Rise in Homosexuality is an underlying human reaction too..

[Renae]

I was talking with a friend, and the theory spawned was simple:"

The rise in the numbers, and acceptance of homosexuality, is a deep seated natural reaction to human over-population.

This actually made me stop and go "****... that actually makes... some sense."

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I was talking with a friend, and the theory spawned was simple:"

The rise in the numbers, and acceptance of homosexuality, is a deep seated natural reaction to human over-population.

This actually made me stop and go "****... that actually makes... some sense."

The percentage of the population who are homosexual at any one time as been relatively stable at 3%-7% for as long as history has recorded the proportion of sexual orientations. Unless you have some evidence that homosexuality is "on the rise", I submit a different hypothesis. Because homosexuality is no longer as attacked as it once was, more folks who are gay are actually admitting it. That's why there is the illusion of a greater percentage of gays.

 

[Cardinal]

I was talking with a friend, and the theory spawned was simple:"

The rise in the numbers, and acceptance of homosexuality, is a deep seated natural reaction to human over-population.

This actually made me stop and go "****... that actually makes... some sense."

Well.....okay :/

I guess the next logical step would be to ask if this phenomenon has occurred in other species where there has been overpopulation. As far as I can remember, every time there was an overpopulation of deer, they sort of just starved.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well.....okay :/

I guess the next logical step would be to ask if this phenomenon has occurred in other species where there has been overpopulation. As far as I can remember, every time there was an overpopulation of deer, they sort of just starved.

Or hunters were called out. :mrgreen:

 

[celticlord]

I was talking with a friend, and the theory spawned was simple:"

The rise in the numbers, and acceptance of homosexuality, is a deep seated natural reaction to human over-population.

This actually made me stop and go "****... that actually makes... some sense."

Makes no sense at all.

First, you have to prove homosexuality is "on the rise." I see the Captain has already put that one down.

Second, you have to prove over-population. Here's where your thesis really runs into problems. The nations with the largest populations, China and India, are among the least tolerant of homosexuality. In fact, only just this month did the Delhi High Court legalize homosexuality by striking down section 377 of the India Penal Code. China outlawed homosexuality until 1997, and only removed it from its of psychological diseases in 2001. These two nations comprise some 35% of the world's population, each with several times the population of the United States (which is the third most populous nation in the world).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population"]List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Third, variance in incidence of homosexuality in correlation with population densities eliminates any possibility of biological and genetic factors in determining sexual orientation--even if it did exist, which the existing data does not support. Such variance renders sexual orientation an environmental response mechanism, and thus is entirely a behavioral and not biological phenomenon.

The only reason it "makes sense" is because you have oversimplified the phenomenon of sexual orientation.

 

[Cardinal]

Or hunters were called out. :mrgreen:

I had already considered that, but deemed that train of thought to be a little on the creepy side.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I had already considered that, but deemed that train of thought to be a little on the creepy side.

I know. Someone had to say it. I put a smilie after the comment to show that it was said in jest. Anyway I HATE deer.

 

[celticlord]

I know. Someone had to say it. I put a smilie after the comment to show that it was said in jest. Anyway I HATE deer.

They can be annoying if you have a vegetable garden.....but venison sausage is mighty good eating!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

They can be annoying if you have a vegetable garden.....but venison sausage is mighty good eating!

Eh, it's not the garden or the plants. It's the fact that they run in front of my car, and even when I stop so I don't hit them, they headbutt my car, causing damage. Bastards! :2mad:

 

[celticlord]

Eh, it's not the garden or the plants. It's the fact that they run in front of my car, and even when I stop so I don't hit them, they headbutt my car, causing damage. Bastards! :2mad:

Not bastards....Bambo....

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Not bastards....Bambo....

Screw them. I'm a Sith Lord. If I wanted, I would just exterminate their entire miserable, flea bitten, dumb looking species. :2mad:

 

[celticlord]

Screw them. I'm a Sith Lord. If I wanted, I would just exterminate their entire miserable, flea bitten, dumb looking species. :2mad:

If you decide to do that, let me know and I'll make sure you get a good recipe for venison sausage (along with shipping instructions! :mrgreen

 

[quatrotritikali]

The percentage of the population who are homosexual at any one time as been relatively stable at 3%-7% for as long as history has recorded the proportion of sexual orientations. Unless you have some evidence that homosexuality is "on the rise", I submit a different hypothesis. Because homosexuality is no longer as attacked as it once was, more folks who are gay are actually admitting it. That's why there is the illusion of a greater percentage of gays.

Isn't that what I posted in another of the OP's anti-homosexual rantings? Oh, and who was it that stated that homosexuality cannot be genetic or biological, therefore...it must be behavorial? An environmental response mechanism? WTH? :roll: Celticlord, where is your proof of your theories? And that is just what they are too...theories. Please don't make it sound as if your theory is the definitive source on the causess of homosexuality in the human species.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you decide to do that, let me know and I'll make sure you get a good recipe for venison sausage (along with shipping instructions! :mrgreen

We'll barter. You send me the recipe. I'll send you half of the species. What you can't eat, you can sell. :mrgreen:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Isn't that what I posted in another of the OP's anti-homosexual rantings? Oh, and who was it that stated that homosexuality cannot be genetic or biological, therefore...it must be behavorial? An environmental response mechanism? WTH? :roll: Celticlord, where is your proof of your theories? And that is just what they are too...theories. Please don't make it sound as if your theory is the definitive source on the causess of homosexuality in the human species.

I've posted those percentages countless times over the past 3 years here. And, if I read it correctly, celticlord was not professing an environmental position. He was saying that the only way the OP could be accurate is if homosexuality was an environmental reaction...which I do not believe he professes. I'm sure he can clear this up for you.

 

[celticlord]

Isn't that what I posted in another of the OP's anti-homosexual rantings? Oh, and who was it that stated that homosexuality cannot be genetic or biological, therefore...it must be behavorial? An environmental response mechanism? WTH? :roll: Celticlord, where is your proof of your theories? And that is just what they are too...theories. Please don't make it sound as if your theory is the definitive source on the causess of homosexuality in the human species.

Umm......re-read my post. I am not positing any theories, I am rebutting a proposed theory.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Umm......re-read my post. I am not positing any theories, I am rebutting a proposed theory.

I know. I told him that.

 

[Renae]

The percentage of the population who are homosexual at any one time as been relatively stable at 3%-7% for as long as history has recorded the proportion of sexual orientations. Unless you have some evidence that homosexuality is "on the rise", I submit a different hypothesis. Because homosexuality is no longer as attacked as it once was, more folks who are gay are actually admitting it. That's why there is the illusion of a greater percentage of gays.

You get your numbers from groups and people that push homosexuality, and most likely is based on work by Kinsey, and is thus... highly suspect at the very least.

I love how if one posts an opinion that homosexuality isn't an a-ok normal thing, you get attacked.

"There have been the same number of gays as always, they're just more free to admit it now!" WTF kinda logic are you using, and what kinda proof have you? Yeah, post some sources buddy.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You get your numbers from groups and people that push homosexuality, and most likely is based on work by Kinsey, and is thus... highly suspect at the very least.

I love how if one posts an opinion that homosexuality isn't an a-ok normal thing, you get attacked.

"There have been the same number of gays as always, they're just more free to admit it now!" WTF kinda logic are you using, and what kinda proof have you? Yeah, post some sources buddy.

No one attacked you. You were debated and refuted, civilly. I love how when you refute someone who thinks that homosexuality is not a-ok, they default into "stop attacking me" mode. Nothing more than a diversion.

You posted a position. I already asked for your substantiation. So, where is it? If you cannot substantiate, step down.

 

[Renae]

I've posted those percentages countless times over the past 3 years here. And, if I read it correctly, celticlord was not professing an environmental position. He was saying that the only way the OP could be accurate is if homosexuality was an environmental reaction...which I do not believe he professes. I'm sure he can clear this up for you.

I was merely posting an interesting conversation a friend and I had and I thought I'd share it.

I must remember, all threads not professing how wonderful, normal, and perfectly fine gays are, is to be ridiculed and attacked. Even if you had ZERO intention of implying anything other then a discussion. EVEN if you had ZERO intention of insulting anyone, or being "anti-gay". Heaven forbid you suggest homosexuality isn't anything shy of 100% perfectly Normal, and the only "cause" of homosexuality is a persons true feelings and pure love.

One MUST toe the line on certain subjects here at DP.

Agree with the establishment, or get **** on.

Kewl beans, got it. I won't bother wasting my time discussing homosexual anything, because, well.. debate and discussion are not welcome at DP on the subject.

Hell Why don't you guys just take it to the next level? Any thread on the subject not praising gayness should either go straight to the sewer, or to CT forum!

 

[Renae]

No one attacked you. You were debated and refuted, civilly. I love how when you refute someone who thinks that homosexuality is not a-ok, they default into "stop attacking me" mode. Nothing more than a diversion.

You posted a position. I already asked for your substantiation. So, where is it? If you cannot substantiate, step down.

I read your, and Celtics posts, and thought "hey, good discussion let's go!" And hit New Tab on your first post to respond, but I read the rest of the thread...

Yes two responses worth discussing and then the thread derailed into "deer" jokes. I thought the job of moderators was to keep threads from going completely off topic?

Yeah, I got it loud and clear CC, my post was not the "right" kinda post.

Save the condescension for someone that hasn't figured you out yet eh?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I was merely posting an interesting conversation a friend and I had and I thought I'd share it.

I must remember, all threads not professing how wonderful, normal, and perfectly fine gays are, is to be ridiculed and attacked. Even if you had ZERO intention of implying anything other then a discussion. EVEN if you had ZERO intention of insulting anyone, or being "anti-gay". Heaven forbid you suggest homosexuality isn't anything shy of 100% perfectly Normal, and the only "cause" of homosexuality is a persons true feelings and pure love.

One MUST toe the line on certain subjects here at DP.

Agree with the establishment, or get **** on.

Kewl beans, got it. I won't bother wasting my time discussing homosexual anything, because, well.. debate and discussion are not welcome at DP on the subject.

Hell Why don't you guys just take it to the next level? Any thread on the subject not praising gayness should either go straight to the sewer, or to CT forum!

You are acting all butthurt for no reason. You posted something IN A DEBATE FORUM. This is not a sewing club. What did you expect? Umm...it's a debate forum, so people were...GOING TO DEBATE YOU. What an amazing concept. :roll:

Further, you protest too much. Your position on this is known. Don't try to give us the ruse that "you were just posting an interesting conversation" without it actually being a statement of position. Your first response to me gives away your intention. You want to try to con folks, you oughta know that I don't buy it.

But, beyond all that, please point out where YOU were attacked. You were debated. Civilly. If you cannot handle having your position challenged, perhaps you should rethink whether debating subjects is for you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I read your, and Celtics posts, and thought "hey, good discussion let's go!" And hit New Tab on your first post to respond, but I read the rest of the thread...

Yes two responses worth discussing and then the thread derailed into "deer" jokes. I thought the job of moderators was to keep threads from going completely off topic?

Yeah, I got it loud and clear CC, my post was not the "right" kinda post.

Save the condescension for someone that hasn't figured you out yet eh?

You're annoyed at the deer jokes?!!! It was a brief interlude that happens at times at DP. It was a joke and there was no harm done. In no way was it attacking towards you or the concept of the thread. It got back on topic, quickly. I apologize if you feel this disrupted the thread. If I didn't think the topic was interesting, I wouldn't have posted, here.

And truthfully, Mr. V, I don't buy it. If this was the case, your first comment would have been, "stop messing with my thread. No more deer jokes", or something like that. No, your first response to go on a whining monologue about how folks didn't agree with you. I call bs, and say you're still trying to con us.

 

[Renae]

You are acting all butthurt for no reason. You posted something IN A DEBATE FORUM. This is not a sewing club. What did you expect? Umm...it's a debate forum, so people were...GOING TO DEBATE YOU. What an amazing concept. :roll:

Further, your profess too much. Your position on this is known. Don't try to give us the ruse that "you were just posting an interesting conversation" without it actually being a statement of position. Your first response to me gives away your intention. You want to try to con folks, you oughta know that I don't buy it.

But, beyond all that, please point out where YOU were attacked. You were debated. Civilly. If you cannot handle having your position challenged, perhaps you should rethink whether debating subjects is for you.

I'm sorry, I was looking for debate above deer jokes. I mean, if that's the level of discussion you want here at DP, well I'll just avoid threads you post in.

Estimates of the frequency of homosexual activity also vary from one country to another. A 1992 study reported that 6.1% of males in Britain had had a homosexual experience, while in France the number was 4.1%.[70] According to a 2003 survey, 12% of Norwegians have had homosexual sex.[13] In New Zealand, a 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, few of them identifying as homosexual. Percentage of persons identifying homosexual was 2–3%.[15] According to a 2008 poll, while only 6% of Britons define their sexual orientation as homosexual or bisexual, more than twice that number (13%) of Britons have had some form of sexual contact with someone of the same sex.[14]
In the United States, according to exit polling on 2008 Election Day for the 2008 Presidential elections, 4% of electorate self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the same percentage as in 2004.”[71]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality]Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

See I went and looked this up even, and what I found was a simple truth, no one knows the number of gays today, and thus it's impossible to state how many there were over history.

The complete failure of your position is that you act with certainty that you know this as fact!

I won't argue that more people that may be... pre-disposed are being open about it, as society is more accepting of behaviors it once shunned, however I think your looking at it all the wrong way.

Why do I say this? I think you are applying cause to effect.

"Gays are more accepted, thus there are more gay people being seen, but the numbers haven't changed!"

That really makes little sense. I think it's that there are MORE gays and thus the more there are the more accepted it becomes, not the other way around.

The question is why are there more? I cannot, and WILL not argue that acceptance increases the numbers of any, fringe element in a society. That's a given.

I merely postulated a possible cause for the rise. There are enough humans, thus a natural underlying reaction maybe for more people to be... pre-disposed to homosexuality as a response to over population.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm sorry, I was looking for debate above deer jokes. I mean, if that's the level of discussion you want here at DP, well I'll just avoid threads you post in.

Then avoid them. The deer jokes were a minor interlude in the discussion.

Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See I went and looked this up even, and what I found was a simple truth, no one knows the number of gays today, and thus it's impossible to state how many there were over history.

The complete failure of your position is that you act with certainty that you know this as fact!

I won't argue that more people that may be... pre-disposed are being open about it, as society is more accepting of behaviors it once shunned, however I think your looking at it all the wrong way.

Why do I say this? I think you are applying cause to effect.

"Gays are more accepted, thus there are more gay people being seen, but the numbers haven't changed!"

That really makes little sense. I think it's that there are MORE gays and thus the more there are the more accepted it becomes, not the other way around.

The question is why are there more? I cannot, and WILL not argue that acceptance increases the numbers of any, fringe element in a society. That's a given.

I merely postulated a possible cause for the rise. There are enough humans, thus a natural underlying reaction maybe for more people to be... pre-disposed to homosexuality as a response to over population.

You are misquoting me in two areas. My numbers are an estimation, widely accepted as accurate, even, though with a slightly larger range, by your source. Sexual orientation was not a question that was commonly asked on census', but based on plenty of sources, including the ones that Wikipedia (your source) used, this is the generally accepted number.

Secondly, when you say this, "Gays are more accepted, thus there are more gay people being seen, but the numbers haven't changed!", you are taking what I said out of context. Let me repeat it for you. "Because homosexuality is no longer as attacked as it once was, more folks who are gay are actually admitting it. That's why there is the illusion of a greater percentage of gays." Notice how I put this. The numbers are actually the same, but the illusion that there are more (more seem to be around) is created by the fact that more feel comfortable admitting, openly that they are gay. You are refuting something I never claimed. I hope this clarifies it for you.