Acceptance Of Homosexuality Leads To Extinction

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I grew up in Brighton, and for those that don't know it is reported as the UKs gay capital.. and I have always been interested in this notion of "gay friendly", what I have always thought as "gay friendly" is a lack of laws for or against homosexuality, in other words an accepted part of society does not need laws to define where they sit within our society.

So does having laws to protect a group really make the wider society friendly to that group? I would have thought the opposite is actually true.. if you need laws to govern the way people behave or respond to a certain group then that indicates to me something wrong.

I know my view is slanted, growing up in a town like Brighton where people doing what they want as long as they cause no harm was the norm... I say was, as now we have laws to govern how people react to each other that has changed, and Brighton is not as tolerant as it was, and this is because people are now only tolerant within the law, rather than being tolerant within themselves.

From my perspective Laws have made Brighton less "Gay Friendly" than it was..

So for me, I would love to see this data for a society that was/is tolerant of homosexuals, as I am sure that would be the better approach to prove, even when homosexuality was the norm it did not impact reproductive rates.




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
This is ridiculous.
And though I'm sure this point has been addressed...

Come on! You think allowing two women to love and make love is going to turn every other woman a lesbian?

I have many gay friends, and unlike the OP would have us believe, it has not rubbed off.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 

You need to read the OP more carefully.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do, indeed.

Okay cool
Apologies for misreading.

reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


My apologies for everyone who will not bother to read past the OP and make some wild delusional claim that you are a homophobe

After I read your post I decided to expect that and not be bothered by it!



They are in fact based only on personal experience and subjective morality.

It's too bad the source of much the 'morality' in question is viewed as absolute, universal, infallible... If people acknowledged the subjectivity of it, we wouldn't have such a resistance towards equality.

reply to post by wiser3
 


Homosexuals have been around since the begnning of time, if acceptance of homosexuality led to extinction humans would have become extinct centuries ago!

You know I was only interested in posting stats from today, but you're right it's been around for a while now to say the least! I wonder what kind of info on population growth I can get going back in time a bit. Maybe i'll explore Native American tribes. When I took a US History-Native American class in college I learned about some of the spiritual views they had on homosexuality. They were really interesting...and clearly quite "accepting".

reply to post by SpearMint
 


Even if every single person on the planet turned gay right now we wouldn't go extinct, we are advanced enough to stop that happening through artificial impregnation etc.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more
I've brought that point up in past threads. It's as if some (many?) actually think gay people wouldn't care about it!? Like they would knowingly let procreation cease altogether! That would be evil... so absurd.


The Greeks and Romans come to mind. Obviously they did not suffer any citizenship shortages from these practices at all.

I don't know a whole lot here. Except that they were obviously flourishing civilizations, and seemingly had no qualm with homosexuality. I would be interested more on this though. Gonna add it to my list for this thread


reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


We are so, so much more than what we do in our crotch. Truly, we are.

"eat. drink. sleep. procreate."
That was literally used in a different thread in relation to meaning and purpose. Some people have a mind-numbingly dull outlook on what constitutes a life worth living. I don't get it either man. "eat. drink. sleep. complain about others sex lives".

reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Very telling about how decisions are made about a topic..

That's a scary prospect
Also I should have known better than to use the title I did. I always read the full OP so I guess I just didn't even think someone wouldn't. Thanks for helping clarify!


reply to post by SkipIntro
 


But, I saw that you were the OP and I figured that there had to be a gotcha inside. You didn't disappoint.

I'm happy I didn't disappoint!

I must say I also got a good chuckle on your username considering!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




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


To the extent that gay marriage and homosexuality are more supported and accepted now than ever.

This kind of info isn't easy to find but its there.



According to the U.S. Census Bureau, which began asking questions about same-sex household information in the 1990 Census, only 581,300 individuals were part of a same-sex household in 2009. That’s less than one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the 307 million people living in the U.S. in 2009.

Furthermore, data from the Census Bureau's 2010 Demographic Profile shows that “same-sex spouses” accounted for a mere 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, which is nearly 8 million people out of the total 309 million Americans.


cnsnews.com...

So thats an increase from less than 0.5% in 2009 to 2.5% in 2010. Funnily enough the article goes on to say “In general, these figures have changed little from our first studies in the late 1980s through 2010,”

Then theres stuff like this, which indicates the more gay couples we see raising children the more kids that will grow up to be gay.


Another “surprise” that really should not be so surprising is a new study that has been released found that ‘Gay’ family kids are seven times more likely to be homosexual. The study revealed that children adopted by homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop non-heterosexual preferences than other children. “Research… although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others,” said the online report by Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D.


Hansen’s report further states:

“Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc. The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare rolls. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them.”


– WorldNetDaily.com
June 8, 2009


cupofjoe.goodfight.org...

So I answered your question, now will you answer mine?


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 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 





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.


Gay people have been around since the stone age


9660 to 5000 BC

Mesolithic rock art in Sicily depicts phallic male figures in pairs that have been interpreted variously, including as hunters, acrobats, religious initiates and depictions of homosexual intercourse.[1]

7000 to 1700 BC

Among the sexual depictions in Neolithic and Bronze Age drawings and figurines from the Mediterranean are, as one author describes it, a "third sex" human figure having female breasts and male genitals or without distinguishing sex characteristics. In Neolithic Italy, female images are found in a domestic context, while images that combine sexual characteristics appear in burials or religious settings; in Neolithic Greece and Cyprus, figures are often dual-sexed or without identifying sexual characteristics.[2]

22nd century BC

Pepi II Neferkare governs as Egyptian pharaoh. A later tale, King Neferkare and General Sasenet, suggests a homosexual interpretation around nocturnal visits to his General[3][3][4]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by infowarrior9970
 

Yeah because it's completely acceptable to believe that the population which is almost entirely straight would suddenly switch to homosexuallity.


Yeah. That's a real reasonable belief. That only seems to be on the minds of straight religious people, and not gays.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


we must remember that homosexuality in ancient times was a different thing, back in the day..
they just messed around with other males and females but they STILL made children...
in these days there are alot of gay people who would never sleep with the opposite sex,,,
many were bisexuals... it was rare that someone would be a "pure gay"....



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


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.

and
and
But it wasn't a "hateful post"


Been on ATS a long time and seen this very belief stated many many times. Actually in just about every single related thread there are comments about population dwindling because of 'the gays'. The Omage types are not uncommon unfortunately



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 


This kind of info isn't easy to find but its there.

Wait. What? You are equating same sex households/spouses with the number of homosexuals and ignore cultural factors? But why did you ignore this:

The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, which has been conducting scientifically designed surveys on homosexuality for close to 30 years – far longer than the U.S. Census Bureau – found the percentage of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States in 2008 was 2 percent – a number that has been stable since the late ‘80s, according to Tom Smith

cnsnews.com...



So I answered your question, now will you answer mine?

I'll say, reluctantly, as you word the question, maybe. But for the most part your question is meaningless. You assume that all heterosexuals have children. You assume that no homosexuals do. Most of all you imply that there has been a relative increase in the number of homosexuals. But in spite of the continuing existence of homosexuals for millennia, the population increases. Your question is moot.
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Really? Rock art that has been interpreted to be homosexual intercourse? I'd have to see it to say if I agreed with the interpretation or not but for now will just say, in many cases people see what they want to see.

I mean I've heard more than once that Gilgamesh had thing for Enkidu..


I've read the Enuma Elish more than once and never got that impression. They seemed tight but gay for one another? I dont think so.. Cross dressing to represent the gods isn't homosexual either. There may very well be texts and depictions that exhibit the behaviour but I contend that it didn't become semi-common until the Greeks starting talking about it.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by solve
 



we must remember that homosexuality in ancient times was a different thing, back in the day..
they just messed around with other males and females but they STILL made children...

I don't see how that makes it different. In my eyes if they had sexual relationships with both genders they were bisexuals... and whether or not they had babies doesn't change that.


in these days there are alot of gay people who would never sleep with the opposite sex,,,

There is a lot more heterosexuals though. And the fact gay people live in these countries doesn't prevent the straight folk from having babies. That's what I was showing in my OP. Not only is there not a decline, but we still see a trend of overall growth.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by solve
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


we must remember that homosexuality in ancient times was a different thing, back in the day..
they just messed around with other males and females but they STILL made children...
in these days there are alot of gay people who would never sleep with the opposite sex,,,
many were bisexuals... it was rare that someone would be a "pure gay"....


Please enlighten us on how the hell you, or anyone could possibly know this??? I imagine any such examples could easily be explained by the nature of society and it's norms upon peoples lifestyles. I do however love the way you deliver it as pure and obvious fact though. Especially the "we must remember" part. As if such an idea has always been known as common sense yet for some reason we have all seemed to forget such a self evident truth as of late.
edit on 13-2-2013 by mOjOm because: ya ya whatever....



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   

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


This kind of info isn't easy to find but its there.

Wait. What? You are equating same sex households/spouses with the number of homosexuals and ignore cultural factors? But why did you ignore this:

The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, which has been conducting scientifically designed surveys on homosexuality for close to 30 years – far longer than the U.S. Census Bureau – found the percentage of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States in 2008 was 2 percent – a number that has been stable since the late ‘80s, according to Tom Smith

cnsnews.com...



So I answered your question, now will you answer mine?

I'll say, reluctantly, as you word the question, maybe. But for the most part your question is meaningless. You assume that all heterosexuals have children. You assume that no homosexuals do. Most of all you imply that there has been a relative increase in the number of homosexuals. But in spite of the continuing existence of homosexuals for millennia, the population increases. Your question is moot.
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I most certainly did not ignore it. I was pointing out the rise of same-sex married couples from 0.5% to 2.5% between 09'-10'. Now include the section that you just did and what do we have? A steady, flat 2% across the board for 30 years and then 2.5% in 2010 which only includes those that are married.

I do not assume that all heterosexual couples have children but I undoubtedly know that same-sex couples never have children, thats not an assumption. Do they adopt, sure? Do they use surrogates, yep. Do they reproduce naturally, noooo.

My question is not moot.. was 10% to low of a hypothetical number for ya? How about 25% then!? When the countries gay population goes from 2% to 25% you don't think the number of children born naturally will dwindle? C'mon now, your smarter than that.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:06 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". Right now, it isn't substantially diminishing any population figures

It isn't diminishing at all in the countries I used for the OP data.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 


I most certainly did not ignore it.
Yes you did. And you implied that there has been a relative increase in the number of homosexuals.


A steady, flat 2% across the board for 30 years and then 2.5% in 2010 which only includes those that are married.
Flat, for 30 years? How do you get that from 2 data points? But help me out here, when was it first possible for homosexuals to be married in the US? And you think that represents an increase in the number of homosexuals?


Do they reproduce naturally, noooo.
So what? A couple. Two people. One child, two children. How is that a different birth rate than a heterosexual couple?

edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim


I do not assume that all heterosexual couples have children but I undoubtedly know that same-sex couples never have children, thats not an assumption. Do they adopt, sure? Do they use surrogates, yep. Do they reproduce naturally, noooo.

C'mon now, your smarter than that.


Surrogates would increase population due to a gay couple, a baby that would not otherwise exist..

I keep seeing "YOUR smarter than that" on this site. Ugh. Who's 'than that' is it? Can I have a smarter 'than that'?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 


but I undoubtedly know that same-sex couples never have children, thats not an assumption. Do they adopt, sure? Do they use surrogates, yep. Do they reproduce naturally, noooo.

but........as it relates to the threads topic, gay's using surrogates would help increase the population. Right?

reply to post by Dustytoad
 

Hah! You beat me to it


*Edit: and Phage did
edit on 13-2-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

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


[quote}
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, which began asking questions about same-sex household information in the 1990 Census, only 581,300 individuals were part of a same-sex household in 2009. That’s less than one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the 307 million people living in the U.S. in 2009.

Furthermore, data from the Census Bureau's 2010 Demographic Profile shows that “same-sex spouses” accounted for a mere 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, which is nearly 8 million people out of the total 309 million Americans.

So thats an increase from less than 0.5% in 2009 to 2.5% in 2010. Funnily enough the article goes on to say “In general, these figures have changed little from our first studies in the late 1980s through 2010,”


Wait a sec. Is it just that I'm not reading it correctily or isn't that a comparison between "Same Sex Households" and "Same Sex Spouses". It should be comparing the same catagorical percentage of each of those apart from one another.

In other words, you can't use the Percentage of the first data element, "Same Sex households" with the Percentage of the other data element, "Same Sex Spouses", because they aren't the same. Compare the rise or fall of each of them independantly is fine but you can't compare two different data sets trying to show a differnece in their percentage because they are different data sets. Same Sex Households doesn't mean the same thing as Same Sex Spouses.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Hinduism is one of the world’s oldest religions, and Hindus constitute a sixth of the world’s population today. Most Hindus live in India but there are about 1.5 million Hindus, both Indians and non-Indians, in the United States. As a result, homosexuality is a complex matter in Hinduism and depends heavily on cultural context and tradition.

Hinduism and Sexuality

“Same sex desire and even sexual activity have been represented and discussed in Indian literature for two millennia, often in a nonjudgmental and even celebratory manner,” according to Hindu scholar Ruth Vanita. For example, the erotic sculptures on ancient Hindu temples at Khajuraho and Konarak, and the sacred texts in Sanskrit constitute irrefutable evidence that a whole range of sexual behavior was known to ancient Hindus. The tradition of representing same-sex desire in literature and art continued in medieval Hinduism.

When Europeans arrived in India, they were shocked by Hinduism, which they termed idolatrous, and by the range of sexual practices, including same-sex relations, which they labeled licentious. British colonial rulers incorporated their homophobic prejudices – largely attributed to certain Christian teachings – into Indian education, law and politics. As a result, homosexuality was made illegal in 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting carnal or lustful intercourse “against the order of nature” with any man, woman, or animal – in other words, any sex that is not between a man and a woman with the aim of reproduction is outlawed. Thus, the marginal homophobic trend in pre-colonial India became dominant in modern India. Some Indian nationalists, including Hindus, internalized Victorian ideals of heterosexual monogamy and disowned indigenous traditions that contravened those ideals. Homosexuality remained a criminal offense in India until 2009 when New Delhi’s highest court deemed this colonial era law unconstitutional.t


www.hrc.org...
edit on 13-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join