Log in

No account? Create an account
30 June 2004 @ 01:19 pm
Doing What I'm Told  
I just had the funniest conversation with a disembodied voice about the rain that continues to pour here in Atlanta.

It raised some questions:

1) Does anyone have any plans or experience building a really large watercraft? In particular, I'm interested in waste disposal and ballast systems.

2) I was asked to gather 8 of every creature (1 het male, 1 het female, 2 gay male, 2 gay female, 1 transgendered male to female and 1 transgendered female to male). How can I tell?

3) What the heck is a cubit, anyway?

4) Should I tell the newspapers?
Current Mood: annoyedbemused
Current Music: Rain. More rain. Lots of frickin rain.
(Deleted comment)
mrlogic on July 1st, 2004 06:02 pm (UTC)
NOOOO! That's not what I meant!
Whoa. I totally did not intend it to come off as homophobic! Yikes! Ack! No!

Not sure how you got that impression...is it homophobic to point out that a gay couple cannot conceive a child together?

Remember, again, that if we're taking the premise of the ark literally, the only reason for bringing two of every creature is to carry on the survival of each species. Supreme Being does not want hard work to go to waste. Since gay parents can have straight children, and straight parents can have gay children, I don't understand how it's promoting survival of the species to distinguish between gay and straight representatives on the Ark. I agree it's nice to have representation of the gay couples among those actually ON the Ark, and I am all in favor of saving a few more creatures from drowning, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the propagation of the species in the future. IOW, there's no reason to suppose there wouldn't continue to be plenty of gays among the generations to come, and from the practicality standpoint of the number of beings to be housed on the ark, it doesn't seem to me that there's anything to be gained by having -three- reproductive representatives of each sex, when all you actually need is one. Since all of the representatives, gay or straight, are going to need to have sex with the opposite gender in order to produce offspring, it technically doesn't matter at all whether any of them are gay, straight, or whatever, although presumably the het couple would enjoy it the most.

Possibly you could make the argument that you need to have the gay couples in order to have the different possibilities of parenting environments for the next generation. Perhaps, but again, this is not going to affect the future propagation of the species, because as soon as you get some more generations out there, you're going to have gay members, and those environments will rise again anyway. In other words, the gay portion of the population is "encoded" within the straight couple. Even if all you have is one het couple, you'll still have gays in your future population; You don't actually need gay couples on the ark to ensure this.

I guess this could sound like "Let's drown all the gays, so we can get rid of them." That's really not what I'm saying. Really really really not! I am not a homophobe, OK?

It's all about efficiency and germ plasm. All I'm saying is that (barring a demonstrable transmissible component to homosexuality, which I have never seen evidence for), the sexual orientation of the representatives on the Ark does not have any relevance to the continuation of the species involved. If you want to minimize the number of beings needed to be saved on the ark, then the most efficient way to do that is to choose exactly one of each sex. I don't care what their orientation is, as long as they're willing to commit fertilization.

The cute point I tried to suggest TWICE, which seems to have gotten lost in an unintentional misinterpretation, was that perhaps Someone is planning new reproductive options in the New World Order that would allow gays and lesbians to reproduce directly in their preferred partnerships, and that this was the reason for the inclusion of the gay couples. I think that would be pretty cool. (Obviously, their children would be either gay or straight, just like the children produced by today's conventional means.)

I'm sorry you missed that and got the wrong idea.
FilkerDavefilkerdave on July 1st, 2004 07:25 pm (UTC)
Ok, so since this is the most homophobic thing I've seen in a long time, I'm going to assume you didn't intend it that way.

*blink* I'm thinking you maybe misread Blake just a tad here.

By several orders of magnitude.