Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Acceptance Of Homosexuality Leads To Extinction

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I've read your other posts on the subject, on other threads.


That's about as dismissive of my post as you can actually get, phage.

You trying to poison the well against me, Mr Phage?

I mean... along with all of the other poisoned wells?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 




That's about as dismissive of my post as you can actually get

You noticed. Good.
If you can provide some evidence that would change.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Unless you can tie this into the original post somehow you're off topic.

The aim here is to discuss whether 'acceptance' of homosexuality will cause the population to reverse its growth.

There are plenty of other threads to discuss what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Other than your good efforts, there is no way to present evidence other than to look out of the _

Lots of gay people, lots of population growth, and this has always been the case. So it is a non starter, the premise is false.

The only way this could be true is if some magical force made every man and woman on the planet gay. Then there may be problems. But we do have artificial insemination technologies, so even then I doubt the race would die out. Homosexual couples do want to be able to have children, and fight for adoption rights, for example. Some also use surrogate mothers. So all in all this can not possibly be true.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



If you can provide some evidence that would change.


You are not going to read my post, I take it?

Because I provided it there.


Secondary sex determination affects the bodily phenotype outside the gonads. A male mammal has a penis, seminal vesicles, and prostate gland. A female mammal has a vagina, cervix, uterus, oviducts, and mammary glands. In many species, each sex has a sex-specific size, vocal cartilage, and musculature. These secondary sex characteristics are usually determined by hormones secreted from the gonads. However, in the absence of gonads, the female phenotype is generated. When Jost (1953) removed fetal rabbit gonads before they had differentiated, the resulting rabbits had a female phenotype, regardless of whether they were XX or XY. They each had oviducts, a uterus, and a vagina, and each lacked a penis and male accessory structures.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



On the other hand, exogenous estrogens, both steroidal and nonsteroidal, have been shown to exert paradoxical effects on genital morphology and behavior in subhuman animals, i.e., masculinize females and demasculinize males
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


And you have already seen the link (presumably) where tests have confirmed that Homosexual brains are more similar to the opposite sex than they are to their own genetic sex.

But of course, you are going to use logical fallacies to dismiss what I am saying, instead of actually debating the topic.....

As is typical of your style, Mr Phage.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

Please read the title of the topic.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



The aim here is to discuss whether 'acceptance' of homosexuality will cause the population to reverse its growth.


I understand your concerns over the topic of the thread, and I agree....

But, in order to discuss whether the "Acceptance" of homosexuality will cause the population to decline, I thought it prudent to DEFINE Homosexuality, and the mechanism by which it occurs.

Therefore, In that idiom, I am actually helping the topic.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I'll read your links, but I have to ask before I do, what is your point in bringing this up? That we should or shouldn't accept gay people?

If I am reading the links right the little I will read for now it seems that it's still NOT a choice, and even if it were a choice I am all for freedom..

What does it have to do with population growth?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 




I thought it prudent to DEFINE Homosexuality, and the mechanism by which it occurs.


I think the definition of homosexuality is quite clear. I also don't see you defining it in your previous posts. You seem bent on attempting to explain its origins, though you don't really do that.
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 

Ok.
Homosexuality has existed for as long as human history. How about that?
You know, Sodom and stuff?
Long time ago and there's just been more and more and more of us.


To my knowledge it really only goes back to Greece. In all of the ancient Babylonian, Egyptian and etc. Middle Eastern texts I've read I don't recall homosexuality ever being present. If it was the person "plagued by that demon" was that, considered sick. I've said in other posts males will will settle for anything.. animals, fat chicks, other males but that is not homosexuality. Your just expressing that far left view that people are and have been born gay ever since humans have existed which..

Science disagrees with ya, there is no gay gene.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Who would honestly believe this premise?
And where have you seen this? I haven't seen it anywhere but this thread.

------------------------------

DEAR GOD. NEVERMIND. I thought we were no longer in the cro-magnon era of human history, and then I read 0mage's post.

edit on 13-2-2013 by Schkeptick because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 




Science disagrees with ya, there is no gay gene.

I don't recall saying there was and I don't know that that has been determined or that homosexuality is necessarily of genetic origin. Another member in this thread seems to believe it is of hormonal origins.

In any case you'll agree that it has been around for thousands of years and it's acceptance (or rejection) in various societies throughout history does not seem to have affected the survival of the species a whole lot.
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




And you have already seen the link (presumably) where tests have confirmed that Homosexual brains are more similar to the opposite sex than they are to their own genetic sex.

But of course, you are going to use logical fallacies to dismiss what I am saying, instead of actually debating the topic.....

As is typical of your style, Mr Phage.


Please read the title of the topic.





What I am stating, that is of course, ON TOPIC, is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals *GENETICALLY*

And with the exception of the aforementioned "Reproduces Less" there is nothing to indicate that acceptance of homosexuality will cause the DESTRUCTION of civilization, or a population reduction.

Except, as it has been mentioned before, homosexuals predilection for not having children of their own (which is more than a standard deviation below heterosexuals)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I think the definition of homosexuality is quite clear.


I would hope so.


I also don't see you defining it in your previous posts.


Nor would I need to.


You seem bent on attempting to explain its origins


Precisely..


though you don't really do that.





posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


just the title of your turd vid is making me feel sick i mean 3rd vid
edit on 13/2/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 




Science disagrees with ya, there is no gay gene.

I don't recall saying there was and I don't know that that has been determined or that homosexuality is necessarily of genetic origin. Another member in this thread seems to believe it is of hormonal origins.

In any case you'll agree that it has been around for thousands of years and it's acceptance (or rejection) in various societies throughout history does not seem to have affected the survival of the species a whole lot.


Well no you didn't say it straight out but it was certainly implied. I mean to say its as old as human history kind of, well thats what I hear anyway.

and yes, I do agree it has been around for 1000's of years and doesn't seem to have hurt the species numbers as a whole. However, in the case of Rome for example, if it had not been so accepted there towards the end perhaps they're troop counts would have been higher when the "Mongolians" invaded. No way of proving that but it does stand to reason.

I feel the OP is biased in not showing the extent to which homosexuality is on the rise in the "civilized world". Right now, it isn't substantially diminishing any population figures but when it gets to a point where say 10% of a countries population is homosexual there would undoubtedly be a decline in reproduction. The more gay people you have the less natural reproduction will occur, thats simple logic, wouldn't you agree?
edit on 13-2-2013 by 1/2 Nephilim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


i think that someone wanted to create a huge working mass,, you know, for resources,
and now that they have all that "they" need,, they need a smaller working mass,,,,
do you see what my point is?...
the new hipster gay trend is a small part in this,, also infertility and our lifestyle makes us live shorter lives with lesser offspring.,,
i have nothing against "real gays"



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 




I feel the OP is biased in not showing the extent to which homosexuality is on the rise in the "civilized world".

To what extent is it on the rise? In the "civilized world" or anywhere else?






top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join