an existent fight. We have a lot of homosexual clubs in Rio de Janeiro to need an open event made in one of the main avenues of the city, if party is the point why rub it in the face of everyone that put his/her hand out of the window when the parade pass.
It shouldn't be a Gay Parade, but a Gay Manifest, a fight for rights and isonomy, it probally started as this, but today it's just a party. You don't see a gay parade fighting for rights anymore, it's just a party for the sake of the party.
Ppl should fight for their rights and freedom, show me the fair fight and i will support it, but i will not praise every "gays are nice", "fuck anyone that doesn't like gay ppl" (as the OP suggest), cos it just make ppl happy in give the heat back instead of fight for rights.
@kamuizin: Why do you bring up hate? I never said anything about hate. And 'racism' is used as more of an excuse nowadays to win and lose court cases just as well. But it seems not to matter how many times I say I think gay people also deserve happiness. There will always some people with lingering bias towards me. Happens every time. The subject's too sensitive to discuss for some, it seems, even on these forums.
My post isn't an attack if that's what you meant, i just put my mind here as you did many times, about the stuff i bring, i named you and that could make my statements appear to be directed to your person, sorry for that, i took a time in this last post so when i finshed it i didn't remember how i worked it's begin.
Why are gay parades even needed?
Asked by you previous. and i just agreed on it!!
Any minority has been oppressed at some time through history. Is that still a reason to hump another person of the same gender in public, in the face of small children? No, to me, that is a lack of decency.
Then i worked both sides of the coin! By my thoughts many minorities manifests lost focus with time and just become something else, a party, an place to meet people, and lost the sense of fight for rights. If i made a bad expression, again, my bad... real sorry, cos maybe i'm more open mind than you in some subjects but still we have many points of agreement (specially in the natural/unatural issue but not in normal/non-normal issue)
@kamuizin: Why do you bring up hate? I never said anything about hate. And 'racism' is used as more of an excuse nowadays to win and lose court cases just as well. But it seems not to matter how many times I say I think gay people also deserve happiness. There will always some people with lingering bias towards me. Happens every time. The subject's too sensitive to discuss for some, it seems, even on these forums.
I know that this was not directed at me, but I think you've made it clear that you do not hate homosexuals, from my point of view anyway; also, I hope you don't think that I have any bias toward you; again, I'm just trying to have a civil discussion. As for the subject being too sensitive for some, I'm not sure who you are referring to, as nobody but you has requested that the thread be closed...
@jaysl659: Yeah, but it is through these displays of the homosexual community, which are widely shown to us through the media, that homosexuals present themselves. And keep on stigmatizing themselves. Why are gay parades even needed? Again, what is there to be proud about?
I believe I addressed this when I mentioned that the reason they have to celebrate is their progression away from being oppressed by powerful institutions. On the other hand, I honestly don't see a need for parades, and if they're doing illegal things at these parades they should certainly be prosecuted for it, but outside of illegal activity they don't bother me.
Any minority has been oppressed at some time through history. Is that still a reason to hump another person of the same gender in public, in the face of small children? No, to me, that is a lack of decency.
I agree that sexually explicit displays should not occur in view of the general public, but as I mentioned my points about identical occurrences in the heterosexual community, this has nothing to do with homosexual people specifically. It is the people that choose to do an act that are responsible for that act, not all members of a group with whom they share some trait.
.... And when I see a naked homosexual couple taking each other from behind during a parade, can I help it that I feel some sort of shame? That I feel embarrassed and turned away? These feelings also apply for heterosexuals, by the way. I disgust the things you mentioned. I think people should have at least some moral standards and decency. I know that in night clubs there aren't just the gays dry humping each other.
Am I to take it that this happened, or are you just creating a hypothetical example (I'm just not sure why you would have attended a gay pride parade given your opinion on the issue)? But to the point, no there is nothing wrong with you being put off or disgusted by seeing two people engaging in sexual acts in public just as you should be seeing a man and a woman engage in sexual acts on the street during some festival. Again, this doesn't apply only to homosexual people. Furthermore, I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the number of such occurrences (men actually having sex with one another during gay pride parades), but I would be legitimately interested in seeing those statistics.
Yet, I'm talking about the way it is done. When it comes to the homosexuals, there is a whole hidden political and social layer hidden under their actions, what with their current attention being given from the media. It is hard to explain.
You being convinced that homosexuals are out to perpetuate some sinister agenda isn't really relevant, it could just as easily just be the fact that you are disturbed by homosexuality and not by heterosexuality, so you associate one with normality and the other with the unnatural or immoral, if I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Let me just tell you that they can have their freedom all they want, that still doesn't change the fact that I will feel comfortable when I see two men kiss each other. And it is my right to feel that way. Or not? Do I still have to be brainwashed by the media until thinking otherwise? Can I not have a personal opinion anymore?
Of course you have a right to feel uncomfortable when you see two men kiss, just as any person has a right to feel uncomfortable when they see a racially mixed couple kiss (I am not accusing you of this, but to my mind there is no difference, people were just as adamantly against the relations of a black person with a white person at one point in time as you and others are now against the relations of a man with another man). There is no thoughtcrime, you can think what you want, but your distaste for something doesn't give you a right to diminish the rights of others. My decision that I don't like straight people wouldn't give me a right to take away their rights to marriage and raising children. While I understand that you are not promoting taking away their rights, I just wanted to make my point clear that while you are perfectly allowed your opinions and thoughts, they don't warrant the ability to diminish the rights of others; and no, you don't "have to be brainwashed by the media" to any end, though in my view your opinions are rooted in having been brainwashed by plenty of cultural influences, as there is no objective logical reason that I can think of to be so disgusted by homosexuality. I will gladly admit that seeing two men kiss or engage in other sexual acts in a movie or tv show or elsewhere produces in me an involuntary reaction of distaste. However, it is obvious that this reaction is caused by the crafting of my psychological makeup by cultural influences throughout my life, and being able to intellectually understand this is important in overcoming the secondary psychological effects that it can lead to.
As I said: I do not hate gay people. But whatever the arguments may be, I will not accept their behaviour as natural.
Again you repeat that their behavior is unnatural, disregarding the arguments to the contrary and reasserting your faith in your baseless opinion. Such methods of belief are the opposite of critical thought. I could say that the number six is the number nine, but my assertion of it and belief in it doesn't make it true. You have given no reason why you or anyone else should believe that their behavior is unnatural, simply that you do believe it.
Still I wish them happiness. But the whole fuss around them is just too much for me. They themselves often don't see how politics and the media use them for underlying agendas and motives of their own. And that is the problem with political correctness. It prevents people from thinking critically, having an opinion of their own. Maybe these are empty words to you, well, then so be it. I'm getting fed up. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we, and continue this discussion in peace. Or maybe it is indeed time to close the topic, as I am tired of having to 'defend' myself times upon times again. Discussions like these are useless. I learned that years ago. Live and let live.
Your words are not empty to me, argument is a healthy part of the progression of ideas and I do not argue with someone without taking their opinions seriously and weighing their arguments thoughtfully. I don't have any interest in following political correctness, I'm not a politician and really don't care if people dislike my opinions, as I make sure to keep an open mind and test my beliefs against the arguments of others and the tests of logic whenever possible. I'm not sure why you're "getting fed up," I thought I had made it clear that I meant no offense and surely our discussion of the topic isn't doing any harm as it's exactly what this thread is for. If you learned years ago that discussions like these are useless, then why did you bother posting on this thread? In my opinion, these discussions are only useless if one or both parties maintain a closed mind and don't rationally consider the argument of the other; or if one or both parties just don't care, but then it's back to why post in the first place. If you have no further wish to discuss it then of course feel free to not respond, I only assumed that you would be open to discussion of your ideas and opinions since you posted them here in a forum...
How could you accuse me of not having had homosexual parents, or not being homosexual myself? I indeed can't fully imagine what these people go through, and I wish them happiness, but that still doesn't mean I have to accept homosexualism as something 'natural'.
I don't think it was too far of a stretch for me to assume you weren't homosexual, unless you are having some sort of an identity crisis. Nonetheless, you just confirmed for me in the second sentence that you're not homosexual. And I never "accused" you of not being homosexual (as if not being homosexual was an offense).
Do you normally get defensive and feel persecuted when your views are challenged? This conversation is has nothing to do with you as a human being. You're not under attack. Your views are simply being taken to task. Since many people share your feelings on homosexuality, this discussion is a broader conversation on an divisive social issue. However, because so many people are quick to react emotionally and/or abandon topics that make them feel uncomfortable or offended, discussions such as these rarely last long enough for any benefit to result from them. I'm hoping that won't happen here.
None of us has told you what you can and cannot believe. No one here has told you what to think. What we've done is present credible information and well-considered perspectives on this topic in a respectful manner with the hope that you might actually take the time to read, reflect, and consider our responses in light of your stated views. So far, your responses read like gut-reactions, most of which fail to address the issues we've raised.
It still feels odd to me, because everything in nature points to the opposite. Man and woman naturally belong together. Somehow it is hard to see two people of the same gender together. But it indeed shows how deep and without boundaries love can be. Yet, whenever I see a guy acting with the mannerisms of a woman...it makes me feel odd for some reason. I can't really help it.
Is it possible that your feelings about homosexuality might be based on what you've been socialized to believe? Could it be that seeing two people of the same gender together makes you uncomfortable because you grew up in a society where heterosexuality was normalized and homosexuality was regarded as deviant?
If presented with information that contradicts your ideas about homosexuality, would you be open to engaging in some self-criticism and possibly modify your views? If not, then there is no point in engaging in a dialogue about this topic, as it will only result in an emotionally-laden "I'm right, you're wrong" debate.
@jaysl659: Why are gay parades even needed? Again, what is there to be proud about? Any minority has been oppressed at some time through history. Is that still a reason to hump another person of the same gender in public, in the face of small children? No, to me, that is a lack of decency.
While I can't speak for every gay pride parade certainly in Toronto the whole indecent exposure/humping argument has no bearing in reality from what I've seen. As for why they are needed; I think its as much a question of need as it is about freedom. This is an example of people freely expressing themselves in a city where even today there are people for experience hate crimes (assaults namely) because they are gay/lesbian/transexual. Having a constant yearly presence in the city I think is generally positive. But even if it wasn't as needed for helping make LGBT people feel more accepted the parade itself brings in a significant amount of tourist money for the city. Keeping it around makes economic sense as well (which is why in Toronto we have other parades like the Santa Claus parade and the St. Patrick's Day parade that have survived without government assistance for decades). I imagine similar cities that host gay pride parades have similar issues with hate crimes etc.
As to the rest of what you had to say I would say I share your concerns about political correctness.
I hesitate to jump in actively, because my perspective on this is admittedly more academic than I'm comfortable with considering that we're talking about actual human beings and not lab rats, but it may offer some insight for anyone who has difficulty accepting alternate sexuality as "natural". So I'm hoping that all of my friends reading this know that this is in the interest of science, and not an attempt to objectify anyone's identity or freedom of choice:
My own theory as to the scientific reason for phenomena such as non-reproductive sexual behavior is that it has to do with population control within an ecosystem. As an ecosystem grows in population density, the need for procreation is lessened, and so the species puts less of its resources and efforts toward growing the population of that species. Frogs do this in reverse--when there are too few of them in an ecosystem, they can change their gender in order to "fill the ranks", so to speak.
Humans don't have the same biological talents, but being social creatures we do still seek companionship with other humans. But the need for procreation is less than it was, say, during the Stone Age, and so some humans look for relationships outside of the need to create more humans. So in that sense, homosexuality isn't just normal (and natural, for a species that is more than 7 billion strong), it's necessary in order to maintain an ecosystem that can survive with the resources available.
To wit: if we ever reached a point as a species where there were too few of us to keep the species going, you can probably bet safely that you'd find fewer of us refusing to follow the biological imperative, but until then, cutting down on the number of people adding more bodies to the ecosystem is probably a good thing.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that sodomy is part of the "natural" order of things (in the sense that your mouth is for eating, your rear is for getting rid of the stuff that you ate, and neither of them is anatomically developed to be a vessel for reproductive organs), but to be honest that has very little to do with sexual identity, and more to do with how that identity is expressed in the context of a sexual relationship.
I do have to challenge this, evolution does not work like that. Not only have have humans existed in any large numbers long enough for such a long period that such a function would have had time to develop, it wouldn't work out logically as only people who didn't become "anti-overpopulation-homosexual" would have children and thus only the genes of people who didn't become "anti-overpopulation-homosexual" would be passed on and as such this biological function would exterminate itself.
It also wouldn't work since we now for a fact that homosexual people (or rather homosexual men, since that is basically the only gender we have records of) throughout history did not stop having sex with women as well for the purpose of siring heirs, and there is, in fact, nothing stopping homosexual people from having sex with the other gender, just like there's nothing stopping heterosexual people from having sex with the same gender - the organs are wired to react automatically to the right kind of stimulation - it just makes the sex a lot less enjoyable.
Evolution also isn't a thing that is concerned with species' ability to survive as a whole either, all it involves is the short-term survivability of individuals and their ability to have offspring, or, in short, their ability to survive long enough to have offspring. As such, an ability to change gender if there is a shortage would increase your chances of having offspring, the ability to become disinterested in the other gender would decrease it.
Now, I'm certainly not disagreeing with the statement of homosexuality being natural, I just had to disagree with this argument for it. A much simpler argument would be the many dozens of other species that has been observed to engage in homosexual sex and/or partnerships. It's just a thing that happens, for reasons we aren't completely sure of yet.
Some fear what could possibly happen if.. Some have a theory of what would possibly happen if.. But so far, nothing about 'god punishment' which is good.
Some 'pro' and some 'anti' arguments can be lame and its totally ok to point them out no matter what is your position one the subject. You may be pro and be totally again some half-naked 'masochised' gay parades that come across your child school at 2pm, that for example, is two different things.
No matter what is your again argument, no intelligent and civilized human being can endorse the very cruel treatment that some homosexual child*/teenager/adult have endured or endure each day. For which very valid reason? Because their sexual life is different that your and that in your twisted mind you have a very chaotic theory for the future of mankind if you let it happen.
*At 8-9 years old, a lot of children know exactly who they are.
You know what? Take a seat and seriously ask you if the mankind should really be preserved, it could be interesting. You have to realize that your 'equation' is totally broken and that (no offense here, I'm in the same basket) you are not enough smart to accurately predict what will be better for the 'greater good' of humanity.
I am personally again a lot of things and I'm also convince with all the fiber of my body that many things are really wrong but I do nothing about that.. you know why?
1) No harm is done to any human or animal being, no 'living' things are destroyed or abused, in clear, the situation is not 'so serious' after all. 2) The majority have spoken, maybe I'm smarter than them, maybe I'm really right, but this is not how things work in a civilized community, so I can't make a drama around that. 3) If I am afraid, ignorant or religiously brainwashed regarding something, that my problem, not the problem of the others.. my 'spiritual belief' and my butterfly effect theory are irrelevant and I know it.
We are a strong and intelligence race, if our kids need more support and that some are really disoriented with this new reality, they will have the help they need to understand why the human rights must prevail in this matter.
There are no doubts that religious beliefs, fears and ignorance are massive obstacles to the human rights. But then again, are you an obstacle to a world in peace? A lot of you are and you need to realize it.
@scriver I'll only note that I didn't mention evolution anywhere in my post. The biological imperative is what an organism experiences as part of its normal life cycle; it's a psychological event, either when you decide you want children or when you're running for your life from a hungry tiger. It's the "my species must go on" instinct. We don't have it in the same force that we used to, which is why the average family has ~2 children instead of ~12. In China, the government limits families to 1 child, which causes its own problems, but again it's part of the same instinct for survival within an ecosystem. If there are too many people to be supported by the available resources, then the number of people must be reduced. So if some people aren't reproducing at all, that is better for the entire ecosystem because that's one pairing that will not increase the population.
@scriver I'll only note that I didn't mention evolution anywhere in my post. The biological imperative is what an organism experiences as part of its normal life cycle; it's a psychological event, either when you decide you want children or when you're running for your life from a hungry tiger. It's the "my species must go on" instinct. We don't have it in the same force that we used to, which is why the average family has ~2 children instead of ~12. In China, the government limits families to 1 child, which causes its own problems, but again it's part of the same instinct for survival within an ecosystem. If there are too many people to be supported by the available resources, then the number of people must be reduced. So if some people aren't reproducing at all, that is better for the entire ecosystem because that's one pairing that will not increase the population.
I'd say it is hard to separate decision making from natural urge, where we have our behaviour rationalised within the cultures we inhabit.
@scriver, not to be profane, or to give too much information, but there absolutely is something stopping me from having sexual relations with women. I would never in a million years be able to function. At all. I'm trying to think of a non-obscene way to say it - the main equipment would just sit there at minimum power. Is that a clear enough euphemism?
There was actually a scene in the first season of Game of Thrones that dramatized the issue. The King of Roses, under pressure to produce an heir, tries to have relations with his queen. He is unsuccessful, and she excoriates him angrily. Later, after she calms down, she actually asks him if it would help if they invited his male lover to their bed. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I think he turned her down flat, and he wound up dying with no heirs.
Also, I did a paper in college on exactly the same research that @Dee mentions. Besides the theory of homosexuality as built-in biological population control, which demonstrably increases as population increases (we're not just making this up - it's been observed by looking at and comparing demographics of many populations), there is also an anthropological theory based on human cultural evolution.
Primitive societies needed a role for the male babies born who were homosexual. What wound up happening over time, was that these males were given duties in assisting women with child-rearing, and also in teaching, story-telling, and spiritual leadership of the tribe, i.e. shamanism. What the anthropologists who developed this particular observation-based theory proposed, was that early human societies who had homosexual males in these roles actually raised better, more competent children more easily, and that the morale of these tribes was higher (as the shamans also became performers and entertainers using singing, dancing, and art), thus giving them an actual edge in competition with other tribes. That led to a small percentage of homosexual males being born actually being selected for in human populations.
I'm not saying any of these studies are conclusive in any way, but they provide interesting food for thought. My conclusion in my own undergraduate paper about it was that present day people should stop persecuting homosexuals, because we're good for the environment, we keep the population at manageable levels, and, freed from responsibility for bearing and raising children, we become excellent keepers of the culture, which we pass down to the next generation. Not to mention, as a group, gay people without children of their own have more disposable income to spend, and thus are good for the economy.
My professor gave me a "A" on the paper, but it was just a little undergraduate assignment. I think he was amused and impressed, because he said he'd never seen anyone do a paper like that in an environmental science class.
Comments
Gay Romance, the title already says a lot of how infernal the flames were there
Another that wasn't so much full of flames is Add Drow (dark elf) race we were respectful but the discussion got itself heat fast enough. I got a lot of disagrees in this thread
I don't want flames, per say, I just want posts! A flame war just strikes me as the fastest way to rack the posts up. I really don't want to loose my bet, as it only now occurs to me that @elminster and I never said what, precisely, we were betting. Gods only know what he'll want from me if I loose... 0_0
This thread's dancing on the line, which is better than I expected considering where it started. I just want to continue reminding everyone that trolling and flaming are explicitly against site rules. I won't have people intentionally stirring up trouble here for the sake of entertainment, especially surrounding an issue about which people already feel very strongly.
I don't think I've read anything from you yet that explains the reasoning behind your views on homosexuality, aside from anecdotal accounts. Why do you think that having one male and one female parent is better than having two good male or female parents? Lots of empirical, scientific research has been done on this subject, the findings of which do not support your perspective. Or does it just feel wrong to you? If so, why?
"Every adopted son/daughter of an homosexual couple comes from a previous problematic heterosexual couple".
I can argue about many points, but some truths need to be spoken aloud to avoid rhetorical fallacies.
@Mortianna: Coming from a traditional household myself, yes, it feels wrong to me. Maybe because I never knew anything different? How could you accuse me of not having had homosexual parents, or not being homosexual myself? I indeed can't fully imagine what these people go through, and I wish them happiness, but that still doesn't mean I have to accept homosexualism as something 'natural'. It still feels odd to me, because everything in nature points to the opposite. Man and woman naturally belong together. Somehow it is hard to see two people of the same gender together. But it indeed shows how deep and without boundaries love can be. Yet, whenever I see a guy acting with the mannerisms of a woman...it makes me feel odd for some reason. I can't really help it.
You also keep talking about how offensive and in-your-face the behavior of gays is, you can't seem to stop judging every homosexual person based on the actions of a few of them such as pride parades and things such as a gay man wearing a gimp suit in public. It's funny that you find these as reasons to specifically detest gays, disregarding the behavior of samples of heterosexuals. For all the straight women showing their breasts for beads or t-shirts at mardi gras or on some stupid "girls gone wild" type of production, for all the straight men and women who have never met before grinding on each other, essentially dry humping, in night clubs all around the world and then engaging in just-for-pleasure one night experiences, for all the offensively revealing clothing that straight women wear and the crude sexual slogans on the shirts of straight men and women around the world, for these people you seem to reserve no judgment or negativity and you certainly don't seem to feel a need to apply their behavior to your feeling about all members of their sexuality. Straight people seem to get a pass from being generalized and judged on the same standards by which you are generalizing and judging homosexuals; and heterosexuals don't even have the excuse of a rational reason for being proud of being able to be open about their sexuality, which for homosexuals is obviously centuries of oppression by religious and other powerful organizations. Why do you think this double standard exists in your mind?
Lastly, your comments on parenting. All of these questions are borne of your preconceived dislike of homosexuals, you don't seem to be suggesting that single fathers have their children taken away from them. How will they teach their daughters about menstruation? Well, they'll do what they have to. Not every well-adjusted person comes from the perfect nuclear family, and plenty of not-well-adjusted people did come from such backgrounds. It does not necessarily take a man and a woman to raise a child, and two loving male or two loving female parents is most likely much better than being raised in public care.
Just my two cents, hopefully I didn't come off as offensive or aggressive, just arguing in the spirit of open discourse.
Humans don't have the same biological talents, but being social creatures we do still seek companionship with other humans. But the need for procreation is less than it was, say, during the Stone Age, and so some humans look for relationships outside of the need to create more humans. So in that sense, homosexuality isn't just normal (and natural, for a species that is more than 7 billion strong), it's necessary in order to maintain an ecosystem that can survive with the resources available.
To wit: if we ever reached a point as a species where there were too few of us to keep the species going, you can probably bet safely that you'd find fewer of us refusing to follow the biological imperative, but until then, cutting down on the number of people adding more bodies to the ecosystem is probably a good thing.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that sodomy is part of the "natural" order of things (in the sense that your mouth is for eating, your rear is for getting rid of the stuff that you ate, and neither of them is anatomically developed to be a vessel for reproductive organs), but to be honest that has very little to do with sexual identity, and more to do with how that identity is expressed in the context of a sexual relationship.
It's clearly the fault of the bullies and their parents and other adults in their life that perpetuate the bigotry, not the fault of those being oppressed and victimized.
Anyway that's not the point, i'm not raising this argument to state that the biologic parents are good or bad, that they're responsible or not, that's in fact doesn't matter. A very poor heterosexual couple that give away their children cos they can't raise them can be a couple of very good and nice persons that in fact are giving away their children for a better life, still they're not able to raise their own children properly, thus from an objective point of view (the same used to deny homosexual couples the right to raise an adopted children), those good, fair, nice... but poor parents, are problematic parents for their childrens given in adoption.
@Dee, other animals, even in danger of extintion also develop gay behavior. No, this doesn't make the behavior natural, in fact there are studies about epigenetic that have been well received among cinetific community. I'm no doctor so i would let another member with more knowledge on the subject to touch this better. A link for an article is below.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253971.php
(this one i didn't read)
Obs: just to avoid other ppl using my post for fallacies, even with little to no knowledge in medicine, i know that epigenetic doesn't mean disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
(not the best source, but will sufice).
In one hand:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/09/world/africa/zambia-gay-arrest
If minority don't fight for their rights, this is what happens, in some countries is a crime to be homosexual, 20 years ago more or less, in south africa be black meant that you're sub-human (the infamous apartheid).
In fact atm my country is living an bizzare inverse of this fact, the minority in power (corrupt politics) are using the military police to terrorize people in civic manifests (i'm from Brazil, specific Rio de Janeiro). I can give many statements, pictures and videos here of human right abuses being commited by governors of many states on Brazil regarding the use of police repression among other abuses.
Fight for rights is important Kitteh, don't diminish it. If no one had fought for freedom, know that maybe you could have been born as an slave today. Even if you say that you're white, how much time would be needed to extend slavery from black people to poor people that doesn't pay debts and therefore on?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
By another hand, radicalism can lead to abuse of prerrogatives, and instead of fight to achieve isonomy, people can start to incentive promiscuity:
Warning - the following spoiler contain nude scenes, don't open it unless you're aged enough by the law of your country to have access to this kind of content.
Link removed. This site is PG-13, which means no nudity (even with a warning).
~Dee
Obs: This is light in fact, i live in Rio de Janeiro and i can say first hand that things tend to go a lot more heat than "only" this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just to state i support ppl rights in choose what they gonna do with their lifes (as long that doesn't invade a neighbor own freedom) and freedom to hate, for me at least, is stupid and fallacious (freedom to hate is freedom to constrain another in his/her freedom, therefore isn't freedom but tiranny). In my personal point of view, the existence of a gay parade is useless , not only for promiscuity reasons or because i don't agree, but mainly cos it's a lost of focus from an existent fight. We have a lot of homosexual clubs in Rio de Janeiro to need an open event made in one of the main avenues of the city, if party is the point why rub it in the face of everyone that put his/her hand out of the window when the parade pass.
It shouldn't be a Gay Parade, but a Gay Manifest, a fight for rights and isonomy, it probally started as this, but today it's just a party. You don't see a gay parade fighting for rights anymore, it's just a party for the sake of the party.
Ppl should fight for their rights and freedom, show me the fair fight and i will support it, but i will not praise every "gays are nice", "fuck anyone that doesn't like gay ppl" (as the OP suggest), cos it just make ppl happy in give the heat back instead of fight for rights.
Do you normally get defensive and feel persecuted when your views are challenged? This conversation is has nothing to do with you as a human being. You're not under attack. Your views are simply being taken to task. Since many people share your feelings on homosexuality, this discussion is a broader conversation on an divisive social issue. However, because so many people are quick to react emotionally and/or abandon topics that make them feel uncomfortable or offended, discussions such as these rarely last long enough for any benefit to result from them. I'm hoping that won't happen here.
None of us has told you what you can and cannot believe. No one here has told you what to think. What we've done is present credible information and well-considered perspectives on this topic in a respectful manner with the hope that you might actually take the time to read, reflect, and consider our responses in light of your stated views. So far, your responses read like gut-reactions, most of which fail to address the issues we've raised. Is it possible that your feelings about homosexuality might be based on what you've been socialized to believe? Could it be that seeing two people of the same gender together makes you uncomfortable because you grew up in a society where heterosexuality was normalized and homosexuality was regarded as deviant?
If presented with information that contradicts your ideas about homosexuality, would you be open to engaging in some self-criticism and possibly modify your views? If not, then there is no point in engaging in a dialogue about this topic, as it will only result in an emotionally-laden "I'm right, you're wrong" debate.
As to the rest of what you had to say I would say I share your concerns about political correctness.
It also wouldn't work since we now for a fact that homosexual people (or rather homosexual men, since that is basically the only gender we have records of) throughout history did not stop having sex with women as well for the purpose of siring heirs, and there is, in fact, nothing stopping homosexual people from having sex with the other gender, just like there's nothing stopping heterosexual people from having sex with the same gender - the organs are wired to react automatically to the right kind of stimulation - it just makes the sex a lot less enjoyable.
Evolution also isn't a thing that is concerned with species' ability to survive as a whole either, all it involves is the short-term survivability of individuals and their ability to have offspring, or, in short, their ability to survive long enough to have offspring. As such, an ability to change gender if there is a shortage would increase your chances of having offspring, the ability to become disinterested in the other gender would decrease it.
Now, I'm certainly not disagreeing with the statement of homosexuality being natural, I just had to disagree with this argument for it. A much simpler argument would be the many dozens of other species that has been observed to engage in homosexual sex and/or partnerships. It's just a thing that happens, for reasons we aren't completely sure of yet.
Some have a theory of what would possibly happen if..
But so far, nothing about 'god punishment' which is good.
Some 'pro' and some 'anti' arguments can be lame and its totally ok to point them out no matter what is your position one the subject. You may be pro and be totally again some half-naked 'masochised' gay parades that come across your child school at 2pm, that for example, is two different things.
No matter what is your again argument, no intelligent and civilized human being can endorse the very cruel treatment that some homosexual child*/teenager/adult have endured or endure each day. For which very valid reason? Because their sexual life is different that your and that in your twisted mind you have a very chaotic theory for the future of mankind if you let it happen.
*At 8-9 years old, a lot of children know exactly who they are.
You know what? Take a seat and seriously ask you if the mankind should really be preserved, it could be interesting. You have to realize that your 'equation' is totally broken and that (no offense here, I'm in the same basket) you are not enough smart to accurately predict what will be better for the 'greater good' of humanity.
I am personally again a lot of things and I'm also convince with all the fiber of my body that many things are really wrong but I do nothing about that.. you know why?
1) No harm is done to any human or animal being, no 'living' things are destroyed or abused, in clear, the situation is not 'so serious' after all.
2) The majority have spoken, maybe I'm smarter than them, maybe I'm really right, but this is not how things work in a civilized community, so I can't make a drama around that.
3) If I am afraid, ignorant or religiously brainwashed regarding something, that my problem, not the problem of the others.. my 'spiritual belief' and my butterfly effect theory are irrelevant and I know it.
We are a strong and intelligence race, if our kids need more support and that some are really disoriented with this new reality, they will have the help they need to understand why the human rights must prevail in this matter.
There are no doubts that religious beliefs, fears and ignorance are massive obstacles to the human rights. But then again, are you an obstacle to a world in peace? A lot of you are and you need to realize it.
I'll only note that I didn't mention evolution anywhere in my post. The biological imperative is what an organism experiences as part of its normal life cycle; it's a psychological event, either when you decide you want children or when you're running for your life from a hungry tiger. It's the "my species must go on" instinct. We don't have it in the same force that we used to, which is why the average family has ~2 children instead of ~12. In China, the government limits families to 1 child, which causes its own problems, but again it's part of the same instinct for survival within an ecosystem. If there are too many people to be supported by the available resources, then the number of people must be reduced. So if some people aren't reproducing at all, that is better for the entire ecosystem because that's one pairing that will not increase the population.
There was actually a scene in the first season of Game of Thrones that dramatized the issue. The King of Roses, under pressure to produce an heir, tries to have relations with his queen. He is unsuccessful, and she excoriates him angrily. Later, after she calms down, she actually asks him if it would help if they invited his male lover to their bed. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I think he turned her down flat, and he wound up dying with no heirs.
Also, I did a paper in college on exactly the same research that @Dee mentions. Besides the theory of homosexuality as built-in biological population control, which demonstrably increases as population increases (we're not just making this up - it's been observed by looking at and comparing demographics of many populations), there is also an anthropological theory based on human cultural evolution.
Primitive societies needed a role for the male babies born who were homosexual. What wound up happening over time, was that these males were given duties in assisting women with child-rearing, and also in teaching, story-telling, and spiritual leadership of the tribe, i.e. shamanism. What the anthropologists who developed this particular observation-based theory proposed, was that early human societies who had homosexual males in these roles actually raised better, more competent children more easily, and that the morale of these tribes was higher (as the shamans also became performers and entertainers using singing, dancing, and art), thus giving them an actual edge in competition with other tribes. That led to a small percentage of homosexual males being born actually being selected for in human populations.
I'm not saying any of these studies are conclusive in any way, but they provide interesting food for thought. My conclusion in my own undergraduate paper about it was that present day people should stop persecuting homosexuals, because we're good for the environment, we keep the population at manageable levels, and, freed from responsibility for bearing and raising children, we become excellent keepers of the culture, which we pass down to the next generation. Not to mention, as a group, gay people without children of their own have more disposable income to spend, and thus are good for the economy.
My professor gave me a "A" on the paper, but it was just a little undergraduate assignment. I think he was amused and impressed, because he said he'd never seen anyone do a paper like that in an environmental science class.