Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Acceptance Of Homosexuality Leads To Extinction

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


You prove yourself to be blissfully ignorant! (refer your signature)

If homosexuality was contagious there would be a lot more of us around to scare you back into your closet where you belong!

Strange that you should have such videos at hand whereas I, a gay person, didn't even know that they existed and even if I did I wouldn't have their links on my computer!
edit on 13/2/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13/2/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
This was not created by me but I don't know what the source was to provide a link so, now you know...

This looks like a good place for the "Heterosexual Questionaire":
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?

4. Is it possible that your sexual orientation has stemmed from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. Do your parents know you are straight? Do your friends know- how did they react?

6. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it just possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality... can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

9. Why do heterosexuals try to recruit others into this lifestyle?

10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual... Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?

11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?

12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

13. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?

14. Considering the menace of overpopulation how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

15. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you feel that he or she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his or her leanings?

16. There seem to very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to.

17. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

Number 14, I think is my favorite for sure...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Here is an article that I think will help with the topic.. I highlighted one portion in particular that shows a 25% gay population..



Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet - Live Science


"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience.

Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure ecstasy: namely evolutionary benefits. Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Mom and Dad and Dad:

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own...

...The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."



This goes for anyone thinking,
A) Humans invented it (new thing)
B) It goes against nature
C) it has no point
D) it reduces population
edit on 2/13/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


You are ignorant and offensive. If I had my way you would be banned for that post. I am reporting it any way for what good it will do.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 


You undoubtedly know! You know undoubtedly? How do you KNOW this to be a fact when it can be proven otherwise! What makes you think a lesbian couple can't and haven't had another man, probably a gay man, become the father of "their" child? I have friends who have done exactly that!!

If you are going to make ridiculous statements at least back them up with data!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?
3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?
4. Is it possible that your sexual orientation has stemmed from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. Do your parents know you are straight? Do your friends know- how did they react?
6. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it just possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality... can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
9. Why do heterosexuals try to recruit others into this lifestyle?
10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual... Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?
11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?
12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
13. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?
14. Considering the menace of overpopulation how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?
15. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you feel that he or she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his or her leanings?
16. There seem to very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to.
17. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

1) Boobs
2) 8 months old Near Boobs
3) Possible (James Franco Smile kills)
4) No
5) Yes, my friends reacted by trying to get me laid
6) No (couldn't get that far without attraction)
7) Haha nope, not the silent type
8) Sex is Yummy
9) Social anxiety
10) Yes
11) Communication and if the shoe fits...

12) it's not Natural for every human to want one mate
13) Relating to other people can help, but no one is whole..
14) same as any other way (eat, sleep, survive)
15) Yes, Yes..
16) Go on.. Can God take the straight away, straight away? Or do I have to wait?
17) every time my girl is acting "crazy" (in quotes now and I said ACTING)
edit on 2/13/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
There are many other causes that will lead to the extinction of our species, not just homosexuality alone.

1. In Japan today, we see the greying population whereby the old outnumber the young, as the young are either not marrying or not having babies. The japanese young are most certainly not gays. The cause is due to economic reasons than anything else, for the cost of living is high, so much that it would strain finances just to have one child.

This is not only happening in Japan, but is a phenomena in most first world nations whereby the young are more educated and aware of the social and economic costs of having children.

When the old outnumbers the young, life would be unsustainable as the support for the aged will shrink, the young faced with high financial burden to subsidize the old, and when caught in such a cycle, extinction is certain.

In africa, the W.H.O had strongly supported birth control, and the consequences will be deadly in time to come. Africa is a huge resource rich landmass, and without the young, who will harvest the resources?

In China, the CCP govt made the same mistakes, worried about providing for the 1.3 billion citizens, but unaware that it is a HUGE landmass, engineeered birth control that now or within a few years, they will have more aged than young, and the economic support will only become fully unsustainable.

There is more to man-made extinction than just the homosexual issue, and if govts and mankind refuse to deal with it by seeking for more growth opportunities, we will only do ourself in.


2. In the ancient past, homosexuality was prevalent, but it did not led to extinction, ONLY because it was not encouraged. Only some states practised it, and mostly behind doors unlike today's present day whereby gays enjoy full marriage rights.

In Rome, homosexuality was frowned upon, but only in public space, and not behind closed doors. In the middle east, there are even industries specially created in homosexual trade, such as subjecting beautiful very young boys to incremental enlargement of their rectum so that they can be sold to rich owners as toys for men, hidden behind harems even as such owners go about heterosexual lives.

As homosexual activities had been restricted in the past, thus the data will hold true that it will not in any way contribute to our extinction.

However, that may change as acceptance today is rising, so much that such lifestyles are being actively promoted in the public sphere. Within probably 30 years, the data will show differently from ancient times.

Some claimed that adoption will solve the human replacement issue. Reality is that even amongst heterosexual couples, kids have a hard time growing up during their formative years to formulate their own identity and individuality, more so now with rising divorce rates, and worse, if their parents are of the same sex and the need for them to attend school. What suffering are we inflicting on the innocents?

And adoption still needs heterosexual couples. What happen when such couples ceased to exist?

Some claimed technology will help, such as test tube babies. There is a definative moral and ethical conflict there. What are we inflicting upon the innocent next generations? Are they to accept that they are robots, built to order, to sustain the economic life of others and not because of love that natural procreation offers?

I am not against homosexuality, for they are what they are, are only fellow human beings, and do not deserve discrimination in any form, but that such lifestyles should not be encouraged or forced upon others whom have no such bent, not for my mortal sake, but for the sake of our species, and mankind don't need another extinction worry to ponder over



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
reply to post by 0mage
 


You are ignorant and offensive. If I had my way you would be banned for that post. I am reporting it any way for what good it will do.


I understand that the post offended you and I am in no way defending it either, however, I think you should counter the arguemnet rather that reporting it and expecially not recommending someone be banned over it.

This is just my opinion of course and I say it out of respect for the idea of open discussion which is what any forum is about at it's core. Just some food for thought....

edit on 13-2-2013 by mOjOm because: sounter to counter



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Since Phage won't, anyone who wants to acknowledge this question seriously please, give it a shot.

When the countries gay population goes from 2% to 25% you don't think the number of children born naturally will dwindle?

Onto technicalities.


reply to post by mOjOm
 


I'm pretty sure those data sets are relative. I would dare venture to say that most spouses live in the same household.



reply to post by Dustytoad
 




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


Yeah, adoption would increase moral standing, also providing parents that would not exist otherwise. Yet so many gay couples opt for surrogates which imh childless o is selfish.



reply to post by Phage
 



And you think that represents an increase in the number of homosexuals?


Of course I do, if the population a gay Americans has been 2% for 30 years leading up to 2010 and then the number of married gay couples is 2.5% then the total population of gays in the US would have to be 3% at least. That would be a 50% rise in a year if it were only 3%, for it to only be 3% though would imply 5 out of 6 gay people are married. So not only are we seeing an increase, were seeing a HUGE increase.



reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 




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


The countries you cherry picked for your study show extreme bias and I'm guessing they best illustrate the point your trying to make. I mean why use South Africa and not any part of the North? Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, cmon.. those weren't picked at random.

The US shouldn't even be included in this study. We live in a welfare state that pats single moms on the back for having they're 8th kid. Lots of women in this country look at having a child as a pay raise, the stability of our population in that sense is not relative to homosexuality whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
i'm one of the people that inspired the op to write this thread, due to a comment i made about the wider acceptance of homosexuality effecting population increases. also, i do believe i was able to prove that actual changes to the dna of the fetus is only 1 reason for homosexual activity, and that another is societal norms and another is lack of access to the opposite sex.

the examples i gave were 1) pederasty in ancient greece, 2) gendercide of female infants in ancient india and china and 3) prison systems and other artificially created environments, in which homosexual activity is prevalent due to lack of access to the opposite sex

HOWEVER, and here's the salient point, I was not saying homosexuality acceptance was singularly capable of negatively causing the extinction of the species, only that it, in addition to other factors, it will increase the decrease in population growth over time and be proportionate to the amount of acceptance of homosexual activity, as will lack of access to the opposite sex.

For example, China's one child policy has lead to the chinese people aborting an entire generation of female babies, almost exclusively. The male children growing to adulthood now, in China, will have no access to the opposite sex. This will increase the amount of homosexual activity in the population, just as in a prison population, and lead to zero population growth.

I also mentioned that population growth is already being effected by the internet, lower wages, lack of employment, increases in the size of prison populations, increased quality of life standards, laws to enforce those quality of life standards, access to various forms of birth control, and increases in social pressure to provide the best possible life for your offspring. If you add things like widespread diseases, natural disasters, wars and increased acceptance of homosexuality, this will all contribute to the slowing and perhaps even reversing of population growth.

My point was that things like Agenda 21 may not even be necessary in light of these points and the eugenicists can all relax and go study something else instead.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

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


I'm pretty sure those data sets are relative. I would dare venture to say that most spouses live in the same household.



Yes, Most spouses can be living in the same household. In fact lets just assume that they ALL live in the same household. Doesn't matter cause while All sets of Same Sex Spouses can fit within the set of Same Sex Households, NOT ALL sets of Same Sex Households are also Same Sex Spouses. Spouses would be the subset within Households. Those being both Same Sex Household and Spousse. There are certainly many more Same Sex Households that the occupants aren't Spouces. Just a couple of gay/lesbian cohabitants.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


Right, so why then is the number of gay spouses in 2010 quintuple the number of people simply living in a gay household in 2009? Doesn't make sense does it? Maybe, just maybe.. those numbers in 09' were not legit or maybe in 10' weren't. Either way, lying about the numbers is pushing an agenda.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

My point was that things like Agenda 21 may not even be necessary in light of these points and the eugenicists can all relax and go study something else instead.



I would agree with you here for sure. Agenda 21, if it exists, is just murder in a pretty package. Humanity has for some time now been working to "Correct Nature" and "Her Mistakes" forgetting that she has been at it for much longer and infinitly more sustainably FOREVER, including our creation and the whole of our physical reality. I personally think that is kinda arrogant of many humans.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 


Oh I have no doubt that there is an agenda!!! I'm guessing those statistics being used are certainly either being twisted or just flat out made up. As you and I have pointed out both the presentation of the data as well as the numbers themselves make no sense. However, you will notice many sources using so called Statistics in this way. The reason being, The Agenda. Whichever perspective it is at the moment.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
 



When the countries gay population goes from 2% to 25% you don't think the number of children born naturally will dwindle?

Do you mean a particular country, or the percentage of the world population that is homosexual is going to rise to 25%? I see the percentage most often 3-10% from surveys/studies.


The countries you cherry picked

I grabbed a random list from an article about 'gay friendly countries'. Considering the premise I think that was the pertinent thing to do. That's the only 'cherry picking' I did.


for your study show extreme bias

How? It's the actual birth and growth stats corroborated from multiple sources:

Population source: (1) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects, (2) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Reprot (various years), (3) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, (4) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, (5) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme, and (6) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database.


and I'm guessing they best illustrate the point your trying to make

Yes... at least that was the intent...


I mean why use South Africa and not any part of the North? Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, cmon.. those weren't picked at random.

Did I say they were random? Did you click the link at the start showing where/why I got the countries? Countries more accepting of homosexuality is part of the premise is it not? Why would I pick random? I wrote down those countries in notepad, went to Worldbank site and plugged them in with the 'indicators' of 'birth rate, crude' and 'population growth annual%'.


The US shouldn't even be included in this study.

I don't necessarily disagree! I needed a starting point. I just used all the countries in the aforementioned article.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
If you are so worried that homosexuality leads to extinction (respective feel the need to prove it's not the case by making this thread) - why not make a thread how condoms "lead to extinction" as well?

Or...how video games and the fact that so many people today spend time in front of a computer (as opposed to socializing and having sex) "leads to extinction"?

I could probably pull 900 reasons out of my # right now to make a thread what things (in some way) lead to extinction...and each thread would make as much sense as the theory that homosexuality leads to extinction...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Acceptance Of Homosexuality Leads To Extinction

Acceptance of the fact that about 5% of the population is gay or bisexual will NOT lead to extinction.
The 'straight' breeders have put this planet at risk due to overpopulation. I say .. the more non-breeding homosexuals on the planet, the better for all of us!
It would help with overpopulation. THAT is the issue that will lead to our extinction. No more resources on the planet due to too many people .. NOT extinction via homosexuals being accepted.

(and yes, I know that gays can have kids and sometimes do .. ya'll dont' even go there)
edit on 2/13/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



HOWEVER, and here's the salient point, I was not saying homosexuality acceptance was singularly capable of negatively causing the extinction of the species, only that it, in addition to other factors, it will increase the decrease in population growth over time and be proportionate to the amount of acceptance of homosexual activity


I understand you had meant it as a co-factor. I didn't feel I could address that idea and include all those variables so I isolated it. My point then would be, the stats show that Agenda 21, malicious eugenicists, or all those factors you speak of, are not yet 'proportionate to the amount of acceptance of homosexuality'. In these areas, at least the ones I listed, population is still growing. On top of that global population is growing, and projected to continue growing (assuming of course those projections can be trusted).
edit on 13-2-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


NO IT DOES NOT!

Just means there is more clunge for the rest of us
edit on 13-2-2013 by CrimsonMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I don't mean any particular country. Actually that question is better asked in a hypothetical past-tense because if you take away the technology of artificial insemination, take away adoption agencies and government incentive to have 10+ kids it becomes obvious that the numbers would dwindle.

I couldn't view the full list on your link, I'm not gonna register to do so. 8/10 are posted but here is the overwhelming bias. While you were looking into annual population growth rates you entirely neglected to mention that all of those countries are in the lower end of that spectrum.

Here, have a looksy.

en.wikipedia.org...

You have Norway listed at 1.3 being the highest. That link says Norway's growth rate is only 0.62. If thats true then..

ALL of those 8 countries are below the world average, being 1.17, and they are WAY below in most cases. You must have noticed this, thats the bias. "Homosexuality isn't hurting population growth", well it sure isn't helping either!

Look, I have a gay Uncle like everyone does but I don't need approval or shoddy justification to be alright with him being gay. This thread is leftist disinformation.. None of those countries, nor any country yet period, have a gay population high enough to adequately illustrate your point.

If anything the opposite, the fact that they all fall below the world average says something to me. If I went and asked some of my more intelligent friends "Hey, did you know that the US, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Iceland & the Netherlands annual population growth rate is far below the world average? You didn't? Why do you think that is?"

I know what they'd say and its fair to assume and if this thread is truly an indicator they would be right.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join