I Just Want To Say I Told You So. RE: LGBT

If they stop watching the influences of TV, kids wouldn't be gay/trans/bi/ or whatever. I don't believe people are born like that, I think someone or something influences them to be that way. That's just my opinion though.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Then tally up your earnings over 18 years and it's still the same percentage of income. Just a larger number.

And the smaller the income and the more the kids, the greater the expense.

Wait, what? They like other peoples kids but wouldn't like their own, yet you like your own but not other peoples? You're not making any sense!

Makes plenty of sense -- we like our kin, we don't like other people's children. My brothers simply do not relate to kids not in the extended family. I find other's kids grating and annoying. It doesn't mean they don't like being uncles, and it doesn't mean I don't like being a parent. Why is this difficult to understand?

I completely disagree. But neither of us can prove the other right/wrong here.

You disagree because you refuse to accept other people like things contrary to your likes in life. Such as the object of their attraction. No surprise there.

Because children are the future... If you don't have children you've given up the main influence you have on the future. I don't know about you, but I think good people need to have more influence on the future than bad ones.

The goal of life is to enjoy it while you're here for the 70-80 years or so you get on this rock, as you see fit, so long as you harm none. Not how Dfairlite thinks everyone should exist according to Dfairlite. If you think the only thing to live for is kids, live for your own in your own life. Don't expect 7 billion others to unanimously agree and do as you want.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I have Muslim friends, they don't want to kill me.

I also have gay friends. Most of them are married, and some of them have kids.

You don't want Muslim immigrants? Then stick to that as your argument. Why pick on the gays.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: TiggersTheMan

You can't have it both ways, you can't say there are tons of unadopted kids and that people don't care if they have adopted kids or their own.

Quote properly, I said some people are more than happy to raise children that weren't genetically theirs. If that weren't true, no child would be adopted, ever. And yes, there are a ton of children waiting to be adopted. Are you even serious with this line of reasoning?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
As for Hispanics and Asians, if I didn't like that they were out producing whites I'd be pushing this LGBT stuff as it would result in their having fewer children. I'm arguing the opposite, sorry Mr racist.

Learn how to use a paragraph properly. I can't psychically determine where one of your streams of thought ends and another begins. Also, I'm not a Mr., and nothing I've stated implies I'm racist. Ad hominem much?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Finally I provided evidence that people are choosing to be LGBT. My own decisions are irrelevant.

You provided an opinion. It's very convenient that you've determined your decisions to be irrelevant, yet don't extend that same courtesy to others. Maybe it's because you know you didn't choose to be straight, any more than gay people choose to be gay.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
You're pretty bad at this whole debate thing.

Perhaps I am, but thankfully I don't have to resort to random insults or ad hominems.
Try a Snickers.

a reply to: Nyiah

And the smaller the income and the more the kids, the greater the expense.

Correct.

Makes plenty of sense -- we like our kin, we don't like other people's children. My brothers simply do not relate to kids not in the extended family.

So they like family, but wouldn't like their own... that's where the confusion is. I hate other peoples kids too, fyi. I get it. That's why you can't let that view sully the idea of having your own kids.

You disagree because you refuse to accept other people like things contrary to your likes in life. Such as the object of their attraction. No surprise there.

I disagree because having your own children is a completely unique experience. To say you don't want children without having children can only come from a viewpoint of ignorance.

The goal of life is to enjoy it while you're here for the 70-80 years or so you get on this rock, as you see fit, so long as you harm none.

That's straight out of the satanist bible. #, we're screwed, you seemed like a reasonable person (and probably are) but if that's your view point (as a reasonable person) it's game over. I hope you're a crazy extremist.

Not how Dfairlite thinks everyone should exist according to Dfairlite. If you think the only thing to live for is kids, live for your own in your own life. Don't expect 7 billion others to unanimously agree and do as you want.

Propagating our species hasn't ever been controversial.

a reply to: TiggersTheMan

Quote properly, I said some people are more than happy to raise children that weren't genetically theirs. If that weren't true, no child would be adopted, ever. And yes, there are a ton of children waiting to be adopted. Are you even serious with this line of reasoning?

Actually you said this: "Indeed. It's not like there is any shortage of children waiting to be adopted."
Implying that they should just adopt children. Plus you never addressed the second part of my rebuttal, that those children waiting to be adopted are already part of the stats.

Learn how to use a paragraph properly. I can't psychically determine where one of your streams of thought ends and another begins. Also, I'm not a Mr., and nothing I've stated implies I'm racist. Ad hominem much?

First, you were implying I was racist because you didn't understand what you read. Second, that was a proper paragraph. Third, I assumed your gender, you're welcome.

You provided an opinion. It's very convenient that you've determined your decisions to be irrelevant, yet don't extend that same courtesy to others. Maybe it's because you know you didn't choose to be straight, any more than gay people choose to be gay.

It's called small sample bias and it's a great way to come to wrong conclusions. What I do is irrelevant if statistically it can be shown that it is, which is what I did.

And yes, you're pretty bad at it.

originally posted by: Diabolical1972
If they stop watching the influences of TV, kids wouldn't be gay/trans/bi/ or whatever. I don't believe people are born like that, I think someone or something influences them to be that way. That's just my opinion though.

Media is very influential. Saying that, gays were rarely portrayed in films, TV or radio shows until into the 1970s. Prior to then they were always shown negatively as creeps, killers and laughing stocks. Sure enough, there'll be a few exceptions to dig up, but the overwhelming approach was negativity. Obviously this was buttressed by the laws of the time and the predominant animosity of society too. Here in the UK, gays faced prison and could attract a serious kicking without the protection of society or the law.

This makes me wonder why anyone would choose to be gay back then. They faced jail, shunning, beatings, family rejection and lower employment chances. It makes more sense that there was no choice and it was really just the way they were born.

I wonder how many of those millennials are just LUG's.

The statistical race variance would make an interesting addition to these figures. I would bet on which race displays the highest incidental increase.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

It's hispanics and asians. Whites have shown almost no increase.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Dfairlite

So I guess we shouldn't allow people to choose how they want to live their personal lives then if and when they actually have a choice that is????

I mean I wasn't even given a choice. I was just born straight. Lucky for me I agreed with it and wouldn't want it any other way.

But for anyone who actually can choose for themselves, should we force them to choose what they don't want???

I thought it wasn't a choice though.

originally posted by: bananashooter
I know this is super sad, I have a nephew who told my sister the other day that he wanted to become a girl.
It's a war on our children, I didn't even know what trans was until I was in high school, he is in 6th grade.

What will the next generation be dubbed generation "it"?

what was it like growing up without a tv and not read a magazine or paper?

Did you ever think that as it became more accepted people felt more.comfortable saying they were gay?

If you were an actual social scientist that would be your first research into understanding the numbers.

If say baptists were the subject of social bigotry and violence do you think some or many may hide the fact they are baptists?

a reply to: luthier

*sigh* Read the OP.

That's what I'm disproving here. Unless you believe that every generation except millennials are still terrified to come out of the closet, or more accurately that they're now going back in the closet since it is more accepted than ever... which is absurd.

Agreed with your postings Dfairlite, stay strong agaisnt those that try to silence you and damn good rebuttals.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Because as I pointed out, the gay issue is larger than the others leading to population decline.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You have done a poor job explaining yourself if your proving anything.


So in your opinion this issue has effected one group of people?

It makes no sense. Also it doesn't matter unless you are concerned with the sexuality of other people. Homosexuality has no enherent dangers that aren't from systemic problems of society.

Trans people are already an issue being studied and is slowly being related to medicationsin the water supply, and also has neuroscience working on brain formations.

Your research is incredibly limited and not accurate.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes we need population decline what is your point.

In fact in nature overpopulation can lead to Homosexuality.

a reply to: luthier

Would you like to rebut something more specifically or is just a general: "you're wrong" all you've got?

a reply to: luthier

If you believe we are overpopulated provide some evidence.