[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t want Western civilisation to become a desolate backwater.[/quote]
It isn’t. But if it were to, this would have nothing to do with the 2 in 100 people who don’t want to have progenitive sex, and everything to do with the 98 in 100 people who do want to have progenitive sex and yet choose not to procreate. This population argument doesn’t hold an ounce of water.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Are we in some kind of war where we need to keep being fruitful right now though?
Sounds like Greece had it right. If we can start managing population that’s probably a good thing… Being, “fruitful” these days leads to more suffering and lack than most other things. The footprint of a single person is immense, and exponentially such with the more people who are born. [/quote]
Can’t you understand the lessons to be learned from history? Must you always view everything through the narrow prism of radical leftism? In just a few generations Greece went from ruler of virtually the entire known world to a desolate backwater which was overthrown by the Romans - Polybius himself becoming a Roman slave. I don’t want Western civilisation to become a desolate backwater.[/quote]
We don’t have problems with procreating in the States. If we ever run into a situation where we aren’t replacing ourselves in this country, that might actually be a good thing.
It’s a possibility in the future that the future versions of you and I either wont have access, or wont be able to afford something like a grassfed steak.
It’s a real possibility that there wont be enough food for everyone in the future, or our menu’s will be filled with things like farmed ocean algae burgers and cricket sammiches. Probably some good protein profiles, but it would be sad to see grassfed steak off the menu for the average meathead.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t want Western civilisation to become a desolate backwater.[/quote]
It isn’t. But if it were to, this would have nothing to do with the 2 in 100 people who don’t want to have progenitive sex, and everything to do with the 98 in 100 people who do want to have progenitive sex and yet choose not to procreate. This population argument doesn’t hold an ounce of water.[/quote]
I dispute that it’s only 2%. And I expect that number to increase as preschoolers are given ‘fisting kits’ and shown how to put condoms on cucumbers with their mouths.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t want Western civilisation to become a desolate backwater.[/quote]
It isn’t. But if it were to, this would have nothing to do with the 2 in 100 people who don’t want to have progenitive sex, and everything to do with the 98 in 100 people who do want to have progenitive sex and yet choose not to procreate. This population argument doesn’t hold an ounce of water.[/quote]
I dispute that it’s only 2%.[/quote]
On what evidence? I dispute your disputation. Either way, make the number 3 or 4–the point stands as tall as it previously did. We have already established that no individual duty to procreate impels each of us to do so, without regard for our desires and circumstances, on pain of moral corruption. So, really, we’ve already solved the puzzle. But there does remain this alarmism, directed at the wrong group of people. Again, if our society perishes by way of low birth rate, the fault will be with the 98-96 people in 100 who are physically attracted to members of the opposite sex, with whom they can easily and naturally procreate–these 98-100 being far more than sufficient for the replenishment of the population.
In other words, it’s a non-issue.
I know you’re being intentionally hyperbolic, but the implication is that increased tolerance of homosexuality “turns” people gay. I think you already know how I respond to that particular line of reasoning.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
On what evidence? I dispute your disputation.
[/quote]
Kinsey’s studies found that ‘37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male.’
Although accused of bias, later studies found that ‘36.4% of men had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities.’
[quote]
Either way, make the number 3 or 4–the point stands as tall as it previously did. We have already established that no individual duty to procreate impels each of us to do so, without regard for our desires and circumstances, on pain of moral corruption. So, really, we’ve already solved the puzzle. But there does remain this alarmism, directed at the wrong group of people. Again, if our society perishes by way of low birth rate, the fault will be with the 98-96 people in 100 who are physically attracted to members of the opposite sex, with whom they can easily and naturally procreate–these 98-100 being far more than sufficient for the replenishment of the population.
In other words, it’s a non-issue.
I know you’re being intentionally hyperbolic, but the implication is that increased tolerance of homosexuality “turns” people gay. I think you already know how I respond to that particular line of reasoning.[/quote]
Why do you assume that the nurture/nature argument is over and that gays are all born gay? I make no such assumptions. I don’t know and don’t pretend I do. What I do know is that children are like blank slates - to a large extent their behaviour and characters are formed prior to the age of reason. They emulate what they are taught by adults. Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
On what evidence? I dispute your disputation.
[/quote]
Kinsey’s studies found that ‘37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male.’[/quote]
Those studies have been criticized heavily, and I, for one, don’t believe it for a second. 37 percent? That seems nearly impossible to me. But it doesn’t matter: Even if that number were accurate, most of those men also had sex with women, and many or most of them also had children. You and I are talking birth rate–a guy who goes to a gay bar once and then gets married to a woman doesn’t figure in.
[quote]
Why do you assume that the nurture/nature argument is over and that gays are all born gay? [/quote]
I’m not. I’m saying that telling kids that gay people exist, or neglecting to tell kids that gay people are corrupted iniquitous sinners, does not make those kids into gay children, just like I didn’t become a Nazi when my dad told me about Hitler, and I didn’t become a Buddhist when my parents took me to Vietnam, and I didn’t become a cop killer after I heard after I listened to the Ice T song. Note that the point stands stronger here, because–and I don’t think this is controversial–the biological imperative to mate is much more deeply rooted than political tendency.
Or we could teach kids to disdain gays. When we did that in the past, none of those kids turned out to be gay, right?
Specious argument. If you were brought up in a Hitler youth group you would more than likely be a Nazi. If you were brought up in a Buddhist monastery you would likely be a Buddhist. And if you attended kindergarten in Massachusetts today there’s a good chance you’d be wearing makeup and carrying a handbag.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.[/quote]
Must inevitably? I don’t think so.
I’ll ask you this. Do you think that if you’d been raised by parents who said that there was nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, that gays deserved acceptation, that homophobia was stupid and backwards–do you think that if you’d been raised this way, you’d probably be gay right now?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Specious argument. If you were brought up in a Hitler youth group you would more than likely be a Nazi. If you were brought up in a Buddhist monastery you would likely be a Buddhist. And if you attended kindergarten in Massachusetts today there’s a good chance you’d be wearing makeup and carrying a handbag.[/quote]
Exaggerated, not specious.
Speaking of exaggeration, your view of how homosexuality is approached in liberal states is nonsensical. But anyway, the question I posed in my last post is my response to this as well.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.[/quote]
Must inevitably? I don’t think so.
I’ll ask you this. Do you think that if you’d been raised by parents who said that there was nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, that gays deserved acceptation, that homophobia was stupid and backwards–do you think that if you’d been raised this way, you’d probably be gay right now?[/quote]
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools. Not being told that ‘homophobia’ is stupid. And I was a decidedly precocious, opinionated and strong willed child. If my teacher had presented me with a cucumber and a condom I would probably have kicked him in balls.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Sounds like Greece had it right. [/quote]
And where are they now?
[/quote]
Inside all of us.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.[/quote]
Must inevitably? I don’t think so.
I’ll ask you this. Do you think that if you’d been raised by parents who said that there was nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, that gays deserved acceptation, that homophobia was stupid and backwards–do you think that if you’d been raised this way, you’d probably be gay right now?[/quote]
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools. Not being told that ‘homophobia’ is stupid. And I was a decidedly precocious, opinionated and strong willed child. If my teacher had presented me with a cucumber and a condom I would probably have kicked him in balls.
[/quote]
What does a cucumber and a condom have to do with homosexuality specifically?
What radical homosexual indoctrination in schools? I am speaking of evidence here, not an anecdote or two.
Most importantly, are you telling me that if you had grown up under the conditions I described, you think you still wouldn’t be gay right now?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]
Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?
Oh, and if a kid can be turned gay by hearing about fisting when he’s 15 years old…he was gay already.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]
You will need to find a reliable source. The source for your story is an anti-gay group so to say there is bias would be an understatement.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]
Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]
Actually, it didn’t happen at all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[/quote]
When a prepubescent boy is given instructions on ‘fisting’, a ‘fisting kit’ and taught how to put condoms on a cucumber with his mouth I would say that has a whole lot to do with homosexuality. But that’s just me.
No I wouldn’t. However if some of the chinless wonders I went to school with had been brought up under the conditions I described I wouldn’t be surprised to see them in panty hose and high heels.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]
Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]
Actually, it didn’t happen at all. [/quote]
Lol. Whatever you say fella. The recordings were fake and Kevin Jennings apologised for something that never happened.