News /
March of Tolerance in Krakow [478]
people who refuse to contribute to the perpetuation of the species are aberrant and useless from the standpoint of the needs of that species.
Yes, from the need of the species to multiple, i would agree, celibate monks and nuns, even the Pope, celibacy in general and homosexual activity are not going to produce any off spring but that does not make them diseased or ill or anything else like that.
(I know some of you love that I grouped monks nuns, the Pope and homosexuals together:))
So it is not just a matter of who you fancy? I think it is.
And lets not forget all the other reasons people form relationships, loyalty, money, compatibility, need and even love.
Love is also considered a disease and an imbalance of the brain.
I don't think you can "help" gays, I do not think they need it.
I do not see anything wrong with what gays do, provided like the rest of us they are consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes.
It does not effect me and it certainly has not much effected the needs of our species.
your point about the Greeks, is indeed a valid one, except I have taken a different conclusion from it.
homosexual behaviors were not only known but also encouraged. Read into the Greek educational/personal ideals, pederasty (today known as pedophilia). Modern society and the pro gay movements are nothing that hadn't been done before. In fact they yet have to succeed with legalizing under age homosexuality to catch up with the ancient Greeks.
I would also be very careful using Plato as a support trooper. The man would likely be in jail if he presented his views today. Some say Plato's philosophy might be responsible for justifying a huge amount of human suffering throughout the ages, including euthanasia of the handicapped, mentally slow etc. Nope, let's not use Plato's morals. Many of them would be simply unacceptable today. And actually, let's keep morals to ourselves. Biology is more democratic and fair.
Be it heterosexual or homosexual, the age of legal sex were much younger for various reasons. Off the top of my head, we live to a much older age these days.
Juliet was thirteen years old. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Pocahontas was 12 years old etc.. of course I do not know too much about the age of consent in the past but it is much older now.
What I am trying to impress upon your argument is that was the "norm" of the time for everybody and it can't be used in an argument just against homosexuals.
Norms do change of course and repeat.
