| KratosLives said: This may very well happen one day , 200/300 years from now. I'm neutral when it comes to gays. I really feel for what same sex couples miss out on by not having the opposite sex with them. there is so much to learn form the opposite sex, which in turn makes you learn more about yourself. I'd rather sit down with gays/lesbians and show them what they will miss out on and the hurdles they will have to go through. The only obstacle in the way of being straight is the attraction of the same sex. But if only everyone knew what love is and that physical attraction is just fooling the mind. Love has nothing to do with looks. Gays that say they are attracted to the same sex, if they can laugh and associate with the opposite sex, then a relationship is possible. They just need to understand what love is. Another big thing is confidence and self esteem. I thought i was probably gay cause i felt more comfortable around guys, but thats cause i was nervous around girls when trying to make a conversation and shy., having been in an all boys school. But then you have gays who love what theyre in and dont want the opposite sex. That's fine. But i'm just worried about the future and dnt think churches should have gay marriages and stuff like that only because i imagine a future where being gay/lesbian is accepted everywhere and in our lives, movies, music, comics, schoo teachings, churches, etcthat future generation of kids from as early as they can talk, would have have the idea same sex relationships being normal. Once it becomes mainstream by the time they are teens, believe a big percentage would be gays /lesbians. Imagine as kid seeing gays and lesbians holding hands, kissing, on billboards, tv, this stuff enters their minds at a young age and makes it normal. Imagine a few hundred years from now, that same sex relationships becomes a phenomenom, that gets passed down to next gen, birth rates have dropped significantly, more men have to start donating sperm to keep up with the rate of same sex female relationships to give birth, by then same sex would have taken over the new movie revolution era, tv, people in politics etc.. i know this is far fetched, but anything is possible. |
If love isn't to do with physical attraction (something I agree with you on btw), then don't you need to tell all the straight people that as well? Afterall, if having a relationship is supposed to be about love and not anything else, why shouldn't we all just be bi-asexual? Considering I believe that the majority of people are actually born with bisexual tendencies anyway (look at history and you'll see the percentage of bisexuality was a lot higher, in fact, in some countries such as Japan, the act of loving a man was considered "true love" and loving a woman was just something you did to reproduce), then I think that would work perfectly fine.
Your argument about having so much to learn from the opposite sex implies you don't think there is much to learn from the same sex, something I disagree with strongly. You can learn loads from the same sex just as you can from the opposite sex and the idea that you have to be in a relationship with them in order to learn something seems a bit far fetched to me. I've learnt lots from female friends in the past that I've never dated, about as much as I've learnt from the females that I have dated. I've also learnt loads from my male friends and whilst I have dated one yet, when I do, I'm sure it'll be a learning experience for me.
As to your argument about birth rates decreasing, I have mixed feelings. Earth undeniably is going to have a massive problem with population size and growth in the relatively near future. If making homosexuality mainstream is one way to reduce this problem by reducing the world's population, then I say bring on the homosexuality. There is of course the problem with population's shrinking affecting the economy of the world but if homosexuality was to become the norm in the developed and developing world (the less developed world wouldn't necessarily make an impact because their economies are so small in comparison as to not really matter at this scale) then all the economies would be affected in a similar manner and thus relative to the rest of the world, the economies would be about as strong as they were. (I know that last part is slightly idealistic, there will be problems whilst the process occurs but compared to the problems of overpopulation putting strain on the economies I don't think it will be as bad). Having decreased birth rates will then learn to a food surplus in the countries that's population has shrunk which will allow for higher levels of aid to poorer countries and thus help them develop and reduce world poverty.
