[extropy-chat] post on gay marriage

David Lubkin extropy at unreasonable.com
Fri Jul 22 17:27:44 UTC 2005


Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

>If we are truly objective and discuss the utility to gayness in the 
>current world scheme we might consider that for every gay couple there is 
>zero possibility for procreation for males and perhaps less than average 
>procreation or females.   Thus gayness is a modest method of population 
>control.  I would make the suggestion that the population curve of a group 
>of 50/50 gay males and females is  less than 2 children per couple,(flat 
>or curving downwards)  be it by adoption or extramarital impregnation.

Except that there is no overpopulation problem. To the contrary, the 
dramatically low birth rates -- especially in Western Europe -- are a 
substantial social concern.

Still and all, Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_ (1974) postulated that 
future powers-that-be would respond to a perceived population explosion by 
promoting homosexuality as the norm and stigmatizing heterosexuality, viz.,

"William, everybody on Earth is homosexual. Except for a few thousand or 
so;" ... "[Heterosexuality] was only a crime for a short period. Then it 
was considered to be a, oh, curable ... dysfunction."

and then Samantha wrote:

>"truly objective"? "utility"  What is the "utility" of your very
>life?   Is it "truly objective" to try to find some "utility" for it?

Samantha responded forcefully to Lifespan's posting, for reasons that 
escape me. We've often had dispassionate analyses of social or economic 
phenomena posted, and have been able to consider them here without rancor, 
even when list members were part of the phenomenon being considered.

Moreover, while you might fault his phrasing, he's arguing a position that 
supports your goals. I'd think that merits encouragement, not condemnation.


-- David Lubkin.




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list