Artificial insemination for lesbians

[DanishDynamite]

Here in Denmark the Parliament is considering a law which would, among a lot of other things, make it legal for hospitals/clinics to artificially inseminate one member of a lesbian couple. The law looks likely to pass (though by an extremely small margin, perhaps just one vote).

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand I say live and let live. I have no problem with gay-marriages or pro-choice. On the other hand I'm worried about the possible long-term consequences. There is for me no doubt that homosexual tendencies are genetically based. So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?

Your view?

[JamesDillon]

Rampant homosexuality and the collapse of society as we know it, no doubt.

As a straight man, though, I do hope the law fails, and that attractive lesbians are forced to fall back on insemination the good old-fashioned way.

Edit: On a more serious note, doesn't all of modern medicine "remove the Darwinian reasons" that, say, precluded the reproduction of people prone to heart disease or cancer at a young age? Would you want to argue that we should eliminate treatment for terminal diseases on the grounds that it alters the process of natural selection?

[Furious]

Your argument sounds terribly like eugenics to me.

I guess my counter question is so what if there are more homosexuals? Your laws apparently don't seem to care now, why should it matter if there are more of them?

EDIT: At any rate, I think the futzing with the gene pool issue you seem to be making better applies to health problems better, like keeping people alive who were born with bad hearts, affinities for cancer and hayfever sufferers. We've keep those people around long enough to breed for years.

[Cylinder]

Your view?

I think that as long as it remains a privately-funded procedure then it is up to individual doctors to determine if the procedure fits into their particular professional ethics. In other words, not on my dime.

[UserGoogol]

I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be with having homosexuality be intensely common. I suppose that if homosexuality were to reach a very high percentage of the population and then if some sort of disaster made artificial insemination less practical, then it would be bad, but I don't see that as being that big a worry.

Although I also suspect that "in the long run," there will be plenty of other forces which will effect people's sexualities (people just deciding to reprogram their brains using futuristic neurotechnology, for instance) so minor Darwinian things like this will probably be overshadowed by such forces.

[CFLarsen]

There is for me no doubt that homosexual tendencies are genetically based.

What do you base that on?

[ImaginalDisc]

Here in Denmark the Parliament is considering a law which would, among a lot of other things, make it legal for hospitals/clinics to artificially inseminate one member of a lesbian couple. The law looks likely to pass (though by an extremely small margin, perhaps just one vote).

Is it currently illegal for these hospitals to inseminate homosexual women? Is the hostpial system currently discriminating, and preventing homosexual women from attaining the same service as hereosexual women, or is this situation more complex than you depicted it?

[geni]

So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?

Not thw case. historicaly there has been a very high level of pressure on men to get married and have kids and women didn't really have a choice. There have never really been any Darwinian reasons.

[DanishDynamite]

Rampant homosexuality and the collapse of society as we know it, no doubt.

As a straight man, though, I do hope the law fails, and that attractive lesbians are forced to fall back on insemination the good old-fashioned way.
:)
Edit: On a more serious note, doesn't all of modern medicine "remove the Darwinian reasons" that, say, precluded the reproduction of people prone to heart disease or cancer at a young age? Would you want to argue that we should eliminate treatment for terminal diseases on the grounds that it alters the process of natural selection?
No. I would however like to see the continuence of a fairly robust human race.

If the continuence soon becomes dependent on artificial insemination, it doesn't seem like a very robust way to go at all.

[DanishDynamite]

Your argument sounds terribly like eugenics to me.
Eh?

I wasn't aware I had made an argument.
I guess my counter question is so what if there are more homosexuals? Your laws apparently don't seem to care now, why should it matter if there are more of them?
The robustness of humanity. See above.
EDIT: At any rate, I think the futzing with the gene pool issue you seem to be making better applies to health problems better, like keeping people alive who were born with bad hearts, affinities for cancer and hayfever sufferers. We've keep those people around long enough to breed for years.
Not sure I understand what you are saying.

[CFLarsen]

:)

No. I would however like to see the continuence of a fairly robust human race.

If the continuence soon becomes dependent on artificial insemination, it doesn't seem like a very robust way to go at all.
Define "robust".

[DanishDynamite]

I think that as long as it remains a privately-funded procedure then it is up to individual doctors to determine if the procedure fits into their particular professional ethics. In other words, not on my dime.
We are talking here about a law in Denmark. Health care was socialized long ago.

In other words, if this law is passed, it will be free of charge for lesbian couples to get the insemination.

[DanishDynamite]

I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be with having homosexuality be intensely common. I suppose that if homosexuality were to reach a very high percentage of the population and then if some sort of disaster made artificial insemination less practical, then it would be bad, but I don't see that as being that big a worry.

Although I also suspect that "in the long run," there will be plenty of other forces which will effect people's sexualities (people just deciding to reprogram their brains using futuristic neurotechnology, for instance) so minor Darwinian things like this will probably be overshadowed by such forces.
My problem is the lack of independent breeding ability. Independent of technology, that is. Robustness.

[DanishDynamite]

What do you base that on?
What I've read. Why, have you read something else?

[CFLarsen]

Is it currently illegal for these hospitals to inseminate homosexual women? Is the hostpial system currently discriminating, and preventing homosexual women from attaining the same service as hereosexual women, or is this situation more complex than you depicted it?

There has been a strange situation for a while now. It has been illegal for doctors to inseminate lesbians, but a midwife could do it (for a fee).

The question has not really been whether lesbians had the right to insemination, but whether or not the public sector should pay for it.

We really are struggling with the most insurmountable problems in Denmark... :rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

Is it currently illegal for these hospitals to inseminate homosexual women? Is the hostpial system currently discriminating, and preventing homosexual women from attaining the same service as hereosexual women, or is this situation more complex than you depicted it?
As far as I know, yes, it is currently illegal.

[DanishDynamite]

Not thw case. historicaly there has been a very high level of pressure on men to get married and have kids and women didn't really have a choice. There have never really been any Darwinian reasons.
Sorry, but you just stated some of the Darwinian reasons.

I guess I don't understand your point.

[CFLarsen]

What I've read. Why, have you read something else?
What, exactly, have you read?

(No, you are not turning the tables, buddy. Not on me. ;))

[DanishDynamite]

Define "robust".
In this context, "able to procreate as normally done".

[geni]

Sorry, but you just stated some of the Darwinian reasons.

I guess I don't understand your point.

Historicaly gays have got married anbd had kids. There was nothing really selecting against them.

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, but you just stated some of the Darwinian reasons.

Those are not Darwinian reasons. Those are societal reasons.

[DanishDynamite]

There has been a strange situation for a while now. It has been illegal for doctors to inseminate lesbians, but a midwife could do it (for a fee).

The question has not really been whether lesbians had the right to insemination, but whether or not the public sector should pay for it.
I had no idea. Evidence?
We really are struggling with the most insurmountable problems in Denmark... :rolleyes:
Indeed we are.

[DanishDynamite]

What, exactly, have you read?

(No, you are not turning the tables, buddy. Not on me. ;))
Various articles.

Please stop derailing the thread. Thanks.

[Cleon]

We really are struggling with the most insurmountable problems in Denmark... :rolleyes:

Well, you could have issues with artificially inseminating lesbians, or:

- A dumbass war that has no end in sight
- Whether there should be a Constitutional amendment forbidding people who love each other to get married
- Wal-Mart

Count your blessings, my friend. Count your blessings.

[jimlintott]

I don't see any problem with it. I also don't think that it would mean more gay people at all. I would expect that the number of gay children this would produce would be similar to the amount of gay children reared by straight couples. That's basically my wild guess. It's probably a safe assumption that only one of the biological parents is gay. Although I suppose that there could be straight women inseminated with gay sperm. Who knows?

As far as threats to continued human existence I would put this way, way down the list. Probably lower than earth being invaded by spacemen.

[DanishDynamite]

Historicaly gays have got married anbd had kids. There was nothing really selecting against them.
Evidence?

It seems obvious to me that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring.

Do you have evidence that this view is wrong?

[UserGoogol]

My problem is the lack of independent breeding ability. Independent of technology, that is. Robustness.

Yes, but I mean really. If humanity had some sort of disaster which prevented us from using modern technology... the **** would hit the fan. We would be overwhelmed with disease and suffering, and an inability to reproduce (ignoring that gay people can reproduce naturally, they just don't find it as enjoyable as straight people) would be the least of our problems.

Humanity is, in a very meaningful sense, tied to our technology. From early inventions like stone tools and agriculture to more recent inventions like electricity and computers, the human experience has always been very deeply defined by the technology we use. To weigh the robustness of our species only after you take away the technology is therefore somewhat pointless.

Sorry, but you just stated some of the Darwinian reasons.

I guess I don't understand your point.

Geni's point is that gay people are coerced by society into engaging in the reproductive act with members of the opposite sex even though they don't really want to, so the effect is a lot smaller than it would otherwise be. (EDIT: Ah, apparently he's already addressed this point. This is a fast moving thread.)

[CFLarsen]

I had no idea. Evidence?

Why, certainly. (http://www.oestrogen.dk/show_page.asp?pageid=2782)

Various articles.

Please stop derailing the thread. Thanks.

Asking for evidence of claims can never be considered derailing.

What, exactly, have you read?

[Furious]

Eh?

I wasn't aware I had made an argument.

The robustness of humanity. See above.


Keeping the robustness of humanity sounds like eugenics to me.


Not sure I understand what you are saying.

My point was that the "robustness" of the human race is probably already watered down by modern medicine by keeping people or genes around that should have died off naturally due to actual health issues, instead of simply who one is possibly genetically inclined to share a bed.

Or are you worried that homosexuality will become dominant and that we'll forget how to inseminate naturally? :) It doesn't take much more than a turkey baster to inseminate unnaturally.

I guess it is unclear to me how having homosexuals pass on their genes is possibly bad for the human race. What "robustness" do we lose? If anything, we become more genetically diverse.

[DanishDynamite]

Those are not Darwinian reasons. Those are societal reasons.
Eh? Even for social animals, like humans?

[CFLarsen]

Well, you could have issues with artificially inseminating lesbians, or:

- A dumbass war that has no end in sight
- Whether there should be a Constitutional amendment forbidding people who love each other to get married
- Wal-Mart

Count your blessings, my friend. Count your blessings.
We do, my friend. We do.

[CFLarsen]

Eh? Even for social animals, like humans?

Darwinism is about natural selection. Not selection by societal pressure.

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

It seems obvious to me that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring.

Do you have evidence that this view is wrong?
Do you have evidence that this view is right?

Don't turn the tables, man. It won't work. Not here. ;)

[DanishDynamite]

I don't see any problem with it. I also don't think that it would mean more gay people at all. I would expect that the number of gay children this would produce would be similar to the amount of gay children reared by straight couples. That's basically my wild guess. It's probably a safe assumption that only one of the biological parents is gay.Although I suppose that there could be straight women inseminated with gay sperm. Who knows?
Sure, but the frequency of having a 50% genetic input from a gay parent will suddenly be vastly increased.
As far as threats to continued human existence I would put this way, way down the list. Probably lower than earth being invaded by spacemen.
I'm even assuming that no other external threats occur. The threats possed on this planet itself are more than enough.

[geni]

Evidence?

It seems obvious to me that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring.

Do you have evidence that this view is wrong?

The continueing existance of homosexuality. For something that significantly reduces your chance of organism breeding to surface in even 1 percent of the population suggests something a little odd going on.

[DanishDynamite]

Jesus! So many replies. Have patience, folks. I need to do an errand....

[CFLarsen]

Jesus! So many replies. Have patience, folks. I need to do an errand....
And when you are finished, shaking off the last drop....

[Tony]

Haven't lesbians been doing this in the US for years?

[luchog]

In this context, "able to procreate as normally done".
So you're saying that gays and lesbians are physically incapable of having procreative sex?

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, but I mean really. If humanity had some sort of disaster which prevented us from using modern technology... the **** would hit the fan. We would be overwhelmed with disease and suffering, and an inability to reproduce (ignoring that gay people can reproduce naturally, they just don't find it as enjoyable as straight people) would be the least of our problems.
Of course not. If homosexuals became the norm, our ability to repopulate after a disaster, where artificial means were no longer available, would be miniscule.
Humanity is, in a very meaningful sense, tied to our technology. From early inventions like stone tools and agriculture to more recent inventions like electricity and computers, the human experience has always been very deeply defined by the technology we use. To weigh the robustness of our species only after you take away the technology is therefore somewhat pointless.

Not understood. Humanity is a type of animal on the planet Earth. We have only existed for at most 2 million years, if you stretch things a bit.
Geni's point is that gay people are coerced by society into engaging in the reproductive act with members of the opposite sex even though they don't really want to, so the effect is a lot smaller than it would otherwise be. (EDIT: Ah, apparently he's already addressed this point. This is a fast moving thread.)
Yes, gay people have been so inticed. And yet, they remain a minority. Ehat happens when they no longer need to be "enticed"

[jimlintott]

Sure, but the frequency of having a 50% genetic input from a gay parent will suddenly be vastly increased.

I'm even assuming that no other external threats occur. The threats possed on this planet itself are more than enough.
Well first off I am quite ignorant about genetics and only know a few basic things and they might be wrong. Putting the future security of humanity in my hands would be folly:). Let's say there is a gay gene. Is it passed by mothers or fathers? Is it recessive? Does it always pass? If a gay gene was always passed and it resulted in people who refused to procreate it would have probably died out already.

The fact that these lesbian women want to have children is clear evidence that sexual orientation has little effect on the desire to reproduce offspring. Unless the one gay parent always results in a gay child who won't reproduce then it should be a non-issue.

I think the jump from lesbians wanting artificial insemination to the extinction of the human race is pretty darn big and somewhat homophobic.

[DanishDynamite]

Why, certainly. (http://www.oestrogen.dk/show_page.asp?pageid=2782)
Thanks. I haven't read your link but I'll assume it says what I asked for.

You live and you learn.
Asking for evidence of claims can never be considered derailing.

What, exactly, have you read?
Of course it can. You are asking for evidence on an side issue.

Start a thread.

[DanishDynamite]

Keeping the robustness of humanity sounds like eugenics to me.
If so, then so be it.
My point was that the "robustness" of the human race is probably already watered down by modern medicine by keeping people or genes around that should have died off naturally due to actual health issues, instead of simply who one is possibly genetically inclined to share a bed.

Or are you worried that homosexuality will become dominant and that we'll forget how to inseminate naturally? :) It doesn't take much more than a turkey baster to inseminate unnaturally.
Yes, the possible dominance of homosexuality is exactly my worry.

Not because I have a problem with homosexuals, but because it means that the continued procreation of humanity is suddenly not robust.
I guess it is unclear to me how having homosexuals pass on their genes is possibly bad for the human race. What "robustness" do we lose? If anything, we become more genetically diverse.
Already answered that question.

[Cleon]

On a semi-serious note...

Is artificial insemination offered to heterosexual women as part of the health care system? If so, then yes, this absolutely should be offered to gay women. To do otherwise would be blatant discrimination.

As for the "genetics" bit, the last time I looked, there was no substantial difference in the chance a child born to gay parents would turn out gay than a child born to heterosexual parents. (Please don't Claus me, I really don't have time to look up the stats right now.) So I don't really see that as a viable objection.

Also, I think giving the State the right/power to determine what's good for the general gene pool opens a door that's best left closed.

[DanishDynamite]

Darwinism is about natural selection. Not selection by societal pressure.
Where is the difference for social animals?

[DanishDynamite]

Do you have evidence that this view is right?

Don't turn the tables, man. It won't work. Not here. ;)
Do you have evidence that this view is wrong?

If so, please start another thread. Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Of course not. If homosexuals became the norm, our ability to repopulate after a disaster, where artificial means were no longer available, would be miniscule.

Ehh....why would homosexuals become the "norm"?

Yes, gay people have been so inticed. And yet, they remain a minority. Ehat happens when they no longer need to be "enticed"

Me thinks you are contradicting yourself a wee bit here.

If homosexuality is genetic (I still need to see your evidence of that), it is not a question of people being enticed. They would merely follow their genes.

[DanishDynamite]

The continueing existance of homosexuality. For something that significantly reduces your chance of organism breeding to surface in even 1 percent of the population suggests something a little odd going on.
The continueing existence of homosexuality is explaind in the "The Selfish Gene" as far as I recall.

[DanishDynamite]

So you're saying that gays and lesbians are physically incapable of having procreative sex?
Obviously not. They just don't have the inclination.

[CFLarsen]

Where is the difference for social animals?

Because we are concious about the choices we make, and we base it on morality.

Animals don't.

Thanks. I haven't read your link but I'll assume it says what I asked for.

You live and you learn.

It does. And you do.

Of course it can. You are asking for evidence on an side issue.

Start a thread.

Nope. Your claim was made in this thread. Please provide the evidence of your claim. Here.

On a semi-serious note...

Is artificial insemination offered to heterosexual women as part of the health care system? If so, then yes, this absolutely should be offered to gay women. To do otherwise would be blatant discrimination.

Artificial insemination is offered to heterosexual women as part of the health care system.

[CFLarsen]

Obviously not. They just don't have the inclination.
How do you know that?

Yeah....The Big E. It's a bitch, isn't it?

[DanishDynamite]

Well first off I am quite ignorant about genetics and only know a few basic things and they might be wrong. Putting the future security of humanity in my hands would be folly:). Let's say there is a gay gene. Is it passed by mothers or fathers? Is it recessive? Does it always pass? If a gay gene was always passed and it resulted in people who refused to procreate it would have probably died out already.

The fact that these lesbian women want to have children is clear evidence that sexual orientation has little effect on the desire to reproduce offspring. Unless the one gay parent always results in a gay child who won't reproduce then it should be a non-issue.

I think the jump from lesbians wanting artificial insemination to the extinction of the human race is pretty darn big and somewhat homophobic.
There is little doubt that homosexuality is genetically based.

The possible problems stem from this fact.

[DanishDynamite]

Ehh....why would homosexuals become the "norm"?
Why not?
Me thinks you are contradicting yourself a wee bit here.

If homosexuality is genetic (I still need to see your evidence of that), it is not a question of people being enticed. They would merely follow their genes.
Eh?

Are you saying that people just follow their genes?

[DanishDynamite]

Because we are concious about the choices we make, and we base it on morality.

Animals don't.
Eh? Social animals are social for a reason. A genetic reason.
It does. And you do.
Great.
Nope. Your claim was made in this thread. Please provide the evidence of your claim. Here.
Start a thread.

[DanishDynamite]

How do you know that?

Yeah....The Big E. It's a bitch, isn't it?
You want evidence that people who are attracted to people of their own sex as opposed to people of the opposite sex, are not attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Jesus H!

[CFLarsen]

Are you saying that people just follow their genes?

No, not humans. But animals in general. If you want to make a Darwinian argument, you can't just point to humans.

...I think it is time for a list.



What, exactly, do you base your assumption that homosexual tendencies are genetically based on?

Do you have evidence that the view that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring is right?

Why would homosexuals become the "norm"?

How do you know that homosexuals just don't have the inclination to procreate?


You ask other people for evidence of their claims. You should provide evidence of your own claims. Especially since you started this thread.

Hm?

[CFLarsen]

Eh? Social animals are social for a reason. A genetic reason.

Huh? Please clarify.

You want evidence that people who are attracted to people of their own sex as opposed to people of the opposite sex, are not attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Jesus H!

No, I want to know why you think homosexuals don't have the inclination to procreate. Is it your contention that, in order to have the inclination to procreate, you need to be attracted to the opposite sex?

[DanishDynamite]

No, not humans. But animals in general. If you want to make a Darwinian argument, you can't just point to humans.
I never did. You did.
...I think it is time for a list.
Cool!
What, exactly, do you base your assumption that homosexual tendencies are genetically based on?
Articles I've read.
Do you have evidence that the view that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring is right?
Common sense.
Why would homosexuals become the "norm"?
I'm not saying they would, just that with artificial insemination, they are much more likely to become so.

How do you know that homosexuals just don't have the inclination to procreate?
Because they have sex with the wrong gender.
You ask other people for evidence of their claims. You should provide evidence of your own claims. Especially since you started this thread.

Hm?
I have.

[DanishDynamite]

Huh? Please clarify.
Social animals are social animals because it was an advantage to become social animals.
No, I want to know why you think homosexuals don't have the inclination to procreate. Is it your contention that, in order to have the inclination to procreate, you need to be attracted to the opposite sex?
No, my point is that to procreate you need to have an inclination to have sex with the opposite sex.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I see your point. Underpopulation is a huge problem on this planet we need to phase out the homosexual before they take over and doom us all.

The USA is leading the way with the clever abstinance only campaign. We have greatly increased the teen pregnancy rates world wide!

Breeding should be our top priority over the happiness of any individual. What will happen after the rapture if only gays are left? Who will fight armageddon?

The world is running out of room to store food and fresh water we cant eat it fast enough. If we dont double the population within 200 years the excess food generated by India alone will fill the oceans. Breeding capacity is clearly the crucial factor for our survival.

Keep streching and let me know if you come up with a real non religious reason why gays are not deserving of equal rights. Maybe we should have seperate drinking fountains as well?

[DanishDynamite]

I see your point. Underpopulation is a huge problem on this planet we need to phase out the homosexual before they take over and doom us all.
You obviously don't see my point. My point was that I wanted to keep the human race robust.
The USA is leading the way with the clever abstinance only campaign. We have greatly increased the teen pregnancy rates world wide!

Breeding should be our top priority over the happiness of any individual. What will happen after the rapture if only gays are left? Who will fight armageddon?

The world is running out of room to store food and fresh water we cant eat it fast enough. If we dont double the population within 200 years the excess food generated by India alone will fill the oceans. Breeding capacity is clearly the crucial factor for our survival.
Of course the breeding ability is crucial to our survival. In a 100 years all of us discussing on this board and 99% of all people currently alive in the world, will be dust. Hence the need to make sure we can breed.
Keep streching and let me know if you come up with a real non religious reason why gays are not deserving of equal rights. Maybe we should have seperate drinking fountains as well?
Kindly get your head out of your ass and read what I have posted. Thanks.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Homosexuals should not be permitted to have children because they cant have children? That makes sense to you?

If such a disaster happens that all the turkey baisters in the world are destroyed I think we are doomed anyway.

[Anti_Hypeman]

The law in the USA used to be that blacks couldnt be educated because they are too stupid to learn. Do you see anything similar?

If lesbians cant breed then there is no need for legislation to keep them from breeding. If they can breed why is it any business of yours how they do it.

[DanishDynamite]

Homosexuals should not be permitted to have children because they cant have children? That makes sense to you?
As I said at the start of this thread, I'm in two minds about this. My worry is that promoting free artificial insemination for lesbian couples will increase the proportion of gay people in the population. While I'm not worried about homosexual people as such (I have several homosexual friends), I'm worried about the robustness of the human population.
If such a disaster happens that all the turkey baisters in the world are destroyed I think we are doomed anyway.
No idea what you mean. It seems flippant, though.

[DanishDynamite]

The law in the USA used to be that blacks couldnt be educated because they are too stupid to learn. Do you see anything similar?
Nope. Kindly explain.
If lesbians cant breed then there is no need for legislation to keep them from breeding. If they can breed why is it any business of yours how they do it.
Lesbians can obviously breed if they are provided with free artificial insemination.

[Silly Green Monkey]

By that argument, asexuals with the desire for children not only should be denied artificial semination, but also marriage.

Sexual orientation has no effect on the biological drive to reproduce.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Odd. This is legal in the USA, but not (yet) in Denmark.

[DanishDynamite]

By that argument, asexuals with the desire for children not only should be denied artificial semination, but also marriage.
Sorry, by which argument?
Sexual orientation has no effect on the biological drive to reproduce.
I agree that that is quite possible.

[DanishDynamite]

Odd. This is legal in the USA, but not (yet) in Denmark.
That's what posters claim, yes.

[Katana]

I don't see any problem with it. I also don't think that it would mean more gay people at all. I would expect that the number of gay children this would produce would be similar to the amount of gay children reared by straight couples. That's basically my wild guess. It's probably a safe assumption that only one of the biological parents is gay. Although I suppose that there could be straight women inseminated with gay sperm. Who knows?

As far as threats to continued human existence I would put this way, way down the list. Probably lower than earth being invaded by spacemen.

I agree with the vast majority of this and thought that the point about possibly receiving sperm from a gay donor was a good one. However, then I remembered that the FDA banned anonymous gay sperm donors in 2005. There are some organizations who actively recruit gay and bisexual donors, but they are not anonymous. The identity of the person is revealed to the mother and child ultimately.

[Katana]

On a semi-serious note...

Is artificial insemination offered to heterosexual women as part of the health care system? If so, then yes, this absolutely should be offered to gay women. To do otherwise would be blatant discrimination.


First of all, infertility treatment, including artificial insemination, should not be free to anyone, homosexuals or otherwise. It's elective. Infertility (whatever the cause) is not a health threat and its treatment costs billions not only in the actual procedures used to get pregnant but in the treatment of the millions of premature infants born every year as a result. It's no accident that the rate of twins, triplets, and beyond have soared since infertility treatments took off, and this is thought to have contributed to the first increase in infant mortality in decades seen in the United States in the past couple of years.

Secondly, would it surprise you to know that fertility clinics in the U.S. are within their rights to refuse to assist gay couples and single women in becoming pregnant if they so choose?

[slingblade]

There has been a strange situation for a while now. It has been illegal for doctors to inseminate lesbians, but a midwife could do it (for a fee).

The question has not really been whether lesbians had the right to insemination, but whether or not the public sector should pay for it.

We really are struggling with the most insurmountable problems in Denmark... :rolleyes:

:)

In that case, I need to know if the public sector pays for hetero women to have the procedure. If it does, then in all fairness, it should bear the cost for lesbians, too.

But for DD's sake, I hope lesbians will get inseminated with the semen of gay men. Oh, the delicious irony of it.

[gnome]

Haven't lesbians been doing this in the US for years?

Yes, and look where it's gotten us. This country's going straight down the tubes...

(where are these tubes, anyway?)

[Art Vandelay]

Can you give more details? I don't understand how a straight-women-only policy would work.

However, then I remembered that the FDA banned anonymous gay sperm donors in 2005.What was the basis for that?

Darwinism is about natural selection. Not selection by societal pressure.You are, as is so often the case, wrong.

[The Painter]

Who cares if Lesbos do that? What’s the big deal? Give them a turkey baster and let them go crazy

[Beerina]

Here in Denmark the Parliament is considering a law which would, among a lot of other things, make it legal for hospitals/clinics to artificially inseminate one member of a lesbian couple. The law looks likely to pass (though by an extremely small margin, perhaps just one vote).

I'm puzzled as to why it's illegal to begin with. Cannot single women get inseminated?

[Cleon]

First of all, infertility treatment, including artificial insemination, should not be free to anyone, homosexuals or otherwise. It's elective. Infertility (whatever the cause) is not a health threat and its treatment costs billions not only in the actual procedures used to get pregnant but in the treatment of the millions of premature infants born every year as a result. It's no accident that the rate of twins, triplets, and beyond have soared since infertility treatments took off, and this is thought to have contributed to the first increase in infant mortality in decades seen in the United States in the past couple of years.

That's a subject for a different thread. My only point is this: if it's already included for heterosexuals, it should be included for homosexuals as well. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.


Secondly, would it surprise you to know that fertility clinics in the U.S. are within their rights to refuse to assist gay couples and single women in becoming pregnant if they so choose?

Surprise me? No, not at all. Would it piss me off? Abso-frikking-lutely.

[Cleon]

I'm puzzled as to why it's illegal to begin with. Cannot single women get inseminated?
I think some clarification is in order from our Viking Danish friends.

Is it currently illegal for gay women to be inseminated, or is it simply not part of Denmark's universal health care (and therefore not covered by the state-owned hospitals and clinics)? I.e., could they go and have it done privately?

[Kerberos]

I think some clarification is in order from our Viking Danish friends.

Is it currently illegal for gay women to be inseminated, or is it simply not part of Denmark's universal health care (and therefore not covered by the state-owned hospitals and clinics)? I.e., could they go and have it done privately?
I just checked and it apparently it is illegal for them to be artifiacially inserminated by a doctor, but not by a midwife or a nurse (don't ask me why). The new law will make it legal for doctors to do it.

[Q-Source]

I'm worried about the possible long-term consequences. There is for me no doubt that homosexual tendencies are genetically based. So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?



Let's assume that in the long run these changes in the law allow lesbians to reproduce through artificial insemination and gay tendencias are genetically base. We end up with a population full of gay people who can still reproduce artificially at infinitum. You can always get sperm from a gay man to inseminate a lesbia, can't you?.

Is it your fear that gays become majority in the world population?, what if it this happens?, how things are going to change?. Progress and science are driven by intelligent and sensible people and I don't think sexuallity determines how much one can contribute to society.

[epepke]

Odd. This is legal in the USA, but not (yet) in Denmark.

Not odd at all, just inconsistent with what people claim about Europe vs. the US.

[Q-Source]

I just checked and it apparently it is illegal for them to be artifiacially inserminated by a doctor, but not by a midwife or a nurse (don't ask me why). The new law will make it legal for doctors to do it.


I doubt this is true. Can you provide a link that says it is (or was) illegal for any doctor to inseminate a lesbian in Denmark?.

THe new bill proposes access to the public health system, so they can receive free inseminations.

[Kerberos]

I doubt this is true. Can you provide a link that says it is (or was) illegal for any doctor to inseminate a lesbian in Denmark?.

THe new bill proposes access to the public health system, so they can receive free inseminations.
Sure, it's in Danish, but I'm sure some of the other Danes can confirm that it say it says:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2006/01/26/002340.htm

"I dag må enlige og lesbiske gerne få hjælp til kunstig befrugtning af en jordemoder eller en sygeplejerske - men altså ikke af en læge. Den situationen vil Venstre gerne have ændret, mens De Konservative er imod."

"Today singles and lebians can recieve artificial insermination from midwifes and nurses - but not from doctors. The LIberal party wishes to change this, but the Conservatives are against"

[Q-Source]

I was looking for Act No. 460 on Medically Assisted Procreation, but couldn't find it. This contains the real situation about the legality of a.i. for lesbians.
As I understand the goverment can regulate the public and private health system that provides this sort of service, that's why it's in its power to ban doctors from doing it. However, the assistence that nurses and midwives provide to lesbians is performed out of the public and private premises and therefore cannot be criminalised. It is crazy.

[CFLarsen]

No, my point is that to procreate you need to have an inclination to have sex with the opposite sex.

That's not what you were talking about. You were talking about having the inclination to procreate. Gays and lesbians don't feel the need to become parents?

I never did. You did.

No, I didn't. You pointed to societal pressure, but such a pressure is to my knowledge found only with humans. Bonobos have lots of homosexual sex, and they are not shunned because of that.

Articles I've read.

Which ones? Be specific.

Common sense.

That's not evidence. Do you have evidence?

I'm not saying they would, just that with artificial insemination, they are much more likely to become so.

Why? That would mean that people would increasingly become homosexuals.

Because they have sex with the wrong gender.

"Wrong"?

I have.

No, you haven't. You have made a lot of assertions, but you have not provided any evidence.

You obviously don't see my point. My point was that I wanted to keep the human race robust.

Of course the breeding ability is crucial to our survival. In a 100 years all of us discussing on this board and 99% of all people currently alive in the world, will be dust. Hence the need to make sure we can breed.

I'm sorry, but how does the human race become less robust by allowing artificial insemination of homosexuals?

As I said at the start of this thread, I'm in two minds about this. My worry is that promoting free artificial insemination for lesbian couples will increase the proportion of gay people in the population.

How do you figure that?

:)

In that case, I need to know if the public sector pays for hetero women to have the procedure. If it does, then in all fairness, it should bear the cost for lesbians, too.

It does.

I think some clarification is in order from our Viking Danish friends.

Is it currently illegal for gay women to be inseminated, or is it simply not part of Denmark's universal health care (and therefore not covered by the state-owned hospitals and clinics)? I.e., could they go and have it done privately?

I explained that in post#15. ;)

Sure, it's in Danish, but I'm sure some of the other Danes can confirm that it say it says:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2006/01/26/002340.htm

"I dag må enlige og lesbiske gerne få hjælp til kunstig befrugtning af en jordemoder eller en sygeplejerske - men altså ikke af en læge. Den situationen vil Venstre gerne have ændret, mens De Konservative er imod."

"Today singles and lebians can recieve artificial insermination from midwifes and nurses - but not from doctors. The LIberal party wishes to change this, but the Conservatives are against"

It's true! :)

[Katana]

Can you give more details? I don't understand how a straight-women-only policy would work.

States vary on this issue, but, for example, in California, some docs refused to treat a lesbian on the basis of her "lifestyle" conflicting with their conservative, Christian values. When they lost in the lawsuit that she filed against them, they changed their statement to say that it was her single status that they disagreed with, and the courts upheld that, interestingly. In Virginia, fertility clinics can simply refuse to work with homosexuals without question. In fact, the clinic that pioneered IVF does this.

As for the FDA, the reason cited for banning gay sperm donation was because of the threat of HIV. Interestingly, a promiscuous heterosexual male could still donate, but a monogamous homosexual could not. Mind you, all sperm samples are heavily screened regardless of the donor's history.

[Katana]

That's a subject for a different thread. My only point is this: if it's already included for heterosexuals, it should be included for homosexuals as well. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

Surprise me? No, not at all. Would it piss me off? Abso-frikking-lutely.
Agreed on both accounts.

[CFLarsen]

You are, as is so often the case, wrong.

Why?

Don't just categorically state that I am wrong. Explain why.

[DanishDynamite]

:)

In that case, I need to know if the public sector pays for hetero women to have the procedure.
It does.
If it does, then in all fairness, it should bear the cost for lesbians, too.
Does that include those who are just sexually mature? ;)
But for DD's sake, I hope lesbians will get inseminated with the semen of gay men. Oh, the delicious irony of it.
:)

[DanishDynamite]

I'm puzzled as to why it's illegal to begin with. Cannot single women get inseminated?
Certainly they can. Apparently even lesbians can, though it is not free.

[DanishDynamite]

Let's assume that in the long run these changes in the law allow lesbians to reproduce through artificial insemination and gay tendencias are genetically base. We end up with a population full of gay people who can still reproduce artificially at infinitum. You can always get sperm from a gay man to inseminate a lesbia, can't you?.

Is it your fear that gays become majority in the world population?, what if it this happens?, how things are going to change?. Progress and science are driven by intelligent and sensible people and I don't think sexuallity determines how much one can contribute to society.
My problem is that a species which depends on advanced technology just to do that most elementary, yet vital, function of a species, namely to procreate, is not robust.

[CFLarsen]

My problem is that a species which depends on advanced technology just to do that most elementary, yet vital, function of a species, namely to procreate, is not robust.
We are a far cry from being dependent on advanced technology for procreation.

ETA: Unless you are trying to tell us something? :)

[DanishDynamite]

That's not what you were talking about. You were talking about having the inclination to procreate. Gays and lesbians don't feel the need to become parents?
Someone asked whether I thought gays couldn't possibly have children (naturally). I answered that of course they could, they just didn't have the inclination.
No, I didn't. You pointed to societal pressure, but such a pressure is to my knowledge found only with humans. Bonobos have lots of homosexual sex, and they are not shunned because of that.
What? Societal pressures exists for every species with a backbone.
Which ones? Be specific.
The ones I've read.
That's not evidence. Do you have evidence?
Two people of the same sex cannot possibly start a child. How basic do we have to get?
Why? That would mean that people would increasingly become homosexuals.
Yes, precisely.
"Wrong"?
Yes, wrong if you wish to make someone pregnant.
No, you haven't. You have made a lot of assertions, but you have not provided any evidence.
Of course I have.
I'm sorry, but how does the human race become less robust by allowing artificial insemination of homosexuals?
I've already explained this. Kindly keep up.
How do you figure that?
Because homosexuality is genetically determined.

[DanishDynamite]

We are a far cry from being dependent on advanced technology for procreation.

ETA: Unless you are trying to tell us something? :)
Yes we are. Currently.

A good thing, no?

[CFLarsen]

Someone asked whether I thought gays couldn't possibly have children (naturally). I answered that of course they could, they just didn't have the inclination.

Ah, I see: You mean by having sex with a woman. But that has nothing to do with the drive to procreate.

What? Societal pressures exists for every species with a backbone.

Really? Please explain the societal pressures that forbid Bonobos to have homosexual relations.

And while you are at it, explain why a species need to have a backbone.

The ones I've read.

...and we are none the wiser. You have to show us which articles.

Two people of the same sex cannot possibly start a child. How basic do we have to get?

But that's not what you said. You said that the drive to procreate was less in homosexuals. Where is your evidence of that?

Yes, precisely.

What do you base that on? Even if you were right that homosexuality is genetically determined, you would need to show that the genes for homosexuality were dominant. Can you do that?

Yes, wrong if you wish to make someone pregnant.

That is a morality issue, not a genetical.

Of course I have.

Nope. You have referred to articles which you cannot name.

I've already explained this. Kindly keep up.

No, you merely asserted it. Assertion is not explanation.

Because homosexuality is genetically determined.

You still need to show this. Not point to unidentified articles.

Yes we are. Currently.

A good thing, no?

I couldn't care less how people conceived. And I don't see any signs that we are increasingly becoming dependent on technology.

[DanishDynamite]

Ah, I see: You mean by having sex with a woman. But that has nothing to do with the drive to procreate.
Nope. Never said it did.
Really? Please explain the societal pressures that forbid Bonobos to have homosexual relations.
Uh..why? I don't believe I've ever claimed anything remotely close to this weird claim.
And while you are at it, explain why a species need to have a backbone.
Uh..why? Please see above.
...and we are none the wiser. You have to show us which articles.Who is "us"? Are you royalty? :)
But that's not what you said. You said that the drive to procreate was less in homosexuals. Where is your evidence of that?
Nope, I didn't.
What do you base that on? Even if you were right that homosexuality is genetically determined, you would need to show that the genes for homosexuality were dominant. Can you do that?
Nope.

Why, do you feel it is important?
That is a morality issue, not a genetical.
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your response.

Oh, and if it is a morality issue and not a genetic issue, why do want genetic evidence?
Nope. You have referred to articles which you cannot name.
Yes. Your point?
No, you merely asserted it. Assertion is not explanation.
In what sense?
You still need to show this. Not point to unidentified articles.
Why would i need to show it?
I couldn't care less how people conceived.
Yes, and that is where we two differ. I care about the long term survival of the human species. You apparently don't.
And I don't see any signs that we are increasingly becoming dependent on technology.
Are you serious?

[Art Vandelay]

Don't just categorically state that I am wrong. Explain why.Why you insist on posting flase statements, I have no idea. But evolution definitely does include social forces.

Sexual orientation has no effect on the biological drive to reproduce.I think that you should say "psychological". Orientation most definitely does have an effect on the biological drive to reproduce.

[slingblade]

It does.

Does that include those who are just sexually mature? ;)

:)

Duh. What would be the purpose of inseminating a female who cannot yet reproduce?

[DanishDynamite]

Duh. What would be the purpose of inseminating a female who cannot yet reproduce?
Indeed.

(BTW sling, please keep your passion for me a bit in check. This is a public board, afterall. :) )

[slingblade]

Indeed.

(BTW sling, please keep your passion for me a bit in check. This is a public board, afterall. :) )


I'm going to retire now, as I am having a strong PTSD reaction to this "joke."

[DanishDynamite]

I'm going to retire now, as I am having a strong PTSD reaction to this "joke."
Sleep well, dear.

[Mycroft]

Here in Denmark the Parliament is considering a law which would, among a lot of other things, make it legal for hospitals/clinics to artificially inseminate one member of a lesbian couple. The law looks likely to pass (though by an extremely small margin, perhaps just one vote).

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand I say live and let live. I have no problem with gay-marriages or pro-choice. On the other hand I'm worried about the possible long-term consequences. There is for me no doubt that homosexual tendencies are genetically based. So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?

Your view?

Indeed, what then?

What would be so terrible if a larger portion of the population were homosexual?

[CFLarsen]

Nope. Never said it did.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you agree that homosexuals have the desire/drive/urge/whatever to have children?

Uh..why? I don't believe I've ever claimed anything remotely close to this weird claim.

If you say that the tendency for homosexuality has been kept to a fairly small part of the population due to Darwinian reasons, and that societal pressures exists for every species with a backbone, ("Society doesn't want gay people to mulitply"), then you have to explain why Bonobos don't shun homosexual encounters.

Bonobos have backbones. They have a society. According to you, they should shun homosexual encounters. They don't. You need to explain why.

Who is "us"? Are you royalty? :)

Us, here. Those who read the thread. :)

Nope. Why, do you feel it is important?

Well, you should feel it is important, because you are making the claim that if we allow more homosexuals in society (by artificial means), the offspring will become increasingly homosexual. That means that the homosexual genes (which you still haven't shown any evidence of) must be dominant.

Genetics 101.

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your response.

If you say it is "wrong", then you are making a moral judgment, not a genetic one.

Oh, and if it is a morality issue and not a genetic issue, why do want genetic evidence?

Hey, I have to go with what you argue...

Yes. Your point?

That you haven't been able to back up your claim. Which forms the basis of your contention. You are therefore arguing from mere assertion and not evidence.

In what sense?

You don't explain anything (at least not on this forum!) by merely asserting that Things Are So Because I Once Read It In A Magazine. You'll have to provide evidence of your assertions. That's how it works here.

Why would i need to show it?

You really think that pointing to nameless articles we don't know the content of is a sound basis for discussion on a skeptics' forum?

Yes, and that is where we two differ. I care about the long term survival of the human species. You apparently don't.

I very much care about that. I just don't see why you think that our species is in danger of extinction because we allow homosexuals the same right to have kids as everyone else.

Are you serious?

When procreating. I see evidence that those who couldn't get kids before are now helped by technology. But I don't see any signs that those who can get kids the "good old fashioned way" turn to test tube conception.

Why you insist on posting flase statements, I have no idea. But evolution definitely does include social forces.

Explain Bonobos and their acceptance of gay sex.

What is "flase"?

[LW]

Sleep well, dear.

Just for the record: this is the very moment when I finally got convinced that reading this forum is more pleasant with DanishDynamite on ignore.

[KingMerv00]

So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?

(something weird going on my computer...hope this comes out ok)

What then? Basically nothing.

What is that absolutely worst thing that can happen? Homosexuals become the new super majority and heterosexuals become a small minority or extinct entirely. Suddenly a series of solar flares makes technology impossible for say....500 years.

Can the humans procreate? Of course they can. Even if they aren't attracted to their mates, I'm pretty sure they could handle fertilization the traditional way. After all, the fate of humanity is hanging in the balance.

What if they couldn't you say? Well you don't need fancy technology to make alcohol. Either that or involve people from both genders in the fertilization process. Come on man, use a little creative thinking.

[Earthborn]

Bonobos have backbones. They have a society. According to you, they should shun homosexual encounters. They don't. You need to explain why.

(snip)

Explain Bonobos and their acceptance of gay sex.Very simple: bonobo society does not have a taboo on homosexuality. Just because a social environment causes just as much selection pressure on populations does not mean that all societies must necessarily be the same.

[Kerberos]

OK let's try to recap. Homosexuality is genetic and after the Danish parliament makes artificial insemination available for lesbians it spreads throughout the world like a cancer.

Why exactly it does this is unknown since even with artificial insemination there is no reason why Homosexuality should out compete heterosexuality. Anyways though it spreads and now when the Earth is populated exclusively by homosexuals.

This means that when most of the worlds population is vibed out by invading Martians, a giant meteor or a genetically engineered virus from Saddam Hussein’s stock, the survivors will be to busy humping their own gender to reproduce, and the human race will come to an ignoble end in an orgy of homosexuality.

Therefore we must prevent the Danish Parliament from passing the act, thus preventing this calamity. Did I miss anything DD?

[Beerina]

I doubt this is true. Can you provide a link that says it is (or was) illegal for any doctor to inseminate a lesbian in Denmark?.

THe new bill proposes access to the public health system, so they can receive free inseminations.


Some socialized health care systems are so totalitarian, that there is nothing that isn't government. Hence if the government refuses to pay for it, and it's illegal for you to pay for it yourself, it is effectively banned. (And I have no clue if that's what's going on in this instance.)

Which is why I fight so hard against that crap coming to the US. If a hundred and fifty million Americans want to create a health care system, go ahead. Don't tell me I have to join at the point of a gun, and don't tell the doctor and hospital down the street they have to serve you at the point of a gun. That's not freedom.

[DanishDynamite]

Indeed, what then?

What would be so terrible if a larger portion of the population were homosexual?
I've already explained this several times. A society in which humans did not naturally procreate and where advanced technology was required to do make this possible, would not be a robust society.

[kittynh]

whoa! This is legal here! I think government should stay out of peoples private lives. Period! I know 7 children that were concieved this way. And they are all cool and fine (2 are in their teens now).

I can't believe that a progressive nation would even debate this. Stay out of peoples lives!

[kittynh]

and like honestly DD, what are you doing to help?

More important would be to create a society that pushes for Europeans to just freaking have children!! Germany and Italy are really in trouble! Why have kids? If something as silly as lesbians having kids is what it takes to repopulate then it should be pushed because the heterosexuals sure aren't doing it. Or when they do do it, they aren't married. It's not thought of as something bad, even though studies show that a 2 parent family is the "best". However, I'm in favor of government NOT tell us when to have kids or how to have kids. It may mean a weaker society, but personal freedom is more important.

[DanishDynamite]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you agree that homosexuals have the desire/drive/urge/whatever to have children?
I have no idea. Could be true though.
If you say that the tendency for homosexuality has been kept to a fairly small part of the population due to Darwinian reasons, and that societal pressures exists for every species with a backbone, ("Society doesn't want gay people to mulitply"), then you have to explain why Bonobos don't shun homosexual encounters.
Why? One doesn't have anything to do with the other.
Bonobos have backbones. They have a society. According to you, they should shun homosexual encounters. They don't. You need to explain why.
Uh..what? Why on Earth should they shun homosexual encounters?
Us, here. Those who read the thread. :)
We understand. You feel your lone view is representative of those who read this thread. I'm afraid we disagree.
Well, you should feel it is important, because you are making the claim that if we allow more homosexuals in society (by artificial means), the offspring will become increasingly homosexual. That means that the homosexual genes (which you still haven't shown any evidence of) must be dominant.

Genetics 101.

Yes, that is what I feel.
If you say it is "wrong", then you are making a moral judgment, not a genetic one.
Obviously not as I've just explained.
Hey, I have to go with what you argue...
Then kindly stick with what I argue and don't presume.
That you haven't been able to back up your claim. Which forms the basis of your contention. You are therefore arguing from mere assertion and not evidence.
Which claim would that be?
You don't explain anything (at least not on this forum!) by merely asserting that Things Are So Because I Once Read It In A Magazine. You'll have to provide evidence of your assertions. That's how it works here.
Why would I need to prove anything? Please reread my OP.

You really think that pointing to nameless articles we don't know the content of is a sound basis for discussion on a skeptics' forum?
Yes. Tell me, which article first convinced you that the Sun would probably rise again tomorrow? Or that the grass would probably also be green tomorrow?

If you have contrary evidence, kindly post it.
I very much care about that. I just don't see why you think that our species is in danger of extinction because we allow homosexuals the same right to have kids as everyone else.
I've already explained why this should concern you.
When procreating. I see evidence that those who couldn't get kids before are now helped by technology. But I don't see any signs that those who can get kids the "good old fashioned way" turn to test tube conception.
Not understood.

[DanishDynamite]

Just for the record: this is the very moment when I finally got convinced that reading this forum is more pleasant with DanishDynamite on ignore.
Thanks for sharing.

[DanishDynamite]

(something weird going on my computer...hope this comes out ok)

What then? Basically nothing.

What is that absolutely worst thing that can happen? Homosexuals become the new super majority and heterosexuals become a small minority or extinct entirely. Suddenly a series of solar flares makes technology impossible for say....500 years.

Can the humans procreate? Of course they can. Even if they aren't attracted to their mates, I'm pretty sure they could handle fertilization the traditional way. After all, the fate of humanity is hanging in the balance.

What if they couldn't you say? Well you don't need fancy technology to make alcohol. Either that or involve people from both genders in the fertilization process. Come on man, use a little creative thinking.
The fact that humanity's fate hangs in the balance means little. People are not ultimately rational. They are, however, almost unfailable where lust is concerned.

[DanishDynamite]

OK let's try to recap. Homosexuality is genetic and after the Danish parliament makes artificial insemination available for lesbians it spreads throughout the world like a cancer.

Why exactly it does this is unknown since even with artificial insemination there is no reason why Homosexuality should out compete heterosexuality. Anyways though it spreads and now when the Earth is populated exclusively by homosexuals.

This means that when most of the worlds population is vibed out by invading Martians, a giant meteor or a genetically engineered virus from Saddam Hussein’s stock, the survivors will be to busy humping their own gender to reproduce, and the human race will come to an ignoble end in an orgy of homosexuality.

Therefore we must prevent the Danish Parliament from passing the act, thus preventing this calamity. Did I miss anything DD?
Not much, no.

[DanishDynamite]

and like honestly DD, what are you doing to help?

More important would be to create a society that pushes for Europeans to just freaking have children!! Germany and Italy are really in trouble! Why have kids? If something as silly as lesbians having kids is what it takes to repopulate then it should be pushed because the heterosexuals sure aren't doing it. Or when they do do it, they aren't married. It's not thought of as something bad, even though studies show that a 2 parent family is the "best". However, I'm in favor of government NOT tell us when to have kids or how to have kids. It may mean a weaker society, but personal freedom is more important.
Kittynh, at the start of this thread I said I was in two minds about this proposal. Since then, though, people have exclusively been attacking one of those views and I have therefore exclusively been defending that view.

I'm still in two minds, though. As are half of the Danish Parliament.

[strathmeyer]

Your view?

Your views on homosexuality are staggering. Homosexuals are not a worthless people or a disease that needs to be removed from society. They have not "been kept to a fairly small part of the population", and the Darwinian reasons aren't obvious to those of us who aren't publicly bigots. Homosexuals are normal people, and they deserve to be treated like normal people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[CFLarsen]

Very simple: bonobo society does not have a taboo on homosexuality. Just because a social environment causes just as much selection pressure on populations does not mean that all societies must necessarily be the same.

That's a moral issue, then. Not a genetic one.

whoa! This is legal here! I think government should stay out of peoples private lives. Period! I know 7 children that were concieved this way. And they are all cool and fine (2 are in their teens now).

I can't believe that a progressive nation would even debate this. Stay out of peoples lives!

It's legal here, too. That's not the question. The question is, should the public sector pay?

I have no idea. Could be true though.

But, if they have, why shouldn't they have the right to have kids? Why discriminate people based on their sexuality?

Why? One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Yes, it does. Bonobos have societies. Bonobos have backbones. Bonobos tolerate - even encourage - homosexuality.

Uh..what? Why on Earth should they shun homosexual encounters?

Because, according to you, homosexuality means doom for the survival of a species.

We understand. You feel your lone view is representative of those who read this thread. I'm afraid we disagree.

You speak for everyone else?

Yes, that is what I feel.

But you can't show any evidence.

Obviously not as I've just explained.

Obviously so, since you don't base your claim on evidence.

Then kindly stick with what I argue and don't presume.

I ask for clarification.

Which claim would that be?

That homosexuality means doom for the survival of a species.

Why would I need to prove anything? Please reread my OP.

You make the claim, you back it up with evidence.

Yes.

"Yes"? Why should we believe you, if you can't point to any articles?

Tell me, which article first convinced you that the Sun would probably rise again tomorrow? Or that the grass would probably also be green tomorrow?

It's not a question of which articles first convinced me of that. It's a question of simply finding articles that support - with evidence - that those things will happen. I can do that. Can you back up your claim?

If you have contrary evidence, kindly post it.

The onus is on you. You made the claim.

I've already explained why this should concern you.

No, you have asserted it. Assertion is not explanation. I am not convinced by your assertions. I need evidence.

Not understood.

It is only a small part of a population that is homosexual, needing artifical means to procreate. Why would heterosexual couples turn to test tubing?

I mean...where's the fun in that? ;)

The fact that humanity's fate hangs in the balance means little. People are not ultimately rational. They are, however, almost unfailable where lust is concerned.

In which case, you shouldn't worry. Sex is here to stay.

[kittynh]

I"m just telling you to go out there are have some babies pronto!

I've done my share! (kidding)

[DanishDynamite]

Your views on homosexuality are staggering. Homosexuals are not a worthless people or a disease that needs to be removed from society. They have not "been kept to a fairly small part of the population", and the Darwinian reasons aren't obvious to those of us who aren't publicly bigots. Homosexuals are normal people, and they deserve to be treated like normal people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I don't think that homosexuals are "worthless or a disease that needs to be removed from society". I have a few homosexual friends (well, two actually) and they are both at the top of the game, contributing greatly to society.

Homosexuals are however not normal, in the sense that they are attracted to members of their own sex. This is not a problem for the preservation of the human species as long they remain a minority. But if they don't....

[CFLarsen]

What is "normal"?

[DanishDynamite]

But, if they have, why shouldn't they have the right to have kids? Why discriminate people based on their sexuality?
Already explained. Multiple times.
Yes, it does. Bonobos have societies. Bonobos have backbones. Bonobos tolerate - even encourage - homosexuality.
Cool. What might be the relevance of this?
Because, according to you, homosexuality means doom for the survival of a species.
How did you get that idea?
You speak for everyone else?
Nope. Do you?
But you can't show any evidence.
Certainly I could, but why should I?
Obviously so, since you don't base your claim on evidence.
Go back and reread. Thanks.
I ask for clarification.
As I said, kindly stick with what I argue.
That homosexuality means doom for the survival of a species.
Where have I said that?
You make the claim, you back it up with evidence.
Again, which claim are you talking about?
"Yes"? Why should we believe you, if you can't point to any articles?
Am I asking you to believe me?
It's not a question of which articles first convinced me of that. It's a question of simply finding articles that support - with evidence - that those things will happen. I can do that. Can you back up your claim?
Why should I find such articles?

(And yes, of course I can back it up with articles).
The onus is on you. You made the claim.
What claim?
No, you have asserted it. Assertion is not explanation. I am not convinced by your assertions. I need evidence.
Certainly assertion is explanation. Check a dictionary.
It is only a small part of a population that is homosexual, needing artifical means to procreate. Why would heterosexual couples turn to test tubing?
Beats me. Why would heterosexual couples turn to test tubing?
I mean...where's the fun in that? ;)
:)
In which case, you shouldn't worry. Sex is here to stay.
Of course sex is here to stay. That's my whole point!

[DanishDynamite]

What is "normal"?
Are you asking me?

[CFLarsen]

Are you asking me?
Yes.

Already explained. Multiple times.

Because they are not "normal"?

Cool. What might be the relevance of this?

That shoots down your idea that society doesn't want homosexuals to multiply. See post #103.

How did you get that idea?

From you: You argued that if homosexuals were allowed to have kids artificially, our species would consist of homosexuals only.

Nope. Do you?

Nope.

Certainly I could, but why should I?

Because this is a skeptics' board?

Go back and reread. Thanks.

No evidence.

As I said, kindly stick with what I argue.

As I said, I ask for evidence.

Where have I said that?

Post #112.

Again, which claim are you talking about?

Oh, we can start with the claim that homosexuality is dominant genetically.

Am I asking you to believe me?

Hey, if you just want to blabber, go ahead...

Why should I find such articles?

To back up your claims, of course.

(And yes, of course I can back it up with articles).

Then do so.

What claim?

That homosexuality is dominant genetically.

Certainly assertion is explanation. Check a dictionary.

I want evidence. Got any?

Beats me. Why would heterosexual couples turn to test tubing?

I haven't the foggiest idea. But it sure shoots down your contention.

Of course sex is here to stay. That's my whole point!

Why worry, A.E.N.?

[Earthborn]

That's a moral issue, then. Not a genetic one.Moral issues influence genetics, like all environmental pressures. A society that marginalises a group of individuals with a specific genetic make up, makes it harder for those individuals to reproduce and therefore those genes will become rarer.

This is not a problem for the preservation of the human species as long they remain a minority. But if they don't....If they ever became anything but a minority, perhaps even a majority, it will mean (assuming homosexuality is heriditary) that they have been reproducing quite successfully and I don't think we'll have to worry about the preservation of the human species when it happens.

[CFLarsen]

Moral issues influence genetics, like all environmental pressures. A society that marginalises a group of individuals with a specific genetic make up, makes it harder for those individuals to reproduce and therefore those genes will become rarer.

Can I see that gene for homosexuality?

Anyone?

[JamesDillon]

DD, are you familiar with the concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy)? Not every lifestyle that would lead to extinction if universally adopted within a population is necessarily a biologically counterproductive lifestyle for a portion of the population.

(And, by the way, until a significant number of lesbians start getting accidentally knocked up by a test tube in the back seat of a car on prom night, I don't think we need to worry about homosexuals outbreeding the rest of us).

[DanishDynamite]

Yes.
Please address your replies properly in the future.

Regarding "normal", I'll go by the currently accepted scientific definition today.
Because they are not "normal"?
Already explained. Multiple times.
That shoots down your idea that society doesn't want homosexuals to multiply. See post #103.
Where have I ever claimed this idea? (And if I had, your assertions would obviously have no relevance.)
From you: You argued that if homosexuals were allowed to have kids artificially, our species would consist of homosexuals only.
Where did I argue this?
Nope.
Then kindly stop using the "we" form as you again did in your previous reply.
Because this is a skeptics' board?
And?
No evidence.
Of course not. Why would it be necessary?
As I said, I ask for evidence.
As I said, kindly don't presume.
Post #112.
Just read post #112. Nothing mentioned there about this.
Oh, we can start with the claim that homosexuality is dominant genetically.
Never claimed or referred or mentioned this.
Hey, if you just want to blabber, go ahead...
Thanks.
To back up your claims, of course.
Which claims?
Then do so.
Nope. I'm having too much fun not doing so.
That homosexuality is dominant genetically.
Never claimed this.
I want evidence. Got any?
Stop avoiding the question. Is assertion an explanation or is it not?
I haven't the foggiest idea. But it sure shoots down your contention.
It isn't even related to anything I've said. Please learn the art of reading.
Why worry, A.E.N.?
What is A.E.N? Sorry, I have no idea.

[DanishDynamite]

DD, are you familiar with the concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy)?
I wasn't aware of the term until you brought it up, but I was aware of the concept.
Not every lifestyle that would lead to extinction if universally adopted within a population is necessarily a biologically counterproductive lifestyle for a portion of the population.
Which I agree with. Hence the continual existence of homosexuals.
(And, by the way, until a significant number of lesbians start getting accidentally knocked up by a test tube in the back seat of a car on prom night, I don't think we need to worry about homosexuals outbreeding the rest of us).
I realize this bit was said in humor which keeps me from saying something nasty in reply.

[JamesDillon]

I realize this bit was said in humor which keeps me from saying something nasty in reply.

It was a humorous illustration of a serious point: that as long as heterosexuals are prone to reproducing unintentionally, we have little to fear that the planned and deliberate insemination of homosexuals will result in a significant shift in the population ratio. A lesbian couple might have one or two planned pregnancies in a lifetime; a heterosexual Catholic couple will produce far more.

[DanishDynamite]

It was a humorous illustration of a serious point: that as long as heterosexuals are prone to reproducing unintentionally, we have little to fear that the planned and deliberate insemination of homosexuals will result in a significant shift in the population ratio. A lesbian couple might have one or two planned pregnancies in a lifetime; a heterosexual Catholic couple will produce far more.
Have you seen the latest statistics on the number of kids produced per female-of-bearing age in many of the Western nations? They are not inspirational reading.

Allowing homosexual couples to breed freely, though they presently are a minority, would seriously upset the balance as the majority is not breeding suficiently.

[JamesDillon]

Have you seen the latest statistics on the number of kids produced per female-of-bearing age in many of the Western nations? They are not inspirational reading.

Allowing homosexual couples to breed freely, though they presently are a minority, would seriously upset the balance as the majority is not breeding suficiently.
Why are we only concerned with Western nations? Surely the excessive population growth in much of the Third World is relevant to the evolutionary analysis? They're part of the gene pool too, after all, and I'm fairly positive that the population growth there is due 100% to good old heterosexual reproduction.

[Art Vandelay]

Explain Bonobos and their acceptance of gay sex.I don't see what needs to be explained.

[JamesDillon]

I don't see what needs to be explained.
Bonobos are into just about any kind of sex; they're kinky little buggers. Shame we didn't evolve from them.

[CFLarsen]

Regarding "normal", I'll go by the currently accepted scientific definition today.

...which is?

Already explained. Multiple times.

Because they are not "normal", then. Gotcha.

Where have I ever claimed this idea? (And if I had, your assertions would obviously have no relevance.)

My post:
Well, you should feel it is important, because you are making the claim that if we allow more homosexuals in society (by artificial means), the offspring will become increasingly homosexual. That means that the homosexual genes (which you still haven't shown any evidence of) must be dominant.

Genetics 101.

Your reply:
Yes, that is what I feel.

Where did I argue this?

You, post 58:
I'm not saying they would, just that with artificial insemination, they are much more likely to become so.

Me, post 85:
Why? That would mean that people would increasingly become homosexuals.

You, post 93:
Yes, precisely.

Then kindly stop using the "we" form as you again did in your previous reply.

I am talking about people reading this forum. I am not speaking for them.

And?

So, you show evidence of your claims. Shouldn't e.g. people who claim paranormal powers show evidence of their claims?

Of course not. Why would it be necessary?

Because evidence is what skeptics deal in.

As I said, kindly don't presume.

That you have evidence? No, that's clear by now.

Just read post #112. Nothing mentioned there about this.

My post:
Well, you should feel it is important, because you are making the claim that if we allow more homosexuals in society (by artificial means), the offspring will become increasingly homosexual. That means that the homosexual genes (which you still haven't shown any evidence of) must be dominant.

Genetics 101.

Your reply:
Yes, that is what I feel.

Never claimed or referred or mentioned this.

Sure you did.

Which claims?

I told you, several times: That homosexuality is dominant genetically.

Nope. I'm having too much fun not doing so.

A troll, then. Not to be taken seriously.

Never claimed this.

Sure you did.

Stop avoiding the question. Is assertion an explanation or is it not?

I'm not avoiding the question. You can't assert things and expect us to believe what you say.

It isn't even related to anything I've said. Please learn the art of reading.

If you want to waste your life trolling, fine with me.

What is A.E.N? Sorry, I have no idea.

It's a joke. Alfred E. Neuman, from MAD magazine.

Have you seen the latest statistics on the number of kids produced per female-of-bearing age in many of the Western nations? They are not inspirational reading.

I haven't. Can you point to them?

Allowing homosexual couples to breed freely, though they presently are a minority, would seriously upset the balance as the majority is not breeding suficiently.

Prove it.

[CFLarsen]

I don't see what needs to be explained.
How did Bonobos evolve?

[DanishDynamite]

It was a humorous illustration of a serious point: that as long as heterosexuals are prone to reproducing unintentionally, we have little to fear that the planned and deliberate insemination of homosexuals will result in a significant shift in the population ratio. A lesbian couple might have one or two planned pregnancies in a lifetime; a heterosexual Catholic couple will produce far more.
I understand the thrust of your humor. Unfortunately, even with all the Prom-nights, ets, the statistics show what they show.

[DanishDynamite]

Why are we only concerned with Western nations? Surely the excessive population growth in much of the Third World is relevant to the evolutionary analysis? They're part of the gene pool too, after all, and I'm fairly positive that the population growth there is due 100% to good old heterosexual reproduction.

Yes, but Western ideas have a great tendency to perculate to other parts of the world.

[kittynh]

which is often a good thing.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior isn't close in Asia and the MIddle East though.

[DanishDynamite]

...which is?
Whatever it is.
Because they are not "normal", then. Gotcha.
Finally.
You said:
That shoots down your idea that society doesn't want homosexuals to multiply. See post #103.
Which I have never claimed. Stop with the weird strawmen, please.

You, post 58:
Which shows that I didn't argue the ridiculious view you asserted I did.
Me, post 85:

You, post 93:
Yes. And? How does what I said equate to your weird strawman?
I am talking about people reading this forum. I am not speaking for them.
Then kindly stop pretending that you are.
So, you show evidence of your claims. Shouldn't e.g. people who claim paranormal powers show evidence of their claims?
Of course they should. Anyone making claims which appear paranormal must show evidence therefore.
Because evidence is what skeptics deal in.
Indeed. But where exactly is my claim?
That you have evidence? No, that's clear by now.
As I said, kindly don't presume.
Sure you did.
Obviously not, as you just showed. Please, I was hoping for some real opposition.

I told you, several times: That homosexuality is dominant genetically.
Which I have never even mentioned.
A troll, then. Not to be taken seriously.
Whatever rocks your boat.
Sure you did.
Nope.
I'm not avoiding the question. You can't assert things and expect us to believe what you say.
Kindly stop avoiding the question. Is assertion a form of explanation? Do I need to start a list?
If you want to waste your life trolling, fine with me.
It was not related to what I said. If you think otherwise, kindly show me how.
It's a joke. Alfred E. Neuman, from MAD magazine.
I see.
I haven't. Can you point to them?
Nope. can you?
Prove it.
Follows from simple logic.

[DanishDynamite]

which is often a good thing.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior isn't close in Asia and the MIddle East though.
It is luckily spreading. One of the two homosexual friends I have is from Asia (more specifically, the Philippines). He is totally accepted there.

[CFLarsen]

which is often a good thing.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior isn't close in Asia and the MIddle East though.

Very true.

Whatever rocks your boat.

Is that what this silly exchange is all about? Rocking my boat?

[DanishDynamite]

Very true.
Indeed.
Is that what this silly exchange is all about? Rocking my boat?
Please just reply to my post. If you feel incapable of doing so, I will of course understand.

[CFLarsen]

Please just reply to my post. If you feel incapable of doing so, I will of course understand.
I asked you a question.

[UserGoogol]

I'm not sure why people should be so concerned about the longterm feasability of the human species. Species don't have feelings, individuals do, and anything that prevented us from utilizing reproductive technologies would be such an absolutely horrible event that the effect of rapidly falling population rates would be pretty neglible in comparison.

[DanishDynamite]

I asked you a question.
Yes. You did indeed ask me a question.

(Claus, I generally like the things you do vs. the paranormal. My hat is off to you on that score. But when you are arguing things which are not paranormal, you tend to retain the same oblivious arguing style. A style not suited for Politics, for example. At least, not in my view. Hence the type of answers I've given. In short, I was trying to make an example of you in this regard, as friendly advice doesn't seem to affect you.

That being said, anytime you want to meet for a beer this summer, let me know! :) )

[CFLarsen]

No problems.

[DanishDynamite]

Cool. I'm thinking the last three weeks of July. Possible?

[CFLarsen]

Cool. I'm thinking the last three weeks of July. Possible?
I don't know that far ahead.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't know that far ahead.
Make a qualified guess. :)

[Art Vandelay]

How did Bonobos evolve?What needs to be explained?

[ReFLeX]

Speaking of the dominant or recessive status of the "homosexual gene" is premature. There is not a consensus on the roots of homosexual orientation. While sociologists tend to reject the absent father and domineering mother theory of a few decades ago, there has not been any "gay gene" located, and I would have to see studies showing that gay parents are more likely to have gay children before even beginning to have this "robustness" discussion. I have heard of studies showing that conditions in the prenatal womb may have something to do with a homosexual outcome, so it doesn't have to be the parents or peers that make up a possible environmental cause. You are getting way ahead of yourself. I don't think Claus is out of order to ask for articles showing evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality.

[JamesDillon]

I have heard of studies showing that conditions in the prenatal womb may have something to do with a homosexual outcome, so it doesn't have to be the parents or peers that make up a possible environmental cause.
I remember reading something similar, to the effect that high-stress pregnancies statistically tend to increase the likelihood of homosexual offspring. The speculation was that, in times of hardship, it's beneficial to have offspring who are unlikely to reproduce, thereby reducing the size of the population to a more manageable level.

That last part sounds like a neat theory, but the problems I see with it are 1) It relies on a theory of group selection rather than gene selection, which, reading Dawkins, I get the impression has generally lost favor among evolutionists. However, reading some critiques of Dawkins suggests that he may be overstating his case here?; and 2) The idea that a famine or other hardship now can be mitigated by reducing the size of the population 15-20 years from now when your offspring doesn't reproduce seems a bit implausible; I would think that such conditions would require a shorter-term remedy.

[Kerberos]

Not much, no.
WOW, you sure like to plan for every eventuallity. You're not the sligtest concerned by the fact that even with artificial insermination there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster, and every reason to think they'd breed slower?

[ReFLeX]

I remember reading something similar, to the effect that high-stress pregnancies statistically tend to increase the likelihood of homosexual offspring. The speculation was that, in times of hardship, it's beneficial to have offspring who are unlikely to reproduce, thereby reducing the size of the population to a more manageable level.

That last part sounds like a neat theory, but the problems I see with it are 1) It relies on a theory of group selection rather than gene selection, which, reading Dawkins, I get the impression has generally lost favor among evolutionists. However, reading some critiques of Dawkins suggests that he may be overstating his case here?; and 2) The idea that a famine or other hardship now can be mitigated by reducing the size of the population 15-20 years from now when your offspring doesn't reproduce seems a bit implausible; I would think that such conditions would require a shorter-term remedy.
What last part? I just meant to point out that nature may be currently favoured over nurture in the homosexuality debate, but "nature" doesn't entail genetics. Homosexuals may be the way they are from birth without there being a "gay gane."

[Scott Haley]

I found an article about demographics at http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/demographics.html It says that a Canadian study found that about 1.6 percent of women say that they're lesbian or bisexual. Of that small percent of women, a significant fraction of them choose not to give birth. Of the fraction of the 1.6 percent that do give birth, only half of their children are girls. Out of that group of girls, the overwhelming majority do not grow up to be lesbians. So I think that letting lesbians have children if they want to will have a minimal impact on the human race as a whole.

[Dancing David]

Here in Denmark the Parliament is considering a law which would, among a lot of other things, make it legal for hospitals/clinics to artificially inseminate one member of a lesbian couple. The law looks likely to pass (though by an extremely small margin, perhaps just one vote).

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand I say live and let live. I have no problem with gay-marriages or pro-choice. On the other hand I'm worried about the possible long-term consequences. There is for me no doubt that homosexual tendencies are genetically based. So far this tendency has been kept to a fairly small part of the population, due to obvious Darwinian reasons. But if these Darwinian reasons are now removed....what then?

Your view?

The co-occurance rate of homosexuality is way below that for standard human traits, no where near the 60% usualy needed to conclude if there is a biological basis, meaning twin and sibling co-occurance rates.

There is very poor data on the actual occurance of homosexual behavior mainly due to how to define when behavior becomes a trait,
1. Does a single sexual event count?
2. What percentage of sexual events have to occur to be a homosexual?
3. What rate of under reporting is there?


In a Darwinian sense, homosexuality can be a positive trait!

If you have a sibling who is non-reproductive but helps you to raise children to the age of reproduction then there is a major benefit.

[Dancing David]

which is often a good thing.

Acceptance of homosexual behavior isn't close in Asia and the MIddle East though.


Acceptance and practice are two seperate things, there is a lot of reported homosexual behavior in the middle east , much of it allegedly older brothers forced upon younger brothers.

It is one of those 'low down' kind of things where a man who buggers another man then says that they are not gay.

[CFLarsen]

What needs to be explained?
Scroll back. Keep up.

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, if this has already been addressed, I haven't read all the posts:

Of course not. If homosexuals became the norm, our ability to repopulate after a disaster, where artificial means were no longer available, would be miniscule.

That is not correct. First of all, there is no reason to assume that homeosexuality should become the norm, even if is genetic and selection against it is removed. Even if heterosexuals become a minority, they will be able to repopulate the planet. Finally, you forget that homosexual persons are quite able to reproduce, by engaging in a heterosexual intercourse. While they may prefer not to, it is entirely possible, and it being the only way to have descendants is likely to provide considerable motivation for many.

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Finally, you forget that homosexual persons are quite able to reproduce, by engaging in a heterosexual intercourse. While they may prefer not to, it is entirely possible, and it being the only way to have descendants is likely to provide considerable motivation for many.

Before artificial insemination, that's how it was done. A lesbian would go out, find "some guy", endure sex with him, get pregnant and then declare "Father Unknown" to the authorities, with all the social repercussions which followed. Shame, social outcast, etc. It was a lot harder for a gay man to have children, by finding a surrogate mother. He could, of course, live a lie and get married to a woman he wouldn't be happy with, only to have children.

Thanks to better science and better understanding of homosexuality, nobody needs to go through that again. Or should need to go through that.

Unless DD wants to ban homosexuals to have children?

[DanishDynamite]

WOW, you sure like to plan for every eventuallity. You're not the sligtest concerned by the fact that even with artificial insermination there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster, and every reason to think they'd breed slower?Uh...of course they would breed faster. They don't breed at all naturally as far as I know.

[DanishDynamite]

The co-occurance rate of homosexuality is way below that for standard human traits, no where near the 60% usualy needed to conclude if there is a biological basis, meaning twin and sibling co-occurance rates.

There is very poor data on the actual occurance of homosexual behavior mainly due to how to define when behavior becomes a trait,
1. Does a single sexual event count?
2. What percentage of sexual events have to occur to be a homosexual?
3. What rate of under reporting is there?


In a Darwinian sense, homosexuality can be a positive trait!

If you have a sibling who is non-reproductive but helps you to raise children to the age of reproduction then there is a major benefit.
Certainly there can be advantages to being homosexual, evolutionary-wice. I believe the tendency for this was explained in "The Selfish Gene".

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry, if this has already been addressed, I haven't read all the posts:
No problem.
That is not correct. First of all, there is no reason to assume that homeosexuality should become the norm, even if is genetic and selection against it is removed.
Why on Earth not?
Even if heterosexuals become a minority, they will be able to repopulate the planet.
Will they? If they become a small enough minority....
Finally, you forget that homosexual persons are quite able to reproduce, by engaging in a heterosexual intercourse. While they may prefer not to, it is entirely possible, and it being the only way to have descendants is likely to provide considerable motivation for many.

Hans
The ability of homosexuals to engage in non-homosexual sex has existed since the dawn of time. They have never been a significant part of the population before, though.

[DanishDynamite]

Before artificial insemination, that's how it was done. A lesbian would go out, find "some guy", endure sex with him, get pregnant and then declare "Father Unknown" to the authorities, with all the social repercussions which followed. Shame, social outcast, etc. It was a lot harder for a gay man to have children, by finding a surrogate mother. He could, of course, live a lie and get married to a woman he wouldn't be happy with, only to have children.

Thanks to better science and better understanding of homosexuality, nobody needs to go through that again. Or should need to go through that.

Unless DD wants to ban homosexuals to have children?
That's almost the question, isn't it? (Not banning, but denying artificial insemination of lesbians. )

[Kerberos]

Uh...of course they would breed faster. They don't breed at all naturally as far as I know.
Faster than heterosexuals obviously, unless they do they're not going to out compete heterosexuals. Lesbian couples would need to have almost 4 times as many kids as heterosexuals for this to happen, due to the fact that homosexual men won't be having babies anytime soon (despite Schwarzenegger’s groundbreaking research in that field), and because the sperm will likely be from a heterosexual donor. Just how likely do you think that is?

[CFLarsen]

That's almost the question, isn't it? (Not banning, but denying artificial insemination of lesbians. )
That hasn't stopped lesbians from having kids before.

[DanishDynamite]

Faster than heterosexuals obviously, unless they do they're not going to out compete heterosexuals. Lesbian couples would need to have almost 4 times as many kids as heterosexuals for this to happen, due to the fact that homosexual men won't be having babies anytime soon (despite Schwarzenegger’s groundbreaking research in that field), and because the sperm will likely be from a heterosexual donor. Just how likely do you think that is?
Thanks for your reply. Is it an attempt at backing up your claim that "there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster" with artificial insemination? If so, it falls short.

[DanishDynamite]

That hasn't stopped lesbians from having kids before.
Never said it did.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Before artificial insemination, that's how it was done. A lesbian would go out, find "some guy", endure sex with him, get pregnant and then declare "Father Unknown" to the authorities, with all the social repercussions which followed.
...cut...

Yes, and not even that much endurance is needed :). Though many would just grin and bear it, so to speak, gays and lesbians have been having kids for decades, if not longer, without intercourse. Not to be too graphic, but the technology needed for artificial insemination is not beyond that of a syringe. And what to do is not rocket science. Having the doctor involved does up the chances of pregnancy and allows for some added medical precautions, but it's certainly done without them.

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, and not even that much endurance is needed :). Though many would just grin and bear it, so to speak, gays and lesbians have been having kids for decades, if not longer, without intercourse. Not to be too graphic, but the technology needed for artificial insemination is not beyond that of a syringe. And what to do is not rocket science. Having the doctor involved does up the chances of pregnancy and allows for some added medical precautions, but it's certainly done without them.
No doubt this goes on as well. It is of course insignificant compared to a state sanctioned and paid method.

[CFLarsen]

Never said it did.
You're OK with that?

[DanishDynamite]

You're OK with that?
How could I not be? It's in the past. :)

[Scot C. Trypal]

No doubt this goes on as well. It is of course insignificant compared to a state sanctioned and paid method.

It’s free the way it is (Free, sure, wait until the kid gets into a university).

But you may be right, that many are just waiting for a doctor’s help and the numbers would go up significantly. Do you have any data on the #'s of lesbians currently raising children that are biologically related to them in Denmark? I'm pretty sure I could find some similar data on the US.

[DanishDynamite]

It’s free the way it is (Free, sure, wait until the kid gets into a university).

But you may be right, that many are just waiting for a doctor’s help and the numbers would go up significantly. Do you have any data on the #'s of lesbians currently raising children that are biologically related to them in Denmark? I'm pretty sure I could find some similar data on the US.
Sorry, no I don't. I'm not even sure statistics of that sort are available here.

[CFLarsen]

How could I not be? It's in the past. :)
But if you are not opposed to neither heterosexual women and lesbians getting pregnant by having intercourse, but you will only allow heterosexual women to be artificially inseminated, then you are discriminating against lesbians.

Because it isn't the method but the sexual orientation that determines who can get inseminated.

[DanishDynamite]

But if you are not opposed to neither heterosexual women and lesbians getting pregnant by having intercourse, but you will only allow heterosexual women to be artificially inseminated, then you are discriminating against lesbians.
Yes, correct.
Because it isn't the method but the sexual orientation that determines who can get inseminated.
Yes.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, correct.

Yes.
Then, it wasn't because of any Darwinian concerns?

[DanishDynamite]

Then, it wasn't because of any Darwinian concerns?
Of course it was.

[Terry]

Evidence?

It seems obvious to me that someone not sexually interested in the opposite sex, would generally not be as vigurous in getting offspring.

Do you have evidence that this view is wrong?

<anecdote n="1"> my partner fathered three children </anecdote>

[DanishDynamite]

<anecdote n="1"> my partner fathered three children </anecdote>
Thanks for the post. Could you point out the relevance? Thanks.

[Terry]

You said gay people wouldn't want to father kids. I pointed out an instance of a gay person who has fathered three children the old-fashioned way.

[CFLarsen]

Of course it was.

Ah, we are back to your claim again: Gay people breeding increases the number of gays.

Would you have any objections to a lesbian woman being artifically inseminated with the fertilized egg made by a heterosexual couple?

[DanishDynamite]

You said gay people wouldn't want to father kids. I pointed out an instance of a gay person who has fathered three children the old-fashioned way.
Yes, and gays have fathered many, many more. Just as people have actually been hit by lightning. Though it happens naturally with a very, very low probability, it does actually happen.

[DanishDynamite]

Ah, we are back to your claim again: Gay people breeding increases the number of gays.

Would you have any objections to a lesbian woman being artifically inseminated with the fertilized egg made by a heterosexual couple?
Yes, I think I would. Though, as I said, I'm still undecided on the whole idea.

[Kerberos]

Thanks for your reply. Is it an attempt at backing up your claim that "there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster" with artificial insemination? If so, it falls short.
*sight* "there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster [than heterosexuals] with artificial insermination". If you disagree please name one, preferably one that might plausibly cause lesbian coubles to reproduce at a rate 4 times greater than heterosexual coubles.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I think I would. Though, as I said, I'm still undecided on the whole idea.
But your objections couldn't possibly be Darwinian. The lesbian would not pass her genes on to the baby, so the baby would not - according to you - run a risk of being gay (any more than other kids by heterosexual parents, of course).

What other objections would you have?

[luchog]

Someone asked whether I thought gays couldn't possibly have children (naturally). I answered that of course they could, they just didn't have the inclination.
So you're saying that the urge to procreate, without the aid of modern technology, isn't sufficient inclination for them to procreate? I know more than a few children of gays and lesbians that would take exception to a claim like that, since all of them are the result of sexual intercourse, and not artificial insemination.

[luchog]

But your objections couldn't possibly be Darwinian. The lesbian would not pass her genes on to the baby, so the baby would not - according to you - run a risk of being gay (any more than other kids by heterosexual parents, of course).
I know it's strictly anecdotal; but less than half the children of gay/lesbian parents that I know are homosexual. In one case, both his parents were homosexual (i don't recall if he said it was artificial or natural insemination); which he was resolutely heterosexual.

So even if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (rather than developmental or environmental); the likelihood of a homosexual child still appears to be only marginally above the norm for the population in general.

[luchog]

I've already explained this several times. A society in which humans did not naturally procreate and where advanced technology was required to do make this possible, would not be a robust society.
So now you're back to implying that it is impossible, or at least highly improbable, for homosexuals to reproduce without the aid of advanced technology? Despite the number of times that you yourself have inadvertently refuted that?

Or do you consider a plastic cup and a turkey baster advanced technology?

[slingblade]

He's just a chain-jerker. If you say something with which he agrees, he moves the goalposts, or defects to the opposing team.

He doesn't have any arguments.

He's a pot-stirrer.

[Art Vandelay]

Faster than heterosexuals obviously, unless they do they're not going to out compete heterosexuals. Lesbian couples would need to have almost 4 times as many kids as heterosexuals for this to happen, due to the fact that homosexual men won't be having babies anytime soon (despite Schwarzenegger’s groundbreaking research in that field), and because the sperm will likely be from a heterosexual donor. Just how likely do you think that is?That doesn't make sense. Suppose there are 100 each of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homsexual women. If each lesbian has 6 kids each, with the fathers randomly selected, and each heterosexual has 2 kids normally, then there will be 900 "gay genes", and 700 "straight" genes.

Scroll back. Keep up.So.. you're just going to be a jackass, then?

You are implicitly declaring that there is something about the evolution of nonhuman primates that you do not understand. What is it?

[Soapy Sam]

If it means more bloody Danes, I think it should be stopped immediately.

Incidentally, Ray Blanchard's theory that birth order affects sexual orienation through feminisation of the foetal brain (due to the mother's body developing an increased immune reaction to male foetuses) implies that male homosexuality may be (in part) an epigenetic effect. If you consider the womb to be part of "the environment" then that would make it environmental, but if you see placentas as objects built by paternal genes, it's genetic. Choose one.
THE INFLUENCE OF BIRTH ORDER ON BIRTH WEIGHT: DOES THE SEX OF ... (http://people.uleth.ca/%7Emartin.lalumiere/pdf%20files/Cote%20et%20al%202003.pdf)

or just google "Ray Blanchard"

As one who has actually been a sperm donor, I really don't give a toss (sorry) who uses it. The idea is to help people who can't have kids propagate my genes for me. (I'm Scottish. I'm supposed to be cheap.)

[Cylinder]

What about penile aversion therapy as an alternative treatment. You know, like at first it's in a box, covered up and across the room. A few sessions later - BAM! - it's out and being petted.

[Soapy Sam]

You volunteering?:D

[Kerberos]

That doesn't make sense. Suppose there are 100 each of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homsexual women. If each lesbian has 6 kids each, with the fathers randomly selected, and each heterosexual has 2 kids normally, then there will be 900 "gay genes", and 700 "straight" genes.
Yes, and suppose the moon was made of green cheese then... The fact is that there aren't 100 each of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homosexual women. There are 95 each of heterosexual men and heterosexual women and 5 of Homosexual women and homosexual men (at least 5% is the number I've heard), meaning that to out compete heterosexuals they need to get almost 4 times as many children. Of course I'm assuming for the purposes of this that the genes (if any) for homosexuality are the same for men and women, If not lesbians would only need slightly less than twice as many children to keep the population of lesbians constant though male homosexuals might die out then.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, and suppose the moon was made of green cheese then... The fact is that there aren't 100 each of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homosexual women. What the moon is made out of doesn't change basic laws.

There are 95 each of heterosexual men and heterosexual women and 5 of Homosexual women and homosexual men (at least 5% is the number I've heard), meaning that to out compete heterosexuals they need to get almost 4 times as many children.The perecentages are irrelevant. I don't see where your reasoning is coming from. Let's change the numbers to 9500 amd 500, just to keep everything integral. Then there will be 3150 "gay" genes and 40850 "straight" genes. That's a total of 44000 genes, 7.2% of which are "gay". Pick any numbers you want, that's not going to magically change basic mathematical laws.

Of course I'm assuming for the purposes of this that the genes (if any) for homosexuality are the same for men and women, If not lesbians would only need slightly less than twice as many children to keep the population of lesbians constant though male homosexuals might die out then.That makes absolutely no sense. If lesbians reproduce at the same rate as straight women, then they'll stay at the same percentage of the population. That's just obvious.

[CFLarsen]

So.. you're just going to be a jackass, then?

No, I'm not. But it isn't my problem if you lose track of the discussion.

[Kerberos]

What the moon is made out of doesn't change basic laws. The perecentages are irrelevant. I don't see where your reasoning is coming from. Let's change the numbers to 9500 amd 500, just to keep everything integral. Then there will be 3150 "gay" genes and 40850 "straight" genes. That's a total of 44000 genes, 7.2% of which are "gay". Pick any numbers you want, that's not going to magically change basic mathematical laws.
The percentages are very relevant. Let's take those numbers there. There are 9500 heterosexual couples and 500 homosexual couples. Half the homosexual couples are male and thus won't be having any children (that’s what you forgot to factor into you calculations). That leaves 250 lesbian couples 95% of which gets sperm from heterosexuals and 5% of which get sperm from homosexuals. The lesbian couples each get 6 children and the heterosexual couples each get 2 children.

The heterosexuals will then get 9500*2=18000 children who each will have 2 heterosexual genes. The lesbian couples will have 250*6= 1500 children, 95% of which have a heterosexual and a homosexual gene and 5% of which have 2 homosexual genes. This makes for a total of 18000*2 + 1500*0.95= 39425 heterosexual genes and 1500*1.05= 1575 homosexual genes for a total of 41000 genes. There are now 1572*100/41000=3,84% homosexual genes in the population as opposed to 5% before. The rate of homosexuals is therefore dropping.

[Art Vandelay]

No, I'm not. But it isn't my problem if you lose track of the discussion.You're the one who isn't following the discussion. I've asked a very simple question, and I've asked it three times, and each time you've refused to answer it. You apparently think that asking idiotic question someone constitutes an argument.

The percentages are very relevant. Let's take those numbers there. There are 9500 heterosexual couples and 500 homosexual couples. Half the homosexual couples are male and thus won't be having any children (that’s what you forgot to factor into you calculations). No, I didn't forget anything.

That leaves 250 lesbian couples 95% of which gets sperm from heterosexuals and 5% of which get sperm from homosexuals. The lesbian couples each get 6 children and the heterosexual couples each get 2 children.No, the lesbian couples each have twelve children. Six times two is twelve. If this were your objection, you should have mentioned it earlier. Either way, the percentages don't matter.

[CFLarsen]

You're the one who isn't following the discussion. I've asked a very simple question, and I've asked it three times, and each time you've refused to answer it. You apparently think that asking idiotic question someone constitutes an argument.

"Idiotic"? The question goes to the core of your argument. Is that why it is "idiotic"?

[Art Vandelay]

"Idiotic"? The question goes to the core of your argument. No, it doesn't. Asking people to explain random phenomena doesn't "go to the core" of an argument, it just shows you to be an idiot. Apparently, you have some other question in mind, yet despite being asked THREE TIMES what it is, you have utterly failed to answer. That's idiotic. If you actually have an argument, present it already and stop being such a jackass.

[Kerberos]

No, the lesbian couples each have twelve children. Six times two is twelve. If this were your objection, you should have mentioned it earlier.
If the lesbian coubles each have 12 children then they get 6 times as many children as the heterosexual couples. 6>4 so it's no wonder the gay population increses then.
Either way, the percentages don't matter.
Yes it does. The larger the % of gays the larger the percentage of lesbians couples children have 2 gay genes. Do I need to run you through the math of a 50/50 population (or a near 100% gay for that matter that's the easiest) or can you manage it yourself?

[CFLarsen]

No, it doesn't. Asking people to explain random phenomena doesn't "go to the core" of an argument, it just shows you to be an idiot. Apparently, you have some other question in mind, yet despite being asked THREE TIMES what it is, you have utterly failed to answer. That's idiotic. If you actually have an argument, present it already and stop being such a jackass.

"Random"?

What is so random about the Bonobos evolving into a species that encourages gay sex?

[Art Vandelay]

If the lesbian coubles each have 12 children then they get 6 times as many children as the heterosexual couples. 6>4 so it's no wonder the gay population increses then.Each lesbian has three times as many children as each straight person, not six. If you're going to play semantic games, then you're going to have to include things like divorce.

Yes it does. The larger the % of gays the larger the percentage of lesbians couples children have 2 gay genes. Do I need to run you through the math of a 50/50 population (or a near 100% gay for that matter that's the easiest) or can you manage it yourself?How about you give it a try.

[Art Vandelay]

"Random"?

What is so random about the Bonobos evolving into a species that encourages gay sex?DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT? I don't have patience for your constant habit of posting questions as if they're arguments. If you have some argument for why your question is relevant, SAY IT! Don't ask me to prove a negative. Your question added nothing to the discussion, and had nothing to do with what I said. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show how it did, not me to show how it didn't.

This is now FOUR times I've asked you to explain your point, and you still haven't done it. Quit being such a jackass. Your next post had better be a DECLARATIVE SENTENCE answering my question, or I'm done with your weaseling BS.

[CFLarsen]

DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT? I don't have patience for your constant habit of posting questions as if they're arguments. If you have some argument for why your question is relevant, SAY IT! Don't ask me to prove a negative. Your question added nothing to the discussion, and had nothing to do with what I said. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show how it did, not me to show how it didn't.

This is now FOUR times I've asked you to explain your point, and you still haven't done it. Quit being such a jackass. Your next post had better be a DECLARATIVE SENTENCE answering my question, or I'm done with your weaseling BS.
I asked you a question:

What is so random about the Bonobos evolving into a species that encourages gay sex?

[Kerberos]

Each lesbian has three times as many children as each straight person, not six.If you're going to play semantic games, then you're going to have to include things like divorce.
If you try to go back to the first post you responded to you'll see that I wrote "Lesbian couples would need to have almost 4 times as many kids as heterosexuals for this to happen" It's hardly my fault that you misread what I clearly wrote.
How about you give it a try.
BAH, I should have done the math before I wrote that. I forgot to factor in that the higher portion of homosexuals the more artificial inserminations for hetoresexual men to make. My original point stands however. Lesbian couples would need to get almost 4 times as many children, "almost" because some heterosexual couples would need artificial insermination as well and could get gay sperm.

[Soapy Sam]

Anyone know any evidence supporting the idea that a lesbian mother (irrespective of the father's sexual orientation) is less / more likely to have children who are gay (of either sex), than mothers who are not lesbian?

Before we start doing any "math" we need to know a lot about what gene complexes (if any) predispose m/f children to displaying gay preferences.

We also need to know which (if any) such genetic sets are subject to environmental effects (such as maternal immune reactions) and to what degree.

I don't believe we have the information needed to do any realistic calculations. (By "we" I mean humanity as a whole, not you and me).

In any case, I can't see that it would be a disaster if the human race turned predominantly gay. Interesting experiment in fact.

[CFLarsen]

Anyone know any evidence supporting the idea that a lesbian mother (irrespective of the father's sexual orientation) is less / more likely to have children who are gay (of either sex), than mothers who are not lesbian?

Before we start doing any "math" we need to know a lot about what gene complexes (if any) predispose m/f children to displaying gay preferences.

We also need to know which (if any) such genetic sets are subject to environmental effects (such as maternal immune reactions) and to what degree.

I don't believe we have the information needed to do any realistic calculations. (By "we" I mean humanity as a whole, not you and me).

In any case, I can't see that it would be a disaster if the human race turned predominantly gay. Interesting experiment in fact.

I've been trying to get evidence from DD for some time now. Doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

[Soapy Sam]

I've been trying to get evidence from DD for some time now. Doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
Oh there's evidence that some genes are found in homosexuals more than others, but there's no clear picture of whether homosexuality in men has anything much in common with homosexuality in women. The mechanisms might be utterly different. DD is just being coy because his wind Claus up gene is active at this time of the month.
I'm just saying that before we can do any calculations about whether lesbian women reproducing by donor sperm will have any effect at all on the %age of gay babies (supposing such to exist),we need a vast amount of precise data, which I'm sure does not exist in toto.

We need to know quantitatively, how many innately gay people did not reproduce in the past, as opposed to how many entered heterosexual relationships which produced children .

Also we need to know the precise way " gay genes" are expressed. A gene on the X chromosome for example, that made daughters feminine, fertile and attractive might thrive if the women it ends up in have significantly more daughters than sons. On the other hand if women with the gene have more sons than daughters it might rapidly die out.

There are thousands of details we would need to know.

The whole thing is horrendously complex and any simple arithmetic is likely to be wrong.


Anyway, who gives a toss?:)

Matt Ridley made the interesting observation that if gay genes do exist, they may have higher reproductive success in a society where gay behaviour is repressed than in one where it is overt. If gays cease to have any heterosexual activity, they might therefore die out entirely.
Now if a gay gene is also the gene for clothes colour sense, the consequences to the human race could be seriously drab. Perhaps we should be encouraging more gay women to become pregnant?
(I'm available most evenings girls).

[Dancing David]

Certainly there can be advantages to being homosexual, evolutionary-wice. I believe the tendency for this was explained in "The Selfish Gene".


You still didn't answer the question, at what level of homosexual/htero sexual behavior does a female qualify as a lesbian to not recieve artificial insemination?

If a female prefers only oral/anal sex should she also be classified as innappropriate for for artificial insemination.

So you agree that homosexuality will not lead to the decline of human reproduction, then why deny them artificial insemination?

[Dancing David]

Yes, and gays have fathered many, many more. Just as people have actually been hit by lightning. Though it happens naturally with a very, very low probability, it does actually happen.


Man, what a bizarre and outlandish concept, you are obviously not aware of the numer of homosexuals who have children before coming out of the closet. In fact there are plenty of gays and lesbians who

a. get married before they realise thier sexuality.
b. are married and have gay sex on the 'low down'.
c. stay married and have children despite thier sexuality.
d. insert plausible scenario here.9no pun intended, or turkey basters.)

Unless you think lightning strikes a huge percentage of people you are either ignorant of what gay and lesbian people are like or truely deluded.

What eveidence do you have to support your statement that gay/lesbian people have children at a rate comparable to lightning strike?

Or was it just hyperbole?

[Scot C. Trypal]

Man, what a bizarre and outlandish concept, you are obviously not aware of the numer of homosexuals who have children before coming out of the closet. In fact there are plenty of gays and lesbians who

a. get married before they realise thier sexuality.
b. are married and have gay sex on the 'low down'.
c. stay married and have children despite thier sexuality.
d. insert plausible scenario here.9no pun intended, or turkey basters.)

Yes. For one small bit of evidence take the state of Utah. On the last census, of households that self-identified themselves as headed by a male-male couple, about 1 in 3 were raising kids (IIRC the 3rd highest rate in the US).

But, oddly, that state is one that restricts gays from having children most ardently. It is illegal for gay couples to adopt or to use surrogacy. So a minority is from out of state, or from do-it-yourself fertilization, but the vast majority of these kids are likely the result of heterosexual relationships that tragically failed (probably due to the LDS’s culture which has historically treated homosexuality as something that can be overcome and encouraged gay LDS kids to marry heterosexually).

It’s ironic that they create exactly what they want to avoid, at rates greater than most any other state, but not difficult to understand.

[Art Vandelay]

This is now FOUR times I've asked you to explain your point, and you still haven't done it. Quit being such a jackass. Your next post had better be a DECLARATIVE SENTENCE answering my question, or I'm done with your weaseling BS.

I asked you a question:

What is so random about the Bonobos evolving into a species that encourages gay sex?

So, I guess that's it, then. You're officially declaring yourself a jackass. Go ***** yourself, Claus.

Man, what a bizarre and outlandish concept, you are obviously not aware of the numer of homosexuals who have children before coming out of the closet. In fact there are plenty of gays and lesbians who You really should address his original point. His original claim was that homosexuals have kids at a lower rate, not that they don't have them at all.

[Katana]

You really should address his original point. His original claim was that homosexuals have kids at a lower rate, not that they don't have them at all.
I don't think that the fact that homosexuals have children at a lower rate (and I assume you mean a smaller percentage of them do versus heterosexuals) is reflective of anything anyway. The hoops that homosexuals have to jump through just to have kids pose sometimes-insurmountable barriers to some of them which will reduce the number of children in this group.

Is this a better question to ask: What percentage of homosexuals want children versus heterosexuals?

[Almo]

I'd say the whole gene pool thing for humans is a mess. We've been keeping individuals alive for centuries that would never have survived to breeding age in the wild. I wouldn't be here, as I was placenta previa, and would not have survived birth; so I'm not just trying to be callous to people whom I think are inferior. ;)

One of the most striking examples is of people who are unable to conceive now being given that option.

My guess is that with artificial insemination and similar things, the whole sex thing will disappear eventually. In general, stuff that no longer has pressure selecting for it fades away (at least, that's my understanding of it: wisdom teeth, appendix). I can imagine a race entirely dependent on its technology for conception and birth.

[CFLarsen]

So, I guess that's it, then. You're officially declaring yourself a jackass. Go ***** yourself, Claus.

Tsk, tsk...

[slingblade]

Doesn't this ever get old to you two?

I'm just curious.

[Katana]

I'd say the whole gene pool thing for humans is a mess. We've been keeping individuals alive for centuries that would never have survived to breeding age in the wild. I wouldn't be here, as I was placenta previa, and would not have survived birth; so I'm not just trying to be callous to people whom I think are inferior. ;)

One of the most striking examples is of people who are unable to conceive now being given that option.

My guess is that with artificial insemination and similar things, the whole sex thing will disappear eventually. In general, stuff that no longer has pressure selecting for it fades away (at least, that's my understanding of it: wisdom teeth, appendix). I can imagine a race entirely dependent on its technology for conception and birth.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Except for the part about keeping folks alive for centuries who otherwise would have died. It has really been primarily in this and the last century that medicine has advanced to the extent that we can do this.

It's really all about de-evolution.

[CFLarsen]

Doesn't this ever get old to you two?

I'm just curious.
Seeking answers never get old.

[Art Vandelay]

Giving answers, however, apparently got old for Claus a long time ago.

[slingblade]

:) Okay, then. Carry on.

[DanishDynamite]

You said gay people wouldn't want to father kids. I pointed out an instance of a gay person who has fathered three children the old-fashioned way.
Yes. And of course such instances exist. I was speaking in general. And so my question remains.

[DanishDynamite]

*sight* "there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexuals would breed faster [than heterosexuals] with artificial insermination". If you disagree please name one, preferably one that might plausibly cause lesbian coubles to reproduce at a rate 4 times greater than heterosexual coubles.
Uh..where did I claim that they would breed faster than heterosexuals today? I think I just said they would breed faster.

[DanishDynamite]

But your objections couldn't possibly be Darwinian. The lesbian would not pass her genes on to the baby, so the baby would not - according to you - run a risk of being gay (any more than other kids by heterosexual parents, of course).

What other objections would you have?
Of course my objections are Darwinian. The lesbian can now pass on her genes.

[DanishDynamite]

So now you're back to implying that it is impossible, or at least highly improbable, for homosexuals to reproduce without the aid of advanced technology? Despite the number of times that you yourself have inadvertently refuted that?
Yes, a conclusion which is obvious. No, I have not, as far as I know, refuted it. Could you show where?
Or do you consider a plastic cup and a turkey baster advanced technology?
No. How is this relevant?

[DanishDynamite]

He's just a chain-jerker. If you say something with which he agrees, he moves the goalposts, or defects to the opposing team.

He doesn't have any arguments.

He's a pot-stirrer.
Thanks for your input, sling. :)

[DanishDynamite]

You still didn't answer the question, at what level of homosexual/htero sexual behavior does a female qualify as a lesbian to not recieve artificial insemination?
Sorry, I didn't realize that was the question. She qualifies if she is an admitted lesbian.
If a female prefers only oral/anal sex should she also be classified as innappropriate for for artificial insemination.
Nope, I don't see why.
So you agree that homosexuality will not lead to the decline of human reproduction, then why deny them artificial insemination?
It will lead to a lack of robustness. I thought I mentioned that.

[DanishDynamite]

Man, what a bizarre and outlandish concept, you are obviously not aware of the numer of homosexuals who have children before coming out of the closet. In fact there are plenty of gays and lesbians who

a. get married before they realise thier sexuality.
b. are married and have gay sex on the 'low down'.
c. stay married and have children despite thier sexuality.
d. insert plausible scenario here.9no pun intended, or turkey basters.)

Unless you think lightning strikes a huge percentage of people you are either ignorant of what gay and lesbian people are like or truely deluded.

What eveidence do you have to support your statement that gay/lesbian people have children at a rate comparable to lightning strike?

Or was it just hyperbole?
Your examples are of little relevance unless they portray the behaviour of the majority of homosexuals.

Remember...robustness.

[Kerberos]

Uh..where did I claim that they would breed faster than heterosexuals today? I think I just said they would breed faster.
And just how did you imagine that homosexuality would spread to the entire population if heterosexuals breed faster than homosexuals? Inquisitive minds want to know.

Unless homosexuals breed faster than heterosexual or the homosexual gene is tranfered via viral infections, then artificial inserminations for lesbians would just make any homosexual genes that might exist die out slower, which I somehow don't think will hurt the robustness of the human race to much. Pretty much none of the of the hypothesized explanations for why gentic homosexuality might survive in the gene poll apply to modern socierties.

[CFLarsen]

Of course my objections are Darwinian. The lesbian can now pass on her genes.
But she doesn't. How can a woman pass on her genes, if it is not her egg?

[DanishDynamite]

And just how did you imagine that homosexuality would spread to the entire population if heterosexuals breed faster than homosexuals? Inquisitive minds want to know.
The key word here is "today". Given the extremely low breeding rate heterosexuals manage today, and the boost soon available to homosexuals, this could change.
Unless homosexuals breed faster than heterosexual or the homosexual gene is tranfered via viral infections, then artificial inserminations for lesbians would just make any homosexual genes that might exist die out slower, which I somehow don't think will hurt the robustness of the human race to much. Pretty much none of the of the hypothesized explanations for why gentic homosexuality might survive in the gene poll apply to modern socierties.
That's the point, my friend. We need a robust species so that if modern society is suddenly removed, we can still survive. Hard to do if we can't even breed naturally.

[DanishDynamite]

But she doesn't. How can a woman pass on her genes, if it is not her egg?
I don't know. Why do you ask?

[CFLarsen]

I don't know. Why do you ask?
She can't. So, you should not have any problems with a lesbian woman giving birth to a child that comes from two heterosexuals?

[Kerberos]

The key word here is "today". Given the extremely low breeding rate heterosexuals manage today, and the boost soon available to homosexuals, this could change.
So you are saying that homosexuals would breed faster than heterosexuals. You basis for assuming that lesbian coubles would have more than 4 times as many children as heterosexuals was what again?

That's the point, my friend. We need a robust species so that if modern society is suddenly removed, we can still survive. Hard to do if we can't even breed naturally.
Quite so, but I think establishing a proper defence against invading space ants has to take priority.

[Katana]

She can't. So, you should not have any problems with a lesbian woman giving birth to a child that comes from two heterosexuals?
Maybe I missed something. The vast majority of the time, one woman in the lesbian couple will be artificially inseminated with donor sperm. It is her egg that is fertilized.

When would it not be her egg? The same time that it wouldn't for heterosexual couples which is typically when the woman is too old, and her eggs are no longer viable. Then she becomes a surrogate-another woman's egg and donor (or her partner's if heterosexual) sperm are mixed, creating the embryo which then implants (if all goes to plan) in her uterus.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe I missed something. The vast majority of the time, one woman in the lesbian couple will be artificially inseminated with donor sperm. It is her egg that is fertilized.

When would it not be her egg? The same time that it wouldn't for heterosexual couples which is typically when the woman is too old, and her eggs are no longer viable. Then she becomes a surrogate-another woman's egg and donor (or her partner's if heterosexual) sperm are mixed, creating the embryo which then implants (if all goes to plan) in her uterus.
I simply asked if DD would mind having a lesbian giving birth to a child coming from all heterosexual genes.

[Katana]

I simply asked if DD would mind having a lesbian giving birth to a child coming from all heterosexual genes.

Gotcha. Sorry.

[Art Vandelay]

If you try to go back to the first post you responded to you'll see that I wrote "Lesbian couples would need to have almost 4 times as many kids as heterosexuals for this to happen" It's hardly my fault that you misread what I clearly wrote.Lesbian couples don't have children. I didn't misread anything.

[Kerberos]

Lesbian couples don't have children. I didn't misread anything.
I suggest you ask a couple that adopted whether they "have children". The way I used to word was both legitimate, obvious from context and especially obvious from me pointing out your mistake to you in plain English. Your ridicilous refusal to aknowledge your mistake only serves to make you look like an idiot.

[DanishDynamite]

She can't. So, you should not have any problems with a lesbian woman giving birth to a child that comes from two heterosexuals?
Certainly not.

[DanishDynamite]

So you are saying that homosexuals would breed faster than heterosexuals. You basis for assuming that lesbian coubles would have more than 4 times as many children as heterosexuals was what again?
You know, it scares me a little if heterosexuals are only outbreeding homosexuals at the rate of 4 to 1 today, as you keep mentioning. Is this really the case? It seems extremely low.
Quite so, but I think establishing a proper defence against invading space ants has to take priority.
Not sure I get what you are talking about. Do you feel having a robust species is a good idea or doesn't it matter to you?

[CFLarsen]

Certainly not.

Okies.

When is one "lesbian"?

[DanishDynamite]

Okies.

When is one "lesbian"?
When is one not?

[slingblade]

Not sure I get what you are talking about. Do you feel having a robust species is a good idea or doesn't it matter to you?

Gee, where to start with this fallacious mess?

"Robust" is a weasel word and needs to be defined and issued parameters for purposes of logical, informed discussion. If this has already been done, can someone please point me to the post? Thanks.

We seem to have a robust species, as it keeps increasing. Whether this matters to me or not will have little or no impact on that fact. In addition, I'm already here. Once I'm gone, what I thought about anything won't matter at all. If the human race does eventually die out for any reason, I will not be here to see it, so no: I don't really care.

Homosexuality has been around for as long as the species has, and it doesn't seem to have noticeably affected the robusness of the human species. No proof has been offered to dispute that statement.

Homosexuals dipping into their personal "gene pools" to reproduce probably aren't going to affect the robustness of the human species any more than they already have in the past, which is to say, not at all.

[CFLarsen]

When is one not?
You are the one drawing the line.

When is one a "lesbian"?

[Art Vandelay]

I suggest you ask a couple that adopted whether they "have children". The way I used to word was both legitimate, obvious from context and especially obvious from me pointing out your mistake to you in plain English. Your ridicilous refusal to aknowledge your mistake only serves to make you look like an idiot.What is "obvious from context" is that when we talk about propogation of genes, "have children" refers to being a biological parent, not adoptions. Your insistence that my disagreement is a "mistake" and making personal attacks is just showing you to be rude.

[Kerberos]

You know, it scares me a little if heterosexuals are only outbreeding homosexuals at the rate of 4 to 1 today, as you keep mentioning. Is this really the case? It seems extremely low.
I'm talking about each heterosexual, and that is assuming that the legislation passes and that Lesbian couples on average get as many children as heterosexual couples.

Not sure I get what you are talking about.

I'm talking about how establishing a defence against invading space ants is more important on account of it being a greater and more eminent threat to humanity than artificial inseminations for lesbians.
Do you feel having a robust species is a good idea or doesn't it matter to you?
I think having a robust species is a splendid idea, which would be very relevant to this discussion if there was even the slightest reason to think that artificial insemination for lesbians would have any noticeable impact on the robustness of the human race. There isn't however.

[DanishDynamite]

Gee, where to start with this fallacious mess?

"Robust" is a weasel word and needs to be defined and issued parameters for purposes of logical, informed discussion. If this has already been done, can someone please point me to the post? Thanks.
I could be flippant and ask you to use a dictionary, which I will.
We seem to have a robust species, as it keeps increasing.
We are so dominant there's no stress factor. Currently.
Whether this matters to me or not will have little or no impact on that fact. In addition, I'm already here. Once I'm gone, what I thought about anything won't matter at all. If the human race does eventually die out for any reason, I will not be here to see it, so no: I don't really care.Of course what you do while alive will have an impact on future generations.

But you have said you don't care, which is fine. It just negates any value of your future inputs in this thread.
Homosexuality has been around for as long as the species has, and it doesn't seem to have noticeably affected the robusness of the human species. No proof has been offered to dispute that statement.
No one has claimed it. Hence the lack of proof.
Homosexuals dipping into their personal "gene pools" to reproduce probably aren't going to affect the robustness of the human species any more than they already have in the past, which is to say, not at all.
That's the question being discussed. But since you don't care....