What a fucking loon.
Reproduction is only a side effect of sex? The difference in being thinking conscious beings is twofold in this context. You can think and plan about reproducing on the one hand and you can be convinced to not care about things that you should care about.
As far as our base instincts are concerned, reproduction is a side effect of sex. We don't desire sex because we necessarily want children, we desire sex because it's pleasurable, and allows us to enjoy intimate bonds with other people. The intrinsic motivations which drive sex and reproduction are consciously separate from one another, regardless of their evolutionary relationship, and it is possible for these motivations to be synthesized in a variety of different ways.
It is possible, for instance, to have children and still pursue non-reproductive sex recreationally, just as it is possible to have children and be trapped in a loveless marriage, live as a complete celibate and never reproduce at all, or coast from partner to partner without any thought of securing any progeny for yourself. Whatever the case may be, it's patently ridiculous to suggest that the antithesis of reproduction is nihilism. There are plenty of great people throughout history who never had any descendants, and their contributions to humanity have outlived any biological legacy they could have had anyway.
A lot of people still place far too much value on the idea of having children. In all likelihood, the chances are your children will be unexceptional, and the global population being what it is, it is simply not necessary for many of us to reproduce.
Current day ideologies generally seem to favor perspectives that focus only on the materialist and on your own lifetime only. If you have a good time, who cares about the future? Recreation becomes a paramount subject and reproduction becomes a side-issue, for those who find that more recreationally fulfilling.
I think you have this completely backwards. Modern living standards actually grant us the privilege of being able to contemplate the long-term consequences of our actions, and I think you'll find that a lot of "current day" people in fact do. It's people in the developing world who don't have the time or the inclination to think about the far future, as they're so bogged down with the challenges of the present; hence why concern and activism surrounding subjects such as climate change is predominantly a Western phenomenon.
The ideologies that deviate from this are either modern conceptions of traditional perspectives (like muslims or christians) or look at such things as global warming that want to try and leave the earth better (or mitigate damage) for future generation (even if their understanding of pollution is usually nonexistant and they're likely to be taken advantage of).
Anyone that focuses on his or her own life only, not reproducing is likely to have a negligent effect on what things will be like after his or her death.
I find that common among homosexuals as well, a kind of defeatist attitude toward forces of history who's story has not yet been written. Like european homosexuals and their view towards islamification, many considering it a force that can not be stopped, so no sense in trying.
I have no idea which group of people you're supposed to be referring to, but I certainly don't welcome the proliferation of groups who demand a return to a more parochial way of life, nor do I see it as an inevitability. I simply reject the scaremongering that goes around about the "Islamification" of Europe because it's just plain hogwash, and the facts clearly expose it as such.
The reality is that whatever relatively conservative social attitudes immigrant groups may bring with them to the developed world, it isn't making a measurable dent in the broader trajectory of social change, and if you look at the actual data on the subject, you'll find that such groups are by no means exempt from such changes. The gradual shift away from the kind of conservative attitudes which you seem to be arguing for is part of a wider, global phenomenon, and it's the product of a myriad of economic, demographic, and technological circumstances, none of which seem likely to abate. It's people like you who view the supremacy of socially conservative ideas as an inevitability. I reject the idea entirely.
Homosexual acts cannot result in reproduction, it's practice does not serve a relationship that can reproduce. It can only be hedonistic, whether it be for the act itself or the relationship. You brought up the surrogacy as an explanation for how it can be as effective as heterosexual reproduction, it simply cannot on a scale large enough for the production of another generation and subsequent ones, at least not without economic coercion at the minimum.
You're placing way too much emphasis on the subject of surrogacy. I never argued that it was widely practical or easily attainable, simply that it was an option for couples who can't conceive naturally but desperately want children, and I have little reason to morally object to it on that basis.
I've also explained why I reject your equivocation between homosexuality and hedonism. Sexual activity doesn't need to result in pregnancy in order to have social utility, and it would clearly be false to suggest that people who display homosexual attraction or engage in homosexual activity from time to time are automatically hedonists.
I don't think there have been many genes discovered to favor homosexuality. It seems a mix of epigenetic factors, testosterone levels in womb and the group that seems to become gay due to being groomed as kids/teens (seems to be a kind of imprinting).
None of these can even be selected for.
--
I don't think schizophrenia is selected for either. If it was more genetic, then certainly the acceptance of homosexuality strongly selects against any genes that might favor it, because homosexuals are no longer having a wife and kids for appearances.
It doesn't need to be selected for, it simply doesn't need to be selected against. Plus, as I mentioned previously: bisexuality exists.
.
