For the following reasons:

1. Heterosexual mating rituals have evolved into wars that kill millions, and no longer ensure a "stronger" genetic pool.

2. Homosexual men do not contribute to overpopulation, or the repression of women.

3. Heterosexual men do not mix well in coed situations. They make mixed gender activities problamatic, thus contributing to a division among humans by gender.

4. By opening men up to empathy in other men, it will foster greater friendship relations among males in general, a gender that has extremely low quality friendships because of its "natural" inclination towards violence towards other males.

I don't even want to begin with the many flaws in the logic of this statement (it being slipery-slope missing many premesis, and simply false cause, etc.)



But that's assuming that heterosexual men all contribute to repression of women. And as the overpopulation thing, why mandatory homosexuality (which obviously wouldn't be able to be enforced)




The first sentence is simply false. And gender is a social thing, not biological, so this point doesn't fit the issue of "homosexuality"



Again, "false cause" seems to be present here. Seems to be that you're saying that the only way to foster friendship is through sexual relations, where as it should be apparent to anyone who has been in society or witnessed it, that this argument doesn't make sense.

1. Ending violence
Kurt, you didn't dispute the first point. You just said "I don't want to begin to..."


2. Halting overpopulation and making women truly equal

Not a necessary assumption at all. Obviously, not ALL heterosexual men contribute to the repression of women. Just a critical mass of them. By eliminating this heterosexual gender option entirely, we would be left with no critical mass of female repression.


It is the easiest and most reliable form of birth control.

3. Facilitating coed arrangements
You haven't argued that heterosexual men don't ruin coed organisations. You have simply stated that gender is socially constructed. I agree. Which is why I suggest that we reconstruct "male normalicy" to mean "homosexual."

4. Improving male-male relationships

Which is why one should leave one's society and look at it from the outside. The way gay men always have to.

Wouldn't mandatory sterilization be much easier than trying to change an entire sex's sexual prefrence? (which by the way would be impossible)

And as for the first point, I actually gave two named fallacies that your first point demonstrates.



But you're assuming that the only/or best solution for this is to make everyone gay, instead of addressing the actual problem, and you don't give any argument for why this is the best option, only that the end result could possibly be better (which is also a weak argument, since you obviously wouldn't know if the end result would be better)



And you haven't argued that they have. This seems to be the "fallacy of ignorance" unless you provide an argument for it, otherwise, just saying "you haven't disproven ____, therefore ___ isn't true" is obviously fallacious.



It'd be tough to disagree, as this is pretty much a fact and known among most educated people. (not being a smart-ass here, just saying, many people don't realize this fact, and im glad that you do)



Good point, so let's reexaming the original point of yours then.



Well the first main problem with this is you again fail to provide any reason why homosexuality is the solution to this. On top of that, intimate relations doesn't necessairly increase "friendship", as a matter of fact, in many cases it ruins it.

And you bring up that "gay men always have to" look outside of society, which is probably why you think they have some sort of unity compared to straight men, but if you made gay the norm, they wouldn't be an "oppressed" group, and that sense of unity would probably not be prevaliant, so I fail to see the point in making homosexuality the norm.


On top of all of this, it is obviously impossible to enforce, there have been anti-gay laws and "enforcement" on the books since the US has been around, and there are obviously still gay people here. We shoudn't try to enforce a sexual prefrence.

Wasn't Alexander the Great gay? Wasn't Hitler a little iffy sexually?

Would not making everyone gay kind of, you know, end the human race in a single generation?

Forced sterilization? Where are we getting these ideas?

Even as poorly as Qatzel0k put it, I can understand what he's saying from a social perspective. But making it mandatory is a bit out there. There is indeed a bit that straight men could learn about interacting with women that they could learn from gay men. Namely, in not trying to sexually charge some of those interactions.

But, the first premise of heterosexual mating rituals can be applied to all mating rituals. Even bacteria have wars; it's just not on the level of organization that we are used to thinking of when we think of war. One could argue that the only real difference between man and bacteria when it comes to conflict is the level of organization.

The second premise would wipe out the world population in a generation. If all men are gay, no more procreation, no more babies, no more human race. So you allow some men to be straight. Great! Who? Who get's to procreate? How would you determine who does and who does not? What genes get to be passed on? Who get's to decide? There's a real devil in those details.

The fourth premise fails to recognize that women are just as interested in violence as men. It's just that they go about it differently. Have you ever heard the phrase "behind every successful man is a woman"? She pushes her man into conflict and success. What do women want in a man? What quality do they seek in a mate? They want an agressive man who goes out and get's what he wants, then returns to give it to her. Women want their men to be successful, to be on top. In other words, their own choices in a mate promotes agressive behavior in men. Natural selection serves to make men as they are. Because of their choices in mate-worthy qualities, women are as responsible for conflict as men. Howard Bloom stated it better in his book "The Lucifer Principle", but I cannot find my copy, so I can't quote him.

CitizenJ:


Civilisation tries to get beyond bacteria-as-role-model. Bacteria don't have access to the internet where they might learn to coexist with each other.



Let's pretend we've never heard of artificial insemination.


Let's pretend that's true.


Let's pretend that version of masculinity didn't come from commercial mass media. "I love a man who gets what he wants. And what he wants is the new Eddie Bauer Edition Jeep Grand Cherokee."

Don't forget that homosexuality was institutional among the Spartan army.

Even with artificial insemination, you still have to decide who's sperm is used.

For being so much more sophisticated than the animals we've supposedly left behind, we sure don't act that much differently.

And our current version of masculinity has been around long before we invented mass media. Like about thousands of years before. Women's choices in their mans attributes are just as important as mens attributes themselves. Men make ourselves into what women want us to be in order to garner the best mate. And women mate with us according to our success with those attributes. If they wanted a sensitive cooperative man all those thousands of years, then they should have been mating with sensitive cooperative men. Instead, they mated with the agressive dominant ones first. It was always the leader of the pack; the dominant male who got the girl, not the artist. If woman spurned the dominant male and ran off with the artist for thousands years, we would probably be a species of artists. No point in blaming either gender for it. Humans are simply following the sexual model of all primates, most mammels and a very large majority of fauna on earth.

We really do not act all that different than the dictates of our origins despite all of our technological sophistications. All the 'us Vs. them' mentalities of the great apes are commonly found in Man as well. Tactics have change and the level of complexity has increased, but the underlying mentality of competition, and domination/submission found in apes still remains with us today. Look around you, we are perhaps only one or two steps removed from being just a bunch of apes with nukes.

There is a species of ape whose males rub their penises against everyone in their group - men, women and children apes.

This is the only ape that doesn't show aggression in males.

Nature is much more complex than your simplified stereotype suggests.

I think you should learn a little about violent homosexuals throughout history. Some have been mentioned already.


Women cause both problems. Get rid of them and there will be no repression and no overpopulation.

Stupid logic.


Any proof of this unfounded assertion?

Most heterosexual men I know make due just fine in co-ed situations.


Again, any proof of this?

My friendships with some of my male friends are very high quality.

Besids, isn't homosexuality a combination of genetic and environmental factors? Or do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

How would you practically go about making homosexuality mandatory?

You stoned or something?


We should maintain the status quo because sexual reproduction is still the most popular way of concieving babies and also many people are straight and should not be forced to become homosexuals.

Oh yeah, and straight people can also respect women and recognize their equality.

Really?

F*cked up.

But "conceiving babies" is not the most popular result of sexual relations.

It is possible to allow adults to dabble in a bit of non-reproductive heterosexuality. As long as it never threatens the cultural dominance of homosexuality.

no.

WC, this is the Liberal Forum, not the Daycare Centre.

Please collect your plush toys and join your mother in the Lobby.

Thanks for being a such a nice cow.

Thank you for answering my questions.

Liberals and Leftists are always mandating something. Is excessive taxation no longer enough to satiate your power fetish?

No, not by a long shot. In addition to mandating homosexuality (although not just in males, I guess Qatz missed the last meeting, we'll also be instituting forced conversion to Islam within the next few weeks. Also, marijuana use will be mandatory as well.

Wouldn't that lead to the entire population publicly hanging themselves?

Also, I think that homosexuality was institutionalised in Shaka's army as well, and that it was rather common in T. E. Lawrence's forces.

QuatzelOK are you actually serious?

I personally see none of your positive gains from "mandetory homosexuality" beacause the some of most warlike and misognystic civilization, have basically had culturally normative homosexuality historically.

To compare contemporarty homosexuality to Greek antiquity is to miss the point entirely.

The function of Spartan homosexuality was to enforce the concept of domination over other males onto the soldiers of that city.

In our day, the function of homosexuality would be to make pregnancy the ONLY purpose of male-female sexual contact (or insemination) so as to ensure a stable population and an opportunity for advanced education for ALL social classes.

I have a feeling this might be a harder sell in the Moslem countries, but damn it, I really believe in this initiative.

Still no answers.

Dan, you're asking me for "proof" that heterosexual men have low quality friendships. This is not a scientific formula. It's something that I realized through reflection.

I don't need a scientific formula; I need a link, some kind of argumentation or something. Not just an assertion.

If I say "the moon is green" I better be able to prove my point someway.