A reasonable explanation...

[ResPublica]

The problem with this is that there is no proof that such an action would happen. You'll find that most of those that argue this do not believe that homosexuality is 'natural'. They believe that it is a 'choice'. If they are wrong then they have no basis to stand on (and there by no legal standing). If they are right then the government does have the ability to change the laws to ensure the survival of the nation. As it is since they have no proof (even the slightest bit of proof) that argument has to be disregarded until such time as proof becomes available.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality, once surpassing procreative results, forces a given population to decline. The research citing this factor is widely accessible.

You are absolutely correct when you say that they refuse to recognize it as natural. And those who argue that are simply already on the offensive, they see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality as a threat to their own understanding of what constitutes 'natural' (the prevailing social order) and resisting what is often promoted by elite outsiders.

There is of course also an economic aspect. A smaller population means less potential in terms of capital markets and potential consumers.

 

[Thorgasm]

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality, once surpassing procreative results, forces a given population to decline. The research citing this factor is widely accessible.

The population is currently growing exponentially. The Gay isn't contagious. Homosexuality is not going to surpass the breeders. If anything, there would probably be a whole lot of bisexuals.

I always wonder what the opinion about these things will be when the whole planet is overpopulated.

There is of course also an economic aspect. A smaller population means less potential in terms of capital markets and potential consumers.

There's a ceiling too though. If you have too many people it drains all of your resources. But the population won't shrink without a major natural, biological, or military catastrophe.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality, once surpassing procreative results, forces a given population to decline. The research citing this factor is widely accessible.

I agree with this. IF homosexuality does surpass it. There is no evidence that it would though. It's all conjectures based on it being a 'choice'. And in truth there is more evidence that it is 'natural' than it is a 'choice' so far.

 

[ResPublica]

The population is currently growing exponentially. The Gay isn't contagious. Homosexuality is not going to surpass the breeders. If anything, there would probably be a whole lot of bisexuals.

I didn't say that the world population was shrinking. I was referring to developed countries (should have clarified that). Sure the gay isn't contagious, but it can definitely be encouraged by increasing social acceptance. Would be interesting to find some research on this.

There's a ceiling too though. If you have too many people it drains all of your resources. But the population won't shrink without a major natural, biological, or military catastrophe.

You are referring to countries that have too high growth rates. But there are many countries, especially in Europe, that are shrinking.

 

[1069]

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality, once surpassing procreative results, forces a given population to decline. The research citing this factor is widely accessible.

Gays, specifically gay females, still have the same urges to reproduce that straight females have.
Biologically and emotionally, they still have the same drive to have children, to be mothers.
And they do have children.
Here in the US, about 60% of lesbians are mothers, as opposed to about 86% of heterosexual women.
Not a hugely significant decrease, as you can see.
Although, just anecdotally, most of the lesbian parents I know tend to have only one child. But perhaps they'd have more if society didn't make it so difficult and expensive for them to accomplish it via artificial means.

 

[Thorgasm]

I didn't say that the world population was shrinking. I was referring to developed countries (should have clarified that). Sure the gay isn't contagious, but it can definitely be encouraged by increasing social acceptance. Would be interesting to find some research on this.

Let's say society told me it was okay to be gay and I went along with it. I would actually be bisexual. I like sex with girls. It's not an either/or situation.

You are referring to countries that have too high growth rates. But there are many countries, especially in Europe, that are shrinking.

Due to emigration, not due to homosexuals. The global population is growing exponentially.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Having children is not a requirement of marriage. Please try again.

Know that. It's the only reason for the government benefits that heteros have always gotten. It's to keep the biological children with their biological parents, and offer them some protection. The government has no interest in love or romance. It is about the children. There's no requirement, but it's the usual that happens when heteros marry. Heteros have all the children and it's better for the kids to stay with their parents. Does it always happen? No, but it's the reason for government sanctioned marriage.

Say, oh yeah, but some can't have kids, and some are too old. That isn't the vast majority, and it's the majority the government is concerned about. The kids are the future.

 

[DGomez]

As I have stated before the marriage has to be based on the consent of BOTH parties involved. And I wasn't the one that brought up the bit about the "individual rights" I think it was DGomez that did. He posited that the government does not make laws for the individual person but for the people as a whole. I was obligated to counter that and show him that the government does indeed make laws based on individuals.

I am, in actuality, a woman. Please use the appropriate corresponding pronouns.

The government makes laws concerning individuals if there are a large number of individuals with a similar problem.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You are referring to countries that have too high growth rates. But there are many countries, especially in Europe, that are shrinking.

Do any of the countries that have srinking population growth allow homosexual marriage? If not then you have no case. If so then it's possible that you have a case...if you can prove it is due to homosexual marriages. Thats going to be the difficult part.

 

[DGomez]

If you continued with the list, it builds one to the next. I have no interest in dealing with your obtuse refusal to recognize fact when you see it; such obtuse insincerity only belies your lack of interest in honest discussion.

I have continued with that list. And I'm saying that it's comprised of unsearchable completely made up historical tripe. If you think differently, you must tell me why.

Gay marriage in Greece and Rome? HA! Please show me ANY legitimate historical example of that.

Historical gay marriage in Europe? Not likely. When did that happen? During the Spanish Inquisition?

The David and Jonathan theory is grasping at straws. The whole thesis behind it is that David cried for a few days after Jonathan died so therefore they were "something more" than friends. I'm sorry, but if my best friend died, I would probably be a wreck for months. Plus, even IF that were true, it's yet one more example of gay LOVERS; not marriage.

You provided the examples therefore it is your responsibility to back them up when they are called to question, not mine. Otherwise your credibility as a debater is pretty much nil.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Know that. It's the only reason for the government benefits that heteros have always gotten. It's to keep the biological children with their biological parents, and offer them some protection. The government has no interest in love or romance. It is about the children. There's no requirement, but it's the usual that happens when heteros marry. Heteros have all the children and it's better for the kids to stay with their parents. Does it always happen? No, but it's the reason for government sanctioned marriage.

Say, oh yeah, but some can't have kids, and some are too old. That isn't the vast majority, and it's the majority the government is concerned about. The kids are the future.

Incorrect. People do not have to be married to have custody or control over any children they may sire/bear. This is evident in the fact that there are many unwed mothers and that the father of the children to that unwed mother still has to pay child support. (assumeing they don't try to skip out of it but then again that is illegal). And there are even many unwed fathers also. Neither do the children have to have the parents married to have the right to inherit property after death or to make medical decisions if there is no one else to make the decisions. Try again.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I am, in actuality, a woman. Please use the appropriate corresponding pronouns.

I apologize. I am not use to the little icon denoting a persons sex on a forum.

The government makes laws concerning individuals if there are a large number of individuals with a similar problem.

Wouldn't you say that 1 million to 30 million individuals is a large number? I sure would.

 

[DGomez]

Wouldn't you say that 1 million to 30 million individuals is a large number? I sure would.

30 million, yes. 1 million, not really. I question the validity of that statistic. It's very popular these days to "experiment" or only be "70% straight." Whatever that means. One must wonder what the basis was for counting.

 

[Kal'Stang]

30 million, yes. 1 million, not really. I question the validity of that statistic. It's very popular these days to "experiment" or only be "70% straight." Whatever that means. One must wonder what the basis was for counting.

It's estimates. No one knows the exact number so can only estimate. Hence why it's around 1%-10%. Pretty much every where I looked the percentages were at or around those two percentages. Which is why I use the lowest and the highest. For fairness.

I would consider 1 million people to be a large number. The largest sport facility is Indianapolis Motor Speedway which seats 250,000. Could you imagine 4 of those stadiums FILLED with people?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Here is a link to one site that says this about the population of GLBT in the US. It's through Adherents.com. From what I can tell it's mainly a religious site.

GLBT (gay, lesbian or bisexual)5: 4,300,000 1.51 %
.
.
.
5. 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels.

Link

 

[Thorgasm]

Here is a link to one site that says this about the population of GLBT in the US. It's through Adherents.com. From what I can tell it's mainly a religious site.



Link

1.51%?

That sounds low. Everything I've ever heard puts it at between 4 and 10 percent. Of course, maybe the being out is the catch.

I'm not sure I would trust a religious site with regards to homosexuality.

 

[DGomez]

It's estimates. No one knows the exact number so can only estimate. Hence why it's around 1%-10%. Pretty much every where I looked the percentages were at or around those two percentages. Which is why I use the lowest and the highest. For fairness.

I would consider 1 million people to be a large number. The largest sport facility is Indianapolis Motor Speedway which seats 250,000. Could you imagine 4 of those stadiums FILLED with people?

I view the number contextually. I would never discount 1 million if they were being systematically slaughtered. But they're not. Gays are not even being subjugated. It's not like they're slaves or are unable to find respectable employment due to their status (like blacks or women). They are inconvenienced. I mean we're even talking less than the 1 million. Because how many of those will actually get married? Maybe half?

So yes it would be nice if there could be something worked out for them. But on no account do I consider this the massively huge issue that the media is working it up to be.

 

[1069]

Gays are not even being subjugated. It's not like they're slaves or are unable to find respectable employment due to their status (like blacks or women).

Tell it, sister.
Lawd knows the oppression we deal with.
I looked high and low for "respectable employment": construction sites, bouncing at nightclubs, men's restroom attendant, pro-wrestling, the NFL, tried to hire myself out as a bodyguard; I even applied to be a dancer with Chippendales Revue, and not one of them, not one of them would hire me.
I mean, WTF?? :shrug:
I never figured out whether it's cause I'm a woman or because they suspected I've got a touch of the tar brush, but whatevah, am I right?
It don't matter whether you're black or a woman, da man be keeping you down.
Those whining homos don't know what subjugation is.
Mercy! Don't even get me started.

 

[Renae]

I have continued with that list. And I'm saying that it's comprised of unsearchable completely made up historical tripe. If you think differently, you must tell me why.

Gay marriage in Greece and Rome? HA! Please show me ANY legitimate historical example of that.

Historical gay marriage in Europe? Not likely. When did that happen? During the Spanish Inquisition?

The David and Jonathan theory is grasping at straws. The whole thesis behind it is that David cried for a few days after Jonathan died so therefore they were "something more" than friends. I'm sorry, but if my best friend died, I would probably be a wreck for months. Plus, even IF that were true, it's yet one more example of gay LOVERS; not marriage.

You provided the examples therefore it is your responsibility to back them up when they are called to question, not mine. Otherwise your credibility as a debater is pretty much nil.

There were a few cases, most historical references I found were of aberrations, such as Nero, or conditional relationships that last a few years. There were, I admit case of men and women joining in same sex relationships akin to marriage, but these were often ceremonial, or rare instances. In Western Society they were outlawed by about the 5th century.

The fact remains while homosexualality has been, and always will happen it's never been a "marriage" situation. that is a modern reaction.

 

[DGomez]

Tell it, sister.
Lawd knows the oppression we deal with.
I looked high and low for "respectable employment": construction sites, bouncing at nightclubs, men's restroom attendant, pro-wrestling, the NFL, tried to hire myself out as a bodyguard; I even applied to be a dancer with Chippendales Revue, and not one of them, not one of them would hire me.
I mean, WTF?? :shrug:
I never figured out whether it's cause I'm a woman or because they suspected I've got a touch of the tar brush, but whatevah, am I right?
It don't matter whether you're black or a woman, da man be keeping you down.
Those whining homos don't know what subjugation is.
Mercy! Don't even get me started.

Finally some sense is spoken.

I was referring more to the era in which it was either have a man in your life or become a prostitute.... but to each her own.

 

[DGomez]

There were a few cases, most historical references I found were of aberrations, such as Nero, or conditional relationships that last a few years. There were, I admit case of men and women joining in same sex relationships akin to marriage, but these were often ceremonial, or rare instances. In Western Society they were outlawed by about the 5th century.

The fact remains while homosexualality has been, and always will happen it's never been a "marriage" situation. that is a modern reaction.

Well, really, what DIDN'T Nero do? I have heard of those few cases as well. However I hardly call it a "historical precedent." The point being that even in those societies which openly promoted/accepted homosexual intercourse, marriage was still not lawful.

 

[emdash]

Well, really, what DIDN'T Nero do? I have heard of those few cases as well. However I hardly call it a "historical precedent." The point being that even in those societies which openly promoted/accepted homosexual intercourse, marriage was still not lawful.

I hear he fiddled while rome burned. then someone told me they didn't even have fiddles back then. now I don't know what to believe.

Lawd.

 

[emdash]

Although, just anecdotally, most of the lesbian parents I know tend to have only one child. But perhaps they'd have more if society didn't make it so difficult and expensive for them to accomplish it via artificial means.

it's society's fault lesbians can't have babies easily, naturally and cheaply?

 

[1069]

it's society's fault lesbians can't have babies easily, naturally and cheaply?

I'd say so, yes, when so many doctors in private fertility practice are refusing to inseminate them on moral grounds.
At least California put a stop to it.

link

One down, 49 to go.


edit:

Oh, look at this; from my link:

Benitez alleged that the doctors refused because she is a lesbian. The physicians deny the allegation, saying they don’t inseminate any unmarried women.

Same excuse as the adoption thing. :roll:
Let's prohibit gays from marrying by law, and then pass laws so that "unmarried" *wink, wink* folks can't adopt, foster, be artificially inseminated, etc, etc....

Discrimination? What discrimination?
No discrimination here. :no:

 

[emdash]

I'd say so, yes, when so many doctors in private fertility practice are refusing to inseminate them on moral grounds.
At least California put a stop to it.

link

One down, 49 to go.

that's an interesting take on it. I was prepared to blame mother nature.