Acceptance Of Homosexuality Leads To Extinction

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Elected representatives would be committing political suicide by saying any of these things.

I have heard this over and over from hollywood types and other radical "earther" liberals, go to a Green Day event and you'll bits and pieces of these ideas spread within the various booths. How can you not have heard about these ideas?

I clearly remember hearing at Green Day events these ideas a good 20+ years ago. Not the homosexuality part, but the depopulation part.

As far as abortion : www.politicsdaily.com... www.dianedew.com... or go to the source and read a book by Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood Women and the New Race

A fairly neutral source on how late term abortions are done: en.wikipedia.org...

Depopulation: rense.com...
read about the Georgia Guidestones, a person, certainly not an alien, wrote this as a manifesto for the far left radical progressive movement

As far as convincing people homosexuality is a preferred lifestyle; just watch prime time TV, you'd have to be blind to the propaganda not to see it; again I have nothing against homosexuality; however, promotion of it as a preferred lifestyle does advance the progressive agenda of depopulation.

I could go on and on with resources, do your own research if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by 0mage

[SNIP]

Perhaps it was your questionable choice of wording that provoked the censors? Just a thought.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The stats show an increase in population in said countries. Was my post that confusing?

Hmm. I can edit if you point out where I went wrong.

The mistake you made was equating population growth to birth rate.

First off, you looked at the birth rates for less than a decade. If you look at birth rates back to 1980 you will see that there has been a decrease in birth rates.

Second, increase in life span and immigration can cause an increase in population even if birth rates stay the same or decrease a little.

I think this is also the reason that people are coming into the thread in the way that they are, the topic is "Homosexuality = extinction" and the stats do show a decrease so, it would stand to reason that if you went by the stats you would be inclined to agree. They don't know that you're looking at the wrong numbers.

reply to post by grandmakdw

Originally posted by grandmakdw
The agenda is to reduce the population to restore the earth to what it was "meant" to be before "polluting, animal killing, and environment exploiting humans" became a "blight" on the surface of the earth.

I don't know exactly what this alleged "Georgia Guidestones depopulation agenda" is, but I suppose someone, somewhere also has a "population agenda" because you know the far right/conservatives want to make homosexuality and abortion illegal - so that the population will increase and increase - and then the apocalypse can happen and then they can all go home to heaven...

Both ideas are ludicrous. Sorry, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet. And no amount of research will convince me of your position. But you are certainly welcome to it. Just don't expect me to even be curious about it because it's ludicrous on the face of it.

Originally posted by infowarrior9970
I agree with the statement.

Homosexuality does leads to extinction. If we were all gay ..we'd stop reproducing and eventually die out in a few generations.

unless gay men started impregnating gay women all of a sudden.. but last I checked they don't like each other very much

edit on 13-2-2013 by infowarrior9970 because: corrections

Well you misread it for a start... the OP does not ask what you're stating.

It's about acceptance and tolerance...

Not saying if everyone was gay.... you're just not understanding the OP, at all.

Does an Acceptance of homosexuality lead to Extinction... Answer NO.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You don't have to go on the internet to find these ideas on depopulation.

Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood wrote books on it. What an kooky source huh?

Henry Kissinger also wrote on depopulation. Remember him? What an kooky source huh?

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control."
QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM AN OBAMA ADVISOR— John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977. Again,a weird kook source.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." — David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people. OMG, what, another kook, right?

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." — Margaret Sanger founder of planned parenthood - well this one really is a kook.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." — Dave Foreman, US environmentalist and co-founder of the environmental movement Earth First!

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." — Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to itizens chosen for childbearing." — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding" — Theodore Roosevelt

"The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population… If it didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it]." — Dave Foreman, the founder of the environmental group EARTH FIRST!

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." — Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

These are quotes from some very off the wall, kooky and weird people, don't you agree? Why think these people are worth listening to about the depopulation effort? OMG I am being fooled, now I get it. Why on earth should I trust an Obama advisor, you've convinced me now, I relent.

To reiterate:

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." — Christopher Manes, Earth First!

His biography from his website:
Christopher Manes is an award-winning author, journalist and documentary film-maker.

His books include Green Rage (Little, Brown), nominated for a Los Angeles Times book award in science; and Other Creations: Rediscovering the Spirituality of Animals (Doubleday).

His articles explore topics that range from Beowulf scholarship to environmental ethics to his solo trek across the interior of Iceland. They have appeared in numerous publications, including Los Angeles Magazine, Mother Earth News, California Lawyer, Palm Springs Life, Environmental Ethics, Orion Nature Quarterly, Northern Lights, Houghton Mifflin's Encyclopedia of the Environment, English Language Notes, Human Ecology Review, Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, and have been widely anthologized.

He wrote and produced the documentary, Earth First!: The Politics of Radical Environmentalism, which was screened at the 1st Annual Environmental Film Festival in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with excerpts appearing on "60 Minutes," MTV, "Inside Edition," and numerous news programs. He also was the executive producer of Megadittoes - The Tea Party Cult, a documentary about the Tea Party.

reply to post by grandmakdw


There is a small group of people who still think the earth is flat, too. Don't let them freak you out. Those of us here who want to see the acceptance of homosexuality and the consequent equality are NOT pushing an agenda of depopulation. You can believe that, or not. But I assure you, I didn't even know what the "Georgia Guidestones" was before reading it here and I'm in no way associated with a movement to depopulate the earth by making everyone gay or by any other means.

Originally posted 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

.

I do not agree with it leading to extinction.

I do believe the way this entire gay acceptance movement has been heading is not healthy. The reason I say this is that it is becoming "an absolute" that if you are gay you were born that way. Yes some are born that way, some become gay out of circumstance. It is this latter group of teens that are being negatively effected in the long run I am concerned about.

Example:

A young teen male that is socially repugnant, physically not attractive and is going through severe hormonal change at the same time. This unfortunate then experiments, flesh is flesh when the hormone rage enough and you are rejected thoroughly by the opposite sex long enough you will do nearly anything to satisfy your basic drive.

Now every facet of society says "its ok, you were born this way and it is not your fault" this is very nice for those that this holds true...but for those that we are using as an example this makes them feel they have no choice. They then live the life they may not have if they understood it can also at times be a choice.

I know, I was that teen.

I had same sex relations. It was just sex and the emotional portion never would happen. I have since those teen years fallen in love with my wife and raised a family and grandchildren. I have been in love three times with women...but cannot with men. I can have very satisfying sex with either or, but do not have the capability to fall in love with a man.

I look back and think if I was that age now I never would have had this wonderfully fulfilling experience of being in love with someone. The scent of a woman....ahhhh...the female energy dancing with the male energy. It is in me and I would have missed it.

Funny times

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


One more time:

I think homosexuality is genetically preprogrammed in a small portion of our society. They should NOT be ridiculed or denied rights, they like all minority's should be left alone to live and let live.

But, there IS a depopulation agenda and one can not deny it, even Obama's science adviser is for forced depopulation.

Exploiting the gay movement however, is beneficial to their depopulation agenda. The gay movement is being exploited by the depopulationists. This is reflected in the media which is promoting the gay lifestyle as preferential and ideal in an attempt to convince people who are not preprogrammed genetically to switch to the gay lifestyle. I do believe that is happening. The true homosexuals are being exploited by people who want to advance depopulation. I think it is very clear and the gay movement is being used and the people who are gay just don't want to see how their message of live and let live has been co opted by the Greenies.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
But, there IS a depopulation agenda and one can not deny it, even Obama's science adviser is for forced depopulation.

Sure, we can call it "population control" but why do you want to make it sound evil?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

that is the only connection between populations slowing growth in said countrys.

The stats show an increase in population in said countries. Was my post that confusing?

Hmm. I can edit if you point out where I went wrong.

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

Fertility rates tend to be highest in the world’s least developed countries. When mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty. Poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle. Conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a “demographic bonus”: the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.

Source

Apologies. When I seen the topic at hand, I did a half skim of the content and replied. This was due to this being a old topic that always has shown educated and developed countrys having a slower pop growth than developing countrys. My bad for not reading the ops...(assume..gets ya every time)

Anyhow, check that source out. near the bottom is the graph and a link to a xls file that gives the full breakdown from population fertility rate per nation (how many kids per average family) compared to average schooling..and it is pretty consistant that the more educated, the less kids per nation. Education is the main determination of population.

Homosexuality cannot lead to extinction; for the most part, it's a self-defeating gene. Two homosexuals cannot produce offspring by mating, unless they mate with the opposite sex.

With that being said, suppression of homosexuality will lead to its prolonging. Why? Because closet homosexuals, under a mass of stress to comply with social norms, will engage in heterosexual relationships and have heterosexual sex, thus producing offspring which could also have homosexual leanings.

There is nothing wrong with that, but it just seems ironic that those opposed to homosexuality are unintentionally causing it to spread amongst our species through their idiotic laws. Live and let live, homosexuals are people who like same sex people; they aren't some kind of plague.

An additional note, bisexuality will never be rid of. I just hope that we can come to our collective senses and put an end to this intolerance.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by grandmakdw
But, there IS a depopulation agenda and one can not deny it, even Obama's science adviser is for forced depopulation.

Sure, we can call it "population control" but why do you want to make it sound evil?

Because they are talking about forcing people, like China does.
Advocating things like putting birth control in the water and only giving select people the antidote to what they put in the water so they can have children.
You don't think that is evil? To secretly make everyone infertile to control the population. And then choosing who Doctors will be allowed to cure from the "infertility". That is evil.

Choosing who will and won't be allowed to have children is at the core of what the depopulationists believe. How will they choose, Knowing human nature, the elite, the political leaders and their children will be allowed to have children before anyone else. Then only people deemed intelligent enough, or athletic enough, or, shall I go on, or shall I hint that Hitler tried to do create the perfect race of people. Depopulationists for the most part, although, there are exceptions, don't believe in genocide of healthy adults, just controlling who will be the select few of the future.

And yes, they are exploiting the gay agenda to advance depopulation of "undesirables" (their evil term)

reply to post by grandmakdw

Sure what you describe is evil sounding but that is the fear mongering version some are trying to sell.

Birth rates are dropping and none of what you described is the reason behind it.

reply to post by daskakik


Birth rates are dropping. True, and education of women, a fantastic thing, seems to be the main reason.

However, these rates are not dropping fast enough for many, like Eric Holder and the others whom I quoted earlier.

I still think the homosexual's are being used, co-opted and exploited by the elite who think only they are worthy of progeny.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
I still think the homosexual's are being used, co-opted and exploited by the elite who think only they are worthy of progeny.

How can they even be used? That makes no sense.

A politician saying more needs to be done doesn't mean that they are going to start running concentration camps.

I can think of at least one plan that would work much better, without them having to face a war crime court afterwards.

reply to post by daskakik


The gays are being used by depopulationists because by telling homosexuals that they should not only push for live and let live, they should push for people to think that the gay lifestyle can be preferable to the heterosexual lifestyle. You see this on all the shows that have gay people telling straight people how to dress, how to cook, how to design, even how to have better relationships; which not only promotes the gay lifestyle but says that it is more fashionable than the hetro lifestyle; but these are horrible stereotypes of gay people that are being promoted.


Example: As a professor I had a gay student that was truly a lovely person, when he was himself, he was fun, charming and easy to be around; however, when his gay friends came around, he became flamboyant and flaming, which was not the real him I saw when he was alone with me, I can tell you the gay caricature he felt compelled to become was not the real him, the real him was a regular guy who just happened to be homosexual. The media's ideas of what he should be didn't allow him to be himself, a really great guy to be around.

reply to post by grandmakdw

Sorry but that makes no sense. I think there are more than a couple posts in this very thread that prove that, even if gay is marketed as trendy, heterosexuals are not going to swayed.

The impact of this plot to make the gay lifestyle attractive to curve population growth is probably close to nil.