(June 29, 2015 at 10:28 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: The world has 7 billion people and growing, resources just aren't abundant enough to support that population and we're on the verge of tipping point with Global Warming. Society doesnt need kids, it needs education and birth control yesterday.

And regardless, the 2-4% of the population who are homosexual aren't going to make such a massive dent in the situation by not having kids. Let's be real.

And where is this scholarly sourer one lake of resources?

But, lets play you game a little

In making the statement that you just said. . . .can . . .one. . . . say . . .oh. . . .well . . say you are underling arguing raciest?! Hmm?

What country's have this massive population? I know we are not speaking of Europe, North America. . . . (I hear Africa, China, India, Latin America). . . .Hmmm . . . . .

"So because those savages just keep fucking non-stop and are stupid as shit we must serialize them". Easy there Margret Singer (her use of abortion was also a raciest one) as well as sterilization.

---

(June 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

Are you agreeing that the nonreligious argument, "humanity needs children" is irrelevant because you understand that homosexuals can also have children?

If so we can move on to the next nonreligious argument against homosexuality!

Hey fuck religion, its just simple numbers. Fucking and little shit's are not only tie to religion. Come on stay with me here.

Example Google new has reported the the Jews populations is getting close to the pre-Holocaust number. How do you ask? . . . well by fucking!

---

Aristocatt Wrote

Are you agreeing that the nonreligious argument
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry is misread you comment. Pleas forget my fucking rant.

Haha, it's all good. I was about to ask if you were trolling me, but I get that English is not your first language. I'm jealous though. I wish I had a second language. +(

No one, well I am not, is saying homosexuality needs to be out of the equation what one likes/preference and sex are two different thing.

Just like marriage is not about producing or love, then so to, sex is not about one sexual preferences.

@Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

(June 29, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Haha, it's all good.  I was about to ask if you were trolling me, but I get that English is not your first language.  I'm jealous though.  I wish I had a second language. +(

HAHAHAH hmmmm not really because it can become hard as hell to master the other. And you are always second guessing your self. Also when you keep rereading your own writing you keep finding something wrong, it make you really crazy some times.

(June 29, 2015 at 10:59 pm)Ace Wrote: No one, well I am not, is saying homosexuality needs to be out of the equation what one likes/preference and sex are two different thing.

Just like marriage is not about producing or love, then so to,  sex is not about one sexual preferences.

It was a point brought up by a different user.  I thought you may have been continuing that debate, sorry if I was mistaken.

I'll just wait for a response from the other user and go from there!

---

(June 29, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: @Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

Yup!

This has been brought up a lot now.

The response I got when I mentioned overpopulation was along the lines of:

"We can always just get rid of the surplus population when necessary, but if the population were to die off at a rapid rate, we need as many heterosexuals to procreate as possible."

Even though that isn't really worth addressing, I figured I would throw IVF treatment in there to show that even that doesn't matter.

(June 29, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: @Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

[i]Yes [/i]which is a major issue effecting more Non Europe and North American country's. Many of these country's have major issues with population and lack of mass education. Some of the country's having either one of the issue or both.

Also to the contrary,  both Europe and Americas populations is actual hurting really badly that the governments of these nations have place massive incentives to have reproducing sex more.  Even with their laws that allow same sex marriages. This is mostly in Europe, have not really seen any national incentives in the United States because their numbers are beginning to be offset by immigration.  Amazingly even Japan is having this particular issue.

Hell you should see some of their adds and commercials, they have some funny shit. CNN did a piece on it. Trying to find it now

---

(June 29, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 10:59 pm)Ace Wrote: No one, well I am not, is saying homosexuality needs to be out of the equation what one likes/preference and sex are two different thing.

Just like marriage is not about producing or love, then so to,  sex is not about one sexual preferences.

It was a point brought up by a different user.  I thought you may have been continuing that debate, sorry if I was mistaken.

I'll just wait for a response from the other user and go from there!

---

(June 29, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: @Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

Yup!

This has been brought up a lot now.

The response I got when I mentioned overpopulation was along the lines of:

"We can always just get rid of the surplus population when necessary, but if the population were to die off at a rapid rate, we need as many heterosexuals to procreate as possible."

Even though that isn't really worth addressing, I figured I would throw IVF treatment in there to show that even that doesn't matter.

-----------------------------------------
 How is it not worth addressing if one of the arguments was that the world "has massive over population?"

Or was that a hollow argument to at the begging to be just thrown out for the hell of it? Also how do you thing you get the stuff needed to do IVF? (I am assuming IVF mean Introvert Federalization. If not forget last comment)

---

[/quote='Aristocatt' pid='977941' dateline='1435633606']

It was a point brought up by a different user.  I thought you may have been continuing that debate, sorry if I was mistaken.

I'll just wait for a response from the other user and go from there!

---

[/quote]


Oh got you, sorry. Ok will I can take the opposing side of the homosexual argument if you wish.

So what had been said so fair just add the opposing homosexual argument or start it back up what the other one responds?

Cause it seems to have change to not being accepted socially to issues of social over population, lack of education, resources and climate change.  The last I said was that particular argument it sound like a racial issue because of what nations are consider to fall in the category of over pop and less ed.

Then I said low population is actually affecting Europe, North America, and Japan that these nations are giving massive incentives to the citizens to have more child having sex (i.e. heterosexual couples) . . . even with same sex marriage, in regards to Europe.

So I guess from there one then can argue that homosexual sex is not necessary to society's well-being. Lack of populations leads to issue of economic, resources , climate, war,  . . . (that is what is coming to mind so far)

However, homosexuals will still be in the equation. . . .Hmm, I am to argue against the person who is homosexual or the homosexual sex act or both?

I'm having a hard time getting my head around what is being written here. Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it takes a man and a woman to have a baby? The population is so ridiculously high that, if anything, we should be finding ways of reducing it, not improving efficiency.

And... What has this got to do with marriage? Nothing, as far as I can see. Being married or not married has no effect on people's ability to have children. I see talk of "resources" like we're on the brink of extinction and we can't afford to give that last bit of bread to the guy who is terminally ill.

If there is an argument further to the above, I haven't been able to fathom it. You seem to be treating society as if we're at a theoretical tipping point while failing to demonstrate that we are; or that marriage has anything to do with the issue. I'm having trouble believing this is really why you are against it. If you're actually not against it, then please don't feel the need to try and make the case anyway

(June 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I don't think it's much of a risk.  Overpopulation is a much more real risk.

Regrettably it is always a substantial risk. When calamity comes it is not a few who dies it is millions if not billions in a very short period. The risk we will not repopulate is far more substantial given infant mortality rates (even in industrial nations) and the general conditions following a calamity. Thus one is best to have many of prominent stock present to increase the possibility of species survival.

Now if we wish to continue down this vein of argument I fail to see how murder is bad. After all we have more than enough people and murder is a permanent way to resolve many a conflict. So why not kill more people. Let us say a la Judge Dredd (with Stallone) that we make pettier crime punishable by death. We are not going to run out of people and will have a more ordered and discplined society. Thoughts?

(June 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Also Aristotle was pretty much the bane of scientific progress.  Really smart guy.  Great to study.  Not so great to quote.

Umm. Aristotle is the one who came up with the scientific method. So what are you talking about?

(June 29, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore.  It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

In this regard Ace is correct. In vitro still requires the two parties. While your argument contends we can disassociate the reproductive act from the sexual act such an argument is not very cogent.

The maximum manifestation of that argument would be to say you are willing to risk all of humanity on something as trivial as a power outage. In the end you will always come back to copulation for procreation as a default, which serves as exhibit to the nature of copulation for procreation. When all else fails; when the power goes out; when the pipette is broken we can always just get down to the yum yum bouncy bouncy!!