EU court blocks gay asylum tests

Dis86 said:
That's not proof of that at all. Explain how, if homosexuality didn't exist, populations would die?
The fact that we have these very countries where homosexuality is forbidden shows your very argument to be utter tosh. The heterosexual individuals there seem to manage to survive just fine without them.
I'll put it simply.
Homosexuality is not essential for population survival.
People have been able to suppress or otherwise hide their true sexuality (whether homosexual or heterosexual), they continue to do so.
Therefore d.p. Asserting that a person to hide their sexuality is on the same level as going without food is...simply put...wrong.
Click to expand...

I never said if homosexuality didn't exist populations would die. I said populations would die if sexuality didn't exist, because it is a spectrum on which homosexuality lies.

I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that restricting people of some sexualities and not others is an injustice, and every opportunity should be made to encourage countries to recognise all sexualities as equal and essential parts of humanity, and until that time, those that suffer from persecution for those reasons should be given safe shelter here, without being dehumanised, interrogated and humiliated by bigoted bureaucracy.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
I never said if homosexuality didn't exist populations would die. I said populations would die if sexuality didn't exist, because it is a spectrum on which homosexuality lies.

I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that restricting people of some sexualities and not others is an injustice, and every opportunity should be made to encourage countries to recognise all sexualities as equal and essential parts of humanity, and until that time, those that suffer from persecution for those reasons should be given safe shelter here.
Click to expand...

+1 this is the 21st century for god's sake
 
MichaelAwkward said:
I never said if homosexuality didn't exist populations would die. I said populations would die if sexuality didn't exist, because it is a spectrum on which homosexuality lies.

I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that restricting people of some sexualities and not others is an injustice, and every opportunity should be made to encourage countries to recognise all sexualities as equal and essential parts of humanity, and until that time, those that suffer from persecution for those reasons should be given safe shelter here, without being dehumanised, interrogated and humiliated by bigoted bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it wasn't an injustice? Infact...if you learned to read you'd see I actually stated clearly I disagreed with it.
I'll repeat...again since you're struggling...my argument is that homosexuality is not essential to life, like food is, which was a counter to the point d.p. Made.
 
Dis86 said:
Where did I say it wasn't an injustice? Infact...if you learned to read you'd see I actually stated clearly I disagreed with it.
I'll repeat...again since you're struggling...my argument is that homosexuality is not essential to life, like food is, which was a counter to the point d.p. Made.
Click to expand...

Which I've already addressed.

Sexuality is a spectrum. Homosexuality is on that spectrum. Sexuality is essential for life. Therefore homosexuality is equally essential.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
I never said if homosexuality didn't exist populations would die. I said populations would die if sexuality didn't exist, because it is a spectrum on which homosexuality lies.

I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that restricting people of some sexualities and not others is an injustice, and every opportunity should be made to encourage countries to recognise all sexualities as equal and essential parts of humanity, and until that time, those that suffer from persecution for those reasons should be given safe shelter here, without being dehumanised, interrogated and humiliated by bigoted bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's illogical and ridiculous to value one sexuality above another.

If we're talking in population terms, if there were no heterosexuals, all the lesbians and gays could band together and swap sperm and eggs to enable population growth anyway.
 
You're actually just a troll aren't you? You haven't, yet again responded to what I said. You are again operating on flawed logic.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
No, he's responded and you are ignoring it.
Click to expand...

No. He's responded with flawed logic about the sexuality scale.
I pointed out an example which showed his logic to be flawed...populations thriving free of homosexuality and he ignored it.
It's called proof. It shows homosexuality is not essential which is his assertion.
Many animal species for example do not exhibit homosexual behaviours and guess what...they do just fine.
 
Dis86 said:
You're actually just a troll aren't you? You haven't, yet again responded to what I said. You are again operating on flawed logic.
Click to expand...

I'm not, it's just that your logic is the same kind used by proponents of eugenics and euthanasia of ill people.

Sexuality is not a choice. Heterosexuals have no say over that fact, the same as any other sexuality. The variation in sexuality is still a natural phenomenon that we don't quite understand, but it's evident in many other species and all varieties of it appear to have a greater role in reproduction than what is obvious.

Humanity cannot exist without variation, in sexuality, in physical attributes, in every sense of the word. Genetic diversity is the reason we're still here today, and reductions in diversity generally have dire consequences.

Yes, homosexuality is not essential for life to continue per se, as a (lack of) biological function, but as part of the larger system, it's as essential as everything else.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
That's not the argument I'm making. My argument is it can be done.
And whilst it may not be a healthy state to be in, as I said before its better than some of the alternatives.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you can suppress your desires to a certain degree and can abstain from sexual contact with others. Aside from getting sidetracked into arguing about necessity what does this add to the debate? You can also be forced to celebrate the glorious leader in some countries but that doesn't mean it's something that is right.

Dis86 said:
No. He's responded with flawed logic about the sexuality scale.
I pointed out an example which showed his logic to be flawed...populations thriving free of homosexuality and he ignored it.
It's called proof. It shows homosexuality is not essential which is his assertion.
Many animal species for example do not exhibit homosexual behaviours and guess what...they do just fine.
Click to expand...

Which populations thrive without homosexuality? And bear in mind that just because homosexuality isn't practiced openly in some countries doesn't mean it doesn't still go on. Many animal species do exhibit homosexual behaviours but again what bearing does that have on humans where it's known that a percentage of the population is homosexual?

Or let's look at this from another perspective - suppose for a second that heterosexuality was illegal (or even just that Dis86 having any kind of relationship was illegal) - is that acceptable? Is it really a life worth living if you have to suppress your desire to have any form of relationship just because your country of birth says so?
 
Oh and please explain how, if it's as essential as you say it is (then not essential, per se to quote you) do species and populations survive just fine without it?
No population that does not reproduce asexually or via division etc can survive without high levels of technology or heterosexuality
 
Dis86 said:
Oh and please explain how, if it's as essential as you say it is (then not essential, per se to quote you) do species and populations survive just fine without it?
No population that does not reproduce asexually or via division etc can survive without high levels of technology or heterosexuality
Click to expand...

Please list the populations and species that survive just fine without homosexuality, with citations.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Or let's look at this from another perspective - suppose for a second that heterosexuality was illegal (or even just that Dis86 having any kind of relationship was illegal) - is that acceptable? Is life worth living if you have to suppress your desires?
Click to expand...

People suppers desires every day. If people didn't we'd live in utter chaos. So yes, yes it is worth living.

As an example, today someone pulled out in front of me and caused me to have to perform an emergency stop at over sixty miles per hour. My desire was to follow them and beat seven shades out of them. This was my default reaction to having them endanger my life for the sake of paying full attention or patience.
I resisted that urge. And believe me, it was strong. I have a very short temper and high levels of aggression. That is part of who I am.
I suppress it every single day.
I still quite happen to like life.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Please list the populations and species that survive just fine without homosexuality, with citations.
Click to expand...

Please list those that don't.

I'll again repeat what I stated before...the whole point of this thread. The logic you cannot grasp. People are fleeing countries because the sexuality there is not accepted. Those ENTIRE COUNTRIES survive without homosexuality.
 
Dis86 said:
Please list those that don't.

I'll again repeat what I stated before...the whole point of this thread. The logic you cannot grasp. People are fleeing countries because the sexuality there is not accepted. Those ENTIRE COUNTRIES survive without homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Well, since nobody has observed every single member of every single species during their reproductive behaviour, it's impossible to say. The fact that so many have been observed to display homosexual behaviour though suggests that it's more likely than not that all species are homosexual to some degree.

No, people are fleeing those countries because THEY are not accepted. Sexuality is an integral part of a human being.
 
And why is it they aren't accepted? Hmm? Is it...because of their sexuality? Why yes. Yes it it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom