[QatzelOk]

Argument against - Homosexuality is incompatible with procreation and is therefore biologically unnatural;

What a weak argument.

Hair-brushing is incompatible with procreation and is therefore biologically unnatural.

Downloading videos is incompatible with procreation and is therefore biologically unnatural.

Picking your nose is incompatible with procreation and is therefore biologically unnatural.

...

What a Calvinistic and ideologically-criminal worldview in this OP argument. Not everything we do for pleasure is supposed to create a baby. That's insane.

And if all pleasure created babies, the earth would be overflowing with surplus humans. Which is a negative for survival.

[Godstud]

What is natural and unnatural is irrelevant. If we are to give each person the freedom to be themselves, then whatever they choose is "natural".

[redcarpet]

What is natural and unnatural is irrelevant. If we are to give each person the freedom to be themselves, then whatever they choose is "natural".

Well logically homophobes want to be able to use the 'unnatural' argument to taint GLBTIQ people as choosing to do something bad, therefore be punished for it.

Last I checked sex and romance isn't 'bad' and there's a lot of things humans do that aren't inherent, or what have you. And hardly any of it is illegal. From flying (no wings) to space walking (we weren't born in the vacuum of space, so it's not natural, is it?).

[noemon]

There is something to be to be said about the 'marriage' and about modern homosexual identity.

Marriage has been invented by humans to ensure procreation of the community regardless of sexual preferences, procreation is now being discouraged by feminists, by gay-militants, by liberals, by capitalists, by Hollywood, our populations are shrinking as a result and we are importing humans like commodities to keep the engines running.

I do not want to blame the gay people for this course of events or the feminists because I know that it is not their fault(they have been coerced into this much like everybody else) but they are actively participating in this anti-baby warfare and this is not cool, mmmmkay?

Babies are one of the few things in this world that are good, in the most objective form of good.

[Lexington]

procreation is now being discouraged by feminists, by gay-militants, by liberals, by capitalists, by Hollywood, our populations are shrinking as a result and we are importing humans like commodities to keep the engines running.

The decline in fertility rates in developed countries is very long standing.

The reason is economic: it used to be, when countries were barely above subsistence, that children were a net economic benefit to families since they could be used as labor. But now we don't have child labor. So now children are an enormous economic cost to families.

[noemon]

This reason does not remove the other reasons that I mentioned though, especially when in the case of gay-people, their active participation against baby-making is verified by QatzelOK at the top of this page and also by their own memes and cues. The memes that demand that gay-men are no longer required or expected to produce offspring thus removing a respectable amount of the population from pro-creation alltogether.

The economic reason does not mean that gay people do not actively do that, nor does it mean that certain feminists do not do that, nor does it mean that modern liberal memes are not actively fighting against pro-creation. These are things of choice, your economic reason is not a matter of choice and as such it cannot be changed by our will and argumentation.

[redcarpet]

Heterosexuals can reproduce as much as they want, GLBTIQ rights has nothing to do with it

[noemon]

This is quite dishonest. And there are no 2 groups, there is only citizens from the state's point of view, only people from society's point of view and only consumers from the capitalist point of view. If there are 2 groups, that is men & women.

[Lexington]

This reason does not remove the other reasons that I mentioned though, especially when in the case of gay-people, their active participation against baby-making is verified by QatzelOK at the top of this page and also by their own memes and cues.

So, basically, Qatz said some dumb shit and this proves that homosexuals are responsible for millions of people not having babies.

The memes that demand that gay-men are no longer required or expected to produce offspring thus removing a respectable amount of the population from pro-creation alltogether.

We've only had legal gay marriage for a few years. It takes a little time to adjust. Most gay guys I know (and myself) actually do want to raise children.

The economic reason does not mean that gay people do not actively do that, nor does it mean that certain feminists do not do that, nor does it mean that modern liberal memes are not actively fighting against pro-creation. These are things of choice, your economic reason is not a matter of choice and as such it cannot be changed by our will and argumentation.

Let me just ask you a question:

How many kids do you have?

Why don't you have more?

[noemon]

So, basically, Qatz said some dumb shit and this proves that homosexuals are responsible for millions of people not having babies.

Qatz aside, are you disputing that homosexual narratives include anti-procreation cues?

Most gay guys I know (and myself) actually do want to raise children.

Raise is not the same as create in this population-reduction context.

How many kids do you have?

Why don't you have more?

3, because my wife won't let me. Seriously.

[Lexington]

Qatz aside, are you disputing that homosexual narratives include anti-procreation cues?

Yes.

Raise is not the same as create in this population-reduction context.

Surrogacy and adoption?

3, because my wife won't let me. Seriously.

And why does your wife not let you?

[noemon]

Yes.

Well then this conversation will be pointless if we cannot be honest with each other.

Surrogacy and adoption?

Surrogacy is an appropriate measure within this fertility rate context, but is extremely limited to the point of redundant and adoption is irrelevant to fertility rates as you are not adding humans into the mix.

And why does your wife not let you?

Because she doesn't want get pregnant again. Pregnancy is an ordeal, not for the faint-hearted.

[Political Interest]

Homosexual inclination is still a mystery to us. We don't know what causes it and until we do it is therefore not something we can say is natural or unnatural. However homosexual inclination is not the same as homosexual action. Moreover, simply because we acknowledge the existence of homosexuality does not necessarily shape our opinions on how we deal with this question. Even if homosexuality is perfectly determined from birth and unavoidable this is no reason for the legalisation of same sex marriages.

[noemon]

I believe as I am fairly convinced of the dangers of fertility in western nations, that homosexual people should produce offspring and because I am certain that they will be unhappy if they have to abide by husband/wife roles, I would prefer it if they could do that in collaboration with women, lesbians or otherwise, where the child/children are made naturally and raised by 2 men and 1 woman, or 2 men and 2 women or whatever mix works for everyone, whereby the group swears to keep the child as their utmost priority.

[onemalehuman]

Opinions?


This is not a discussion about gay marriage

Lets get out of an argument and into actual reactions to instinctive navigation to being a product of self containment and specific displacement of actual lifetimes living self evidently in this atmosphere.

Genetic homosexuality and social gayness(acting) and what actually separates the two. Instincts navigate the feelings of being one of a kind while intellect directs behavior as a social collective.

Genetic homosexual condition whether it be from a perception of male or female lifetimes adapting to the moment is (subliminal) reaction of the body knowing there is something wrong with the lifetime's reproductive cells that would cause problems with the next generation of life that body conceives into living in this atmosphere.

I call it "natural sterilization of fertile lifetimes" and not a word needed to direct their reproductive passion. Now socially humans can control the population through science and trained social behavior let alone abortion which isn't a society's business with genetic continuation within family matters.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homosexuality is more natural than capitalism, modern medicine, the nation-state, wearing ties, drinking water pressed through roasted beans, make-up, and disco.

[QatzelOk]

There is something to be to be said about the 'marriage' and about modern homosexual identity.

Marriage has been invented by humans to ensure procreation of the community regardless of sexual preferences, procreation is now being discouraged by feminists, by gay-militants, by liberals, by capitalists, by Hollywood, our populations are shrinking as a result and we are importing humans like commodities to keep the engines running.

I do not want to blame the gay people for this course of events or the feminists because I know that it is not their fault(they have been coerced into this much like everybody else) but they are actively participating in this anti-baby warfare and this is not cool, mmmmkay?

Babies are one of the few things in this world that are good, in the most objective form of good.

It isn't the fault of the gays or the feminists that procreation is dying in developed countries. It's the fault of the social structure which is much too concentrated on maximizing revenue potential.

Our modern rich societies are not set up to provide the best child-rearing. The prehistoric tribesman was, and child-rearing would have been one of the most important obsessions of all parents, who shared children and raised them as a village, with a lot of adults available at all times for them.

Today, we have industrial daycare and commercial media to raise our next generations, but our gadgets are "to die for."

[Political Interest]

Have any experts produced any realistic or plausible theories on what causes homosexual orientation?

[Godstud]

There is no consensus on what causes homosexuality.

This you might find interesting, however, regarding MALE homosexuality.
http://genderwholeness.com/lds/understa ... sexuality/

[noemon]

It isn't the fault of the gays or the feminists that procreation is dying in developed countries. It's the fault of the social structure which is much too concentrated on maximizing revenue potential.

Our modern rich societies are not set up to provide the best child-rearing. The prehistoric tribesman was, and child-rearing would have been one of the most important obsessions of all parents, who shared children and raised them as a village, with a lot of adults available at all times for them.

Today, we have industrial daycare and commercial media to raise our next generations, but our gadgets are "to die for."

Are you really putting the blame squarely on some other scapegoat? I don't want to be funny but fertility is dying because people are not having babies and that is a willful & conscious choice they make, unless you want to tell me that modern society has stolen your agency. And it is not just about not having babies it is also about the stance of people in life which is to convince other people not to have babies either, directly and indirectly.