To break the "social contract" requires on to reject the morality expressed by the social order. A society's moral code organizes individual relationship to the community.
As a fully functioning member of society, one is obligated to make certain contributions to ensure its endurance, vitality and growth.
With a(limited) exception in the case of the hermit, all social dropouts continue to benefit from the existence of the environment created by a society to which the do not contribute.
Productivity, combining efforts with resouces of all kinds yielding positive results, can be narrowly defined within any particular society. Anti-social behavior is generally considered a detriment to society and is counter-productive.
At a certain extreme of trespass, the response to social deviance is always to hamper an individual's capacity to impact society on a large scale through their deviance from it.
The "good" of the group or whole ultimately restricts certain freedoms for an indiviual. Like the freedom to kill. The restraints are both self imposed and through organized controls.
Social engineering is effecting change or altered states from previous condition or norm, Redirection. Dialogue is required between adherents of the old standard and proponents of the new.
Continual dialogues of this type cause societal "norms" to appear fluid, as changing things, (sometimes rapidly yet also mostly gradual.
Surrogate parents and artificial insemination are not natural forms of reproduction, even where heterosexuals are concerned. Manipulations of nature however possible do not qualify them as "natural". They're outgrowths of high culture, science and civilization.
The expressed and implied contract, (agreement/ commitment) for conduct as a member of any society is found in its title or catagory, (i.e. homosexual). It's a common term found in psychology and shouldn't be deemed bigoted or exclusionist or unfounded or invalidated out of convienience.
Picking at words unecessarily is a cloak for avoiding the point.
Communism cannot produce capitalism, but they cooperate as parts of a world community. This does not mean they are equals and therefore part of the same social group or society.
Homosexuals can produce heterosexual offspring and vice versa. I do not need to "believe negatively" towards any group, (or positively for that matter), to simply state that:
One social order is at variance with the other.
As before I'll state that the two are not diametrically opposed to one another, but do function as distinctly seperate societies.
Which is to say, "...an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another..."
"... a broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests."
Reading this Webster's definition shows a society can be limited to certain members, or be a broader group which includes the smaller group.
Each society is grouped based on what they have in common. So mainstream, (heterosexual majority), society can be grouped with the homosexual only along lines of common interests and collective activities.
So overall "Society" does include both sexualities but is not the specific societies to which I'm refering, which I believe to be opposed to one another and battling for hegemony.
Given the advances of science and culture, homosexuality is currently poised to offer a more complete replacement for heterosexuality.
Children can be produced, families created and with modern egalitarianism in place the taboo (or stigmas if you will) removed.
Making homosexuality an increasingly viable alternative. Effectively eliminating an argument based on reproductivity.
However, to say it is productive of the heterosexual (even the beastial <for a laugh> ) society would be a contradiction.
I think once you accept the seperate society concept, it will be easy to see that I'm merely stating that the homosexual is presenting an "alternative" society.
For heterosexual society to be inclusive here, is to include a formula for its own demise. So, by this logic I queried, "Why Condone what is fruitless?"
By the way some segregation is necessary to sustain societies, however, in the wrong context has been destructive and inhumane.
Some discrimination is considered healthy behavior and is expected.
My "beliefs" are not unfounded, you refuse to acknowledge my views as logical and free from hate, anger or emotion.
Also homosexuals choos to "opt" out of society's majority thinking choosing "self-segregation".
Like I've said before, sometimes the allure of the sense of individuality one experiences by being a member of any minority group is a strong catalyst for the onset of one identifying as a homosexual.
What you actually are is what you actually should be or you would be different. A chair makes a good dance floor, but as efficency is concerned it is most effective as a chair.
If it's a genetic prediliction which causes the altered behavior, are you equating it with mental retardation? Beyond the individual's control?
Also no one is suggesting barbarism or erradication. That would be beneath me, and quite uncivilized.
Leftwood, you have decided to thus far ignore key points and definitions out of convience for your point.
You may argue other's into corners but our discourse requires you to admit that there is more than one, (numerous), society here in America and all over the world.
You've based most of your response to me on the supposition that there is only one Society of which we are all members.
The lack of intellectual integrity, and the pronouncements that follow it are apalling and unworthy of the pursuit of this or any subject matter.