Russia gives the Sims 4 an "Adults Only" rating

[Lacius]

Then how come, in the case of identical twins who share the exact same genes, there are numerous cases where one is a homosexual and is not?

Because sexuality is complex and a product of more than one variable, broadly including both biology and environment. For example, birth order appears to sometimes play a key role in the development of male sexuality due to the ways a mother's body responds to a male fetus; a hypothetical set of twin brothers might not be treated the exact same way in the womb. Identical twins have different sets of fingerprints on account of both biological and environmental factors, but it's not because choice had anything to do with it. In fact, since having a gay twin drastically increases the odds that one will be gay him/herself, a biological correlation is demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Or what about when someone changes their orientation later in life? If their orientation was genetics this would not be possible.

A person's sexual orientation is not typically subject to change later in life, although it's possible. Common, for example, might be that someone with a predisposition to bisexuality could go back and forth, or that someone in a same-sex prison population would prefer same-sex experiences to no sex experiences. Every reputable medical and psychological association I'm aware of considers sexuality more-or-less inflexible by a certain age, and more importantly, they consider conversion therapy both ineffective and dangerous. Sexuality, although usually not subject to change, can be fluid in some individuals and have nothing to do with choice.
I should also note that it wouldn't really matter if one's sexuality were a choice with regard to this conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays want a special, additional right.

That's like saying that in a world where only same-sex marriage were legal, heterosexuals would have the same rights as homosexuals. Heterosexuals want a special, additional right.
That would also be like saying that in a world where same-race marriage were all that were legal, everyone would have the same right: to marry someone of the same race. Biracial couples want a special, additional right.
We've been down this line of "reasoning" before.

How about a 9000% increase in risk of anal-cancer?

HIV (particularly the immunosuppression involved), along with other sexually transmitted infections such as HPV, apparently lead to an increased risk of various cancers. This is true regardless of one's sexuality; plenty of gay people are without sexually transmitted infections and without those increased risks of cancers, and plenty of straight people have sexualy transmitted infections and an increased risk for associated cancers. While a good opportunity to preach about the importance of safe sex, regardless of one's sexuality, it's not particularly relevant to our conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex

Child molestation?

There is no demonstrable correlation between homosexuality and an increased likelihood of child molestation. If you're looking for a correlation between a variable and child molestation, I would recommend you look at Catholic priesthood or other forms of forced celibacy.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#Conflation_with_child_abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Mental disorders?

With regard to closeted homosexuals, there is a correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders such as depression. This is likely the result of the anxieties associated with living in an intolerant society. One of the reasons cited in favor of gay marriage is the improved mental health of LGBT individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_and_the_LGBT_community#Mental_Health_and_Suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Health

Children of homosexual couples:

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

In reality, the children of gay parents are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. You might know better if you weren't citing resources such as the Family Research Council, a group dedicated to anti-gay activism that has been known to spread blatant misinformation and has been officially categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

 

[Gahars]

Ad hominem. My points remain unrefuted.

Pointing out that you've cherry picked your data from clearly biased sources is not ad hominem. Biases, agendas, and credibility are anything but irrelevant points here.

Correct, however this still does not prove the definition of marriage should be changed (It still being "1M1W" in the vast majority of places). My point was, gays already have "equal rights" as straights, to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are seeking to introduce new legislation allowing for alternative types of marriage.

By your logic, however, straight people are just as deprived of the right. Everyone has less rights. Why should this be allowed? Don't we want the people to have as many rights as possible? Why are you against human rights?

The study ignores race. I'm simply stating facts, that on average children from same-sex parents do worse in many sectors of life.

>Make a point that discrimination based on sexuality is no better or more justified than discrimination based on race
>"But I wasn't talking about race!"

Gee, whiz, you don't say?

*snip*

Have at 'em!

Judging people based on physical appearance, are we?

Personally I'm more of a Tegan and Sara guy, but hey, they seem happy enough, and if what they've got is working for them, that's fine by me.

 

[XDel]

Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.

 

[nando]

Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.

you should move there.

 

[Foxi4]

Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.

Here's a thought - maybe it should be up to the parent, not the government? Maybe the sole reigning body within the household should be the parents who, you know, play the parental role and lay down the rules? Maybe politicians shouldn't peek into other people's privet lives and decide what's appropriate and what isn't? Last time I checked, the only two people that are actively involved in the conception and subsequent birth of a child are its parents, so what authority does the government have over it?

You're saying that children are bombarded with messages, I'm saying that parents are repeatedly failing at parenting and wish to have that duty taken off them and put on someone else - a clerk in the store or a politician in the government, preferably along with the responsibility. Here's what I think - the parents are the only individuals responsible for the upbringing of their children. If they will find it appropriate for their child to play The Sims 4 or Half-Life 3 (ha!) then it's their god given right, they're doing the child no harm.

It's always so easy to play the blame game - my child is violent because he/she plays video games, my child is a gangster because he/she listened to rap, my child got into drugs because he/she listened to reggae, my child is a registered sex offender because of oversexualized cinema... No. Your child did all this sh*t because you failed as a parent, end of.

As far as the whole "Gay Agenda" conversation above is concerned, we're heading rapidly in the direction of xenophobia, so it's best if we leave that subject be before this thread is inevitably derailed and closed.

 

[SILENT_Pavel]

@Reploid

Spoiler: vodka, do not read.

Всё равно это ни на что не повлияет. Meh.

Недолго нам тут сидеть осталось, скоро и этот портал отправится в реестр запрещенных, а большую часть игр просто запретят как в ОАЭ для "заботы о детях и защиты традиционных ценностей"...

 

[Foxi4]

All the same, it may have no effect. Meh.
vodka

Not long left us to sit here, and soon this portal go to register prohibited and most of the games simply be banned in the UAE for "taking care of children and the protection of traditional values​​"...

We are an English speaking community. Please post in legible English ONLY
~http://gbatemp.net/help/terms

...unless you're in the EoF, then it might be acceptable in moderation.

 

[XDel]

You're saying that children are bombarded with messages, I'm saying that parents are repeatedly failing at parenting and wish to have that duty taken off them and put on someone else - a clerk in the store or a politician in the government, preferably along with the responsibility. Here's what I think - the parents are the only individuals responsible for the upbringing of their children. If they will find it appropriate for their child to play The Sims 4 or Half-Life 3 (ha!) then it's their god given right, they're doing the child no harm.

I've not read this article in detail, not really into politics my self, though I'd wager to guess that this does not prevent parents from buying it for their children should they desire too, at least I'd hope not as I do believe a person should have the ability to exorcise free will and have the right to privacy.
That being said, it is nice that there at least will be a warning on the package to warn the parents that there is content of a sexual nature. Likewise it is nice that a child can not just walk into a store and buy this without their parents.

 

[Foxi4]

I've not read this article in detail, not really into politics my self, though I'd wager to guess that this does not prevent parents from buying it for their children should they desire too, at least I'd hope not as I do believe a person should have the ability to exorcise free will and have the right to privacy.

That being said, it is nice that there at least will be a warning on the package to warn the parents that there is content of a sexual nature. Likewise it is nice that a child can not just walk into a store and buy this without their parents.

Technically yes, it does not prevent the parents from buying a given game, I'm merely stressing that all these ratings should be treated as mere suggestions and shouldn't be enforced in any way. For example, I've noticed an enforced artificial restriction on consoles as of late - games for mature audiences will not go online on PSN sub-accounts (which are made for minors) - if you're not 18+ (minimum age required for a Maser Account), it's just a no-go. Moreover, there's no way to migrate from a sub-account to a master account once that age is reached, so you effectively lose all your trophies and have to game share content with your new master account. I believe that's also the case on XBox Live and frankly it concerns me. Supposedly this had to be introduced due to some EU regulations, but in my eyes this is just the government stepping in where they're not welcome - such matters should be entirely up to the parent. All systems these days have elaborate parental controls options - parents should use those instead. Legislature like this practically takes away the power of parenting from the parent and force users to cheat with their birth dates to fully enjoy the content they've bought which I find ridiculous.

 

[Haloman800]

'Sexuality is genetic.. Only when I feel like it!'

Doesn't work that way. It is very simple if you think about it logically. If you admit sexual orientation is not 100% genetic (the twin studies prove this), your previous statement "You are either gay or not" is false. You created a false dichotomy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white ). Sexual orientation/preference can change/evolve over time, & isn't set in stone like someone's biological makeup is.

A person's sexual orientation is not typically subject to change later in life, although it's possible.

You proved my above point, thank you for admitting the truth.

That's like saying that in a world where only same-sex marriage were legal, heterosexuals would have the same rights as homosexuals. Heterosexuals want a special, additional right.
That would also be like saying that in a world where same-race marriage were all that were legal, everyone would have the same right: to marry someone of the same race. Biracial couples want a special, additional right.
We've been down this line of "reasoning" before.

You're implying "If you're pro-traditional marriage, you must be against interracial marriagel!" This is known as a "Strawman" argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

HIV (particularly the immunosuppression involved), along with other sexually transmitted infections such as HPV, apparently lead to an increased risk of various cancers. This is true regardless of one's sexuality

Sure, I agree anyone could get any STD. I stated homosexuals are at a massively higher risk of getting them, and I provided evidence for this. You haven't disproved this point.

There is no demonstrable correlation between homosexuality and an increased likelihood of child molestation. If you're looking for a correlation between a variable and child molestation, I would recommend you look at Catholic priesthood or other forms of forced celibacy.

If those priests weren't homosexuals, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested. Thank you for further proving my point.

With regard to closeted homosexuals, there is a correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders such as depression. This is likely the result of the anxieties associated with living in an intolerant society.

"73% of phychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those phychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization."

Lief, H.: Sexual survey W: Current thinking on homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality

In reality, the children of gay parents are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. You might know better if you weren't citing resources such as the Family Research Council, a group dedicated to anti-gay activism that has been known to spread blatant misinformation and has been officially categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

You neither proven your own points, nor refuted any of mine. Your response is a classic example of an ad hominem, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

--

Nearly every one of your responses can be categorized as follows:

1. Appeal to emotion.
2. Strawman.
3. Ad hominem.

Once you strip away all the logical fallacies, there's not much left.

Pointing out that you've cherry picked your data from clearly biased sources is not ad hominem. Biases, agendas, and credibility are anything but irrelevant points here.

It's anything but irrelevant, so it IS relevant ?

By your logic, however, straight people are just as deprived of the right. Everyone has less rights. Why should this be allowed? Don't we want the people to have as many rights as possible? Why are you against human rights?

This is true, but there are some rights we can and should do without.

>Make a point that discrimination based on sexuality is no better or more justified than discrimination based on race
>"But I wasn't talking about race!"

Gee, whiz, you don't say?

>greentexting
>on GBAtemp

Judging people based on physical appearance, are we?

Personally I'm more of a Tegan and Sara guy, but hey, they seem happy enough, and if what they've got is working for them, that's fine by me.

Just to clarify my position, I'm against any form of sexuality being flaunted in public. This includes heterosexuals.

The laws in Russia ban homosexual propaganda, not homosexuality. Huge difference. Homosexual couples can legally do whatever they want in private.
If you want to criticize a country's sex laws, look at Uganda's. The penalty for homosexuality is death.

 

[Gahars]

It's anything but irrelevant, so it IS relevant ?

That was the point, yes. Ad hominem applies when the points are irrelevant.

This is true, but there are some rights we can and should do without.

I'm not sure if that's something our Founding Fathers would particularly agree with. It's better to err on the side of liberty.

>greentexting
>on GBAtemp

FunnyBaldManMakesSmugFacialExpression.jpeg

Just to clarify my position, I'm against any form of sexuality being flaunted in public. This includes heterosexuals.

Is it rude for people, of any persuasion, to be playing tonsil hockey in certain public locations? Are there some places where immodest attire is wildly inappropriate? Of course.

Does that mean it's right to legislate on that basis? To force people to behave in rigidly-defined acceptable manners? Do we really want the government to be able to mandate that? Who gets to decide the standards here? We're not talking about a crime here - just casual behavior.

Heterosexual or homosexual, there are rude people, people without self-awareness, wherever you go. You can't put a law on the books and make that go away, and it's certainly no justification to punish everyone else for their behavior.

Luckily, there's a solution when you see someone acting in such a manner: Ignore them. If there are children, take them elsewhere and just talk to them honestly. The world has so many complexities that children naturally learn about anyway; is it really so much to throw in, "Yeah, sometimes two guys or two girls like to mack it out," with the rest? Is it so much harder to explain that than, say, death? Is keeping them ignorant really a viable solution for something they'll discover after a minute on Deviantart?

The laws in Russia ban homosexual propaganda, not homosexuality. Huge difference. If you want to criticize a country's sex laws, look at Uganda's. The penalty for homosexuality is death.

When propaganda includes even mentioning your sexuality in public (and could easily be construed into so much more), well... let's not pretend that this is a reasonable, sensible measure.

One injustice is certainly greater than the other, sure, but they're both still injustices all the same.

 

[Lacius]

Doesn't work that way. It is very simple if you think about it logically. If you admit sexual orientation is not 100% genetic (the twin studies prove this), your previous statement "You are either gay or not" is false. You created a false dichotomy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white ). Sexual orientation/preference can change/evolve over time, & isn't set in stone like someone's biological makeup is.

You're the one who has created a false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." I thoroughly explained how.
As a side note, I recommend you stop conflating "biology" with "genetics." While all genetics is biology, not all biology is genetics.

You're implying "If you're pro-traditional marriage, you must be against interracial marriagel!" This is known as a "Strawman" argument.

The actual straw man is saying I implied such a thing. In reality, I was explaining how your point about "additional rights" would have necessarily applied to the interracial marriage debate as well as it could be applied to the same-sex marriage debate.

If those priests weren't homosexuals, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.

If those priests weren't pedophiles, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.

"73% of phychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those phychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization."

Lief, H.: Sexual survey W: Current thinking on homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality

That might have been the prevailing thought when this was published... in 1977. That is no longer the case.

You neither proven your own points, nor refuted any of mine. Your response is a classic example of an ad hominem, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

I suggest you refresh your understanding of logical fallacies, because I do not recall when I irrelevantly attacked your character and said your argument was bad because of it.

 

[FAST6191]

I think I am having one of those "a properly good satire is indistinguishable..." moments.

 

[KingVamp]

Even if you say kids don't have any real attraction before puberty, this didn't even get the Teen rating.

environmental factors, but it's not because choice had anything to do with it. l

I agree with most of what you said, but the fact that someone can change due environmental (and social) factors, doesn't that mean at least part of it is choice? Choice in not letting it affect you?

Not that it being a choice or not should matter.

 

[Haloman800]

I'm not sure if that's something our Founding Fathers would particularly agree with. It's better to err on the side of liberty.

Should we have the right to steal, murder, rape? If not, why? You wouldn't like to have the maximum amount of freedom possible?

Is it rude for people, of any persuasion, to be playing tonsil hockey in certain public locations? Are there some places where immodest attire is wildly inappropriate? Of course.
Does that mean it's right to legislate on that basis? To force people to behave in rigidly-defined acceptable manners? Do we really want the government to be able to mandate that? Who gets to decide the standards here? We're not talking about a crime here - just casual behavior.

This point is a matter of opinion and is too subjective to pursue further.

When propaganda includes even mentioning your sexuality in public (and could easily be construed into so much more), well... let's not pretend that this is a reasonable, sensible measure.

One injustice is certainly greater than the other, sure, but they're both still injustices all the same.

I've never seen a heterosexual strap a dildo to their head and prance around in public, I can't say the same for homosexuals. Like you said, they are exposed to all sorts of crap online, they'll learn about homosexuality on their own.

You're the one who has created a false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." I thoroughly explained how.

You already admitted sexual orientation can change (Backpedaling on your earlier statement "One either is or isn't."), this part of the discussion is over.

The actual straw man is saying I implied such a thing. In reality, I was explaining how your point about "additional rights" would have necessarily applied to the interracial marriage debate as well as it could be applied to the same-sex marriage debate.

Sure, it can apply to it. This does not prove the definition of marriage, which, in the majority of locations is still 1 man 1 woman, should be changed.

If those priests weren't pedophiles, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.

If the priests weren't homosexuals, the alter boys wouldn't have been molested. Disprove my statement.

I suggest you refresh your understanding of logical fallacies, because I do not recall when I irrelevantly attacked your character and said your argument was bad because of it.

You attack people & websites I quoted, instead of the message itself. Accusing them of "bias", I can make the same statements about any source you throw out.

 

[gdeliana]

First of all i am not russian, i am albanian. The law of gays is not in our country and will never be. Why? because we are behind the world??? Or because the world looks too crazy to us!? We accept menkind for what it was meant to be and not for what has become, we have gone far beyond our simplistic imagination.


And after all, we need to increase the population....gay society is failed in this point of view. The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail. So it's good for ALL those countries which deny this manifestation of human attraction between the same sex. I am not racist, because being racist means being against a race....gays represent a race???? since when??? I am not selfish. I think about the others.... the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.

 

[SILENT_Pavel]

The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail.

ORLY?

 

[gdeliana]

OK, that's true , but they atleast do reproduce no matter if they are gays

 

[SILENT_Pavel]

OK, that's true , but they atleast do reproduce no matter if they are gays

So, is it okay to be bisexual, but have own kids? Be homosexual without kids (adoption kids) is bad?

 

[Lacius]

I agree with most of what you said, but the fact that someone can change due environmental (and social) factors, doesn't that mean at least part of it is choice? Choice in not letting it affect you?

Not that it being a choice or not should matter.

As I already told Haloman800, it would be a mistake to create a dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." If something is not caused by biology, that does not mean that it had to be a matter of choice to any degree; there are other options such as environment.

I used the example of fingerprints earlier. Fingerprints develop while one is in the womb due to very subtle factors related to the environment of the womb and unrelated to genetics. Identical twins, for all intents and purposes, have the exact same DNA, but they have different sets of fingerprints. They didn't choose their fingerprints. I picked this example in particular because the environment of the womb can apparently play a big part in the development of one's sexuality.

Like most things in the nature vs. nurture debate, it's usually a little bit of both. That doesn't mean choice is involved.

Should we have the right to steal, murder, rape? If not, why?

Because these things infringe upon the rights of others and are objectively inconducive to their well being. If one does not wish to be robbed, raped, or murdered, the best thing one can do is consider these things immoral and surround oneself with like-minded people. I'd like to hear someone articulate a single way in which homosexuality is immoral and infringes upon the rights of others.

I've never seen a heterosexual strap a dildo to their head and prance around in public

I have, not that I'm advocating this type of behavior in public.

You already admitted sexual orientation can change (Backpedaling on your earlier statement "One either is or isn't."), this part of the discussion is over.

There are a few problems with this.

• First, when I said one either is or isn't homosexual, I was not creating a dichotomy of "homosexual" and "heterosexual." Like all good dichotomies, it was "homosexual" and "not-homosexual," the latter including bisexuals, etc. since sexuality is more of a spectrum.
• Second, I said the scientific consensus was that sexuality was usually inflexible; that does not exclude my earlier examples of people with predispositions to bisexuality and prisoners in same-sex prison populations.
• Third, the fluidity of sexual orientation is a complex topic, and although a person's sexual orientation develops over one's lifetime a la just about every other aspect of a person, one's sexual orientation is usually fixed by a very early age and becomes even more fixed as time goes on. I'm not sure what the potential for fluidity in some individuals has to do with whether or not it's a choice or whether or not it's biology. You're once again creating false dichotomies between "not fluid" vs. "a choice" or between "not fluid" vs "unrelated to biology." I can think of plenty of other things that are unrelated to choice and/or related to biology that are also fluid (and a lot more so than sexual orientation).

Sure, it can apply to it. This does not prove the definition of marriage, which, in the majority of locations is still 1 man 1 woman, should be changed.

My only intent was to demonstrate how your "additional rights" argument was irrelevant. If you're going to say that same-sex marriage should be illegal, it's up to you to show why. As a side note, whether or not same-sex marriage is still illegal in a majority of locations is irrelevant to the morality/immorality of its illegality. Since you seem to like logical fallacies (but not enough to apply them correctly), I suggest you Google "ad populum fallacy."

If the priests weren't homosexuals, the alter boys wouldn't have been molested. Disprove my statement.

Last time I checked, Catholic priests were definitely not representative of the gay population. That's as much a selection bias as it would be for me to only select from known rapists when making the blanket statement that heterosexuals are rapists.

You attack people & websites I quoted

... For their content, which is, not only relevant, but the only thing that's relevant. Again, I believe you need to study your list of logical fallacies.

And after all, we need to increase the population....gay society is failed in this point of view. The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail. So it's good for ALL those countries which deny this manifestation of human attraction between the same sex. I am not racist, because being racist means being against a race....gays represent a race???? since when??? I am not selfish. I think about the others.... the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.

I've noticed that people against equal rights for gay people typically have problems with empathy, which is why I bolded the above. Here in the United States, most of the pro-gay Republicans I'm aware of are only that way because they have, for example, a son or daughter who is gay (e.g. Dick Cheney, Rob Portman, etc.). The lawyer who was virulently against same-sex marriage and even defended California's marriage ban to the Supreme Court has come out in favor of same-sex marriage after learning that his daughter is gay. If people on the anti-gay side of the debate could learn how empathy works before having gay children, this debate would move a lot faster.

When you defend anti-gay bigotry by saying gays need to just be in heterosexual relationships and procreate for the good of your country, that is in actuality selfish and not thinking about others (not to mention the fact that gays aren't about to have opposite-sex sex, and if you were somehow able to force them to through legislation, it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the population). Imagine a world the same as this one except procreation can only be accomplished through gay sex. Should we pass laws against heterosexuality? Should you be forced to have gay sex for the good of procreation? I implore you to experience empathy as well as realize the immorality of infringing upon a group's rights.