Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dreadnought, Feb 20, 2012.
Sorry about the confusion.
The OP incorrectly assumes that homosexuality has just suddenly, recently become 'significant.' Homosexuality has been a part of normal animal activity (humans being members of the animal kingdom) far longer than human beings have been known to contrive monotheistic religions. I don't think it is really possible to say what proportion of the population has been homosexual (moreso exclusively so), since it has been so badly shunned (and continues to be; there are few true safe havens where a person's safety remains fully intact if they are known to be homosexual) it drives a lot of natural homosexuals to hide, any in some cases repress their natural tendancies even to themselves.
It's more important to turn women on (no means no even if the guy was turned on by a lesbian porno)
The underlined portion is the important part; that's why I think it may have more of an impact now as compared to, say, 50 years ago.
Letting the gays exist like human beings without society breaking out the auto-da-fe platform has not had any appreciable, or even measurable, impact on population growth.
Straight, Christian, White People are more responsible for any sort of dropping population growth levels due to their 2.5 kids.
The liberal-Zionist-banking ruling circles of the USA and the EU, the Washington-Brussels axis, propagandise homosexuality in Russia in order to weaken it before the inevitable imperialistic invasion. They want the population growth in Russia to be even smaller then it already is.
Ah, the old homosexual-liberal-Zionist conspiaracy theory...
Won't make any difference.
Pretty much my response. Homosexuals have always been around. There have been recorded instances in Roman times, and I'm sure before. You could say that some of them took wives to "fit in", but I doubt they had many children to be statistically relevant contributors to the human population.
It's too small a percentage to really affect much. The only relevance this could have is if what the conservatives are freaking out about, that they are spreading their homosexual agenda (which even if they were, no one would do someone they aren't attracted to). If homosexuality somehow managed to get to 50% of the population, then it may have some effect. But like I said, it's not really a choice for most people, I can watch brokeback Mountain 100 times, and I'll still want to do chicks.
The 1 child policy is no longer in effect. There is still a limit on children however: 2 children in urban centers, 3 in rural.
You are so racist... all strata of first world society share the same general low fertility rate, regardless of race or religion. Furthermore many developing countries such as India and China have also seen a sharp decline in fertility rates. Africa and the Middle East are the two remaining regions that haven't seen a sharp decline in birth rates.
The primary population group where birth rate has seen a serious decline is among, you guessed it, straight (likely Christian), white people. This is due to a variety of reasons but none of them show how I am racist for looking at demographics.
I believe Dreadnought was attempting a morally neutral conversation on population trends and genetic diversification. For instance, one might expect reduced genetic diversity. Let's keep it out of the gutter, shall we?
More racist propaganda. If you had actually bothered to look at demographic statistics you'd have noticed that in Western countries black, white and Asian all have roughly the same fertility rate. Furthermore you'd notice that declining birth rates isn't only confined to the Western world, but is effecting many parts of Asia and South America as well.
Furthermore you made up the biggest BS of all: claiming that white Christians have a lower fertility rate than non-Christian whites. What evidence do you have of this? Are you even aware that most whites are atheist? How do you know the atheist whites aren't responsible for the decline in white birth rates?
Everything you've said is just lies to support your bigotry.
If anything, society being more open to homosexuality would seem to mean that it would actually result in less homosexuality in the future, genetically speaking.
People are feeling less and less pressure to have the typical hetero lifestyle and produce offspring... so, this means, homosexuals are free to be with who they want and stop living in cover marriages... meaning less children.
If homosexuality is something we are born with, it stands to reason there is a genetic basis for it... if people carrying the gene stop reproducing...
Anyhow, just a thought.
At the same time, heteros are having less children too...
This all goes for developed nations of course.
Because I'm too lazy to do much googling, here is the census data for America in 2008, specificaly birth rates:
As you can see, white birth rates are consistantly lower than for other groups. That trend holds relatively true around the world as urban populations tend to have lower birthrates.
I was being slightly trolly (and facetious) there. If the OP clearly believes the gays have any measurable effect on birth rates, than why not the dropping birth rate among straight, suburban, white people?
I'm still curious how my comments go from 'slightly trolly and facetious' to 'lies to support my racism'. (I'm also curious how I can be racist against myself, given I am a straight, middle class, caucasian who is culturaly christian)
That source lists white birth rates as being higher than all other groups combined. Furthermore the "Fertility rate per 1,000 women" category supports what I've been saying all along: white black and Asian all have roughly equal fertility rates.
No, no it doesn't.
White birth rate per 1000 people is 13.4, black is 16.6, American Indian is 14.5, and Asian is 16.8.
Looking at fertility rate per 1000 women, whites are at 67.8, blacks are 71.9, American Indians are 64.6, and Asians are 71.3. I'm not sure why American Indians have such a lower fertility rate, but I have a few educated guesses.
Or it could simply be the result of hormonal mess ups in the womb which would account for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender.
And why couldn't that be a result of genetics?
Genetics =/= heritability...
Separate names with a comma.