Homosexuality's Influence on Population Growth

[metatron]

[...]

 

[LucyDuke]

This is what happens when you guys start a queers thread and forget to invite me.

What everyone's already said: not enough homosexuals and homosexuals reproduce just fine anyway.

Now, I was thinking about this not as homosexuality relates to moralism, marriage, etc., but instead merely on population growth because, naturally, homosexual individuals will not be reproducing or passing on their genetic code.

This is just plain wrong. Homosexuality does not prevent reproduction. It has a tendency to prevent accidental reproduction, which will put a bit of a damper on birth rates. It will also - this is a biggie - improve the quality of life of whatever children are created.

Statistically irrelevant in comparison to other things like the pervasiveness of birth control (Hello to impending population collapse in Europe)

Yeah, we really need to get more contraceptives out to crapholes like Africa too.

I'm not suggesting TFRs is best, it is best if European countries have TFRs a little lower than replacement (so like 1.8-2.0) so that you don't have to tax young people to death so you can maintain the quality of life for old people.

What state is this where everyone has agreed to give their money to their old folks?

There is more than enough food in the world for everyone

Then give it to them. (And make sure we can continue to do so.)

I didn't even think of that; birth control probably does have a significant factor in population control.

Er... short of killing people off, birth control is the only factor in population control.

China will shift to a predominately male population and result in widespread homosexuality.

Actual homosexuality or just men having sex with men? I'm curious about how the first would come to be.

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.

What? Now? Are you under a rock in a desert somewhere?

It's more important to turn women on (no means no even if the guy was turned on by a lesbian porno)

Women have been willingly having sex they don't really feel like having since forever. And it takes an erection to knock someone up.

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).

Where are you people getting this stuff? People have idiot sex all the goddamn time.

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.

Oh, so that's how it's supposed to work...

You are so racist... all strata of first world society share the same general low fertility rate, regardless of race or religion.

Demonstrably false, not even worth debunking. Don't waste your time, Ajidica.

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...

The gay uncle hypothesis covers that. The carriers aren't all gay. And again, gay people reproduce.

Or it could simply be the result of hormonal mess ups in the womb which would account for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender.

This has been shown to (slightly) increase the gay uncle count as well.

Well, when one looks at monozygotic twins reared apart (same genetics, same womb, different home environment) it appears female homosexuality is strongly discordant leading the conclusion that it is nurture rather than nature whereas with male homosexuality there appears to be substantially better concordance leading to the conclusion there is probably a nature component.

Where are you getting this? Because it's wrong.

Which would suggest that 40% of women get around a lot.

Other way 'round, dear.

Would it be theoretically be possible to combine two eggs or other samples of genetic material from two women?

Not just theory, it's been done. (Not 100% sure it's been done with humans yet, but there are mice, at least, with two biological mommies.

I really don't think that many homosexuals are having children, or were.

You think wrong. They don't have as many as heterosexuals do, but it's more than y'all are probably assuming.

I don't even think I could finish if I was with a woman I found unattractive.

You can always finish without her and meet up afterwards.

 

[Dreadnought]

You didn't even think about it?
Ok. Thank god. For a moment i feared i'd have to be serious in this thread.

Congratulations.

Dreadnough wanted us to evaluate a pretty lofty and unfounded theory of his. Which got shot down in roughly five minutes. Hence the open floor.
It's debatable whether "open floor" has to result in accusing each other of racism and stuff like that, but that really has nothing to do with Dreadnough's premise for this thread, which is dead, buried, resurected on the third day, finally killed by rationalism a couple of centuries later and pretty much irrelevant by now...

I presented no thesis, argument, or position from which to base an argument. I proposed a hypothesis with no supporting argument in an attempt to provide information regarding a topic I recently came upon.

Now, if you're more interested in presenting longueur, off-base responses in an attempt to "seem cool", I'll have to look towards the button near the bottom of the post.

 

[Old Hippy]

Finishing is easy, it's getting up to do the work in the first place that's hard... or soft. I tried to make it work with this (far) less than attractive heavyset chick once. It wasn't happening so I blamed myself & let myself out. My DNA was like "Nah, dude, we're not merging with this particular specimen". If she would've been super nice & uncrazy it might have worked.

a lot of people feel like that... before one too many beverages... if your lucky a least it's a chick you wake up with
i think this is well know to be caused by someones DNA too

 

[Core Imposter]

The general shift away from a patriarchial society is having a much greater effect on birth rates than the glorification of homosexuality imo.

Any reasonable cost/benefit analysis of the issue can only show that males have to struggle to find a reason to have children. I have advised both of my sons not to do so and have no desire for grandchildren at all.

The modern and common option for working class men in America is not to have children and just find a woman who has a few children and just shack up. The woman has lots of extra income. She gets child support and other support from the government. She gets to file head of household on her tax returns and gets refunds larger than the amounts she contributes. The man gets the benefits of the relationship with little to no costs as many of these women are desperate just to have a man in the home.

So basically, by design of government, intelligent men have incentives not to father children. Our societies are thus producers of fewer, dumber and less talented children. Thus the decline of developing countries is explained.

Homosexuality therefore cannot compete with liberalism/socialism as a driver of the decline of civilization.

 

[useless]

Homosexuality therefore cannot compete with liberalism/socialism as a driver of the decline of civilizatio

What does this even mean

Liberalism does not equate to socialism

 

[Disgustipated]

The general shift away from a patriarchial society is having a much greater effect on birth rates than the glorification of homosexuality imo.

Any reasonable cost/benefit analysis of the issue can only show that males have to struggle to find a reason to have children. I have advised both of my sons not to do so and have no desire for grandchildren at all.

The modern and common option for working class men in America is not to have children and just find a woman who has a few children and just shack up. The woman has lots of extra income. She gets child support and other support from the government. She gets to file head of household on her tax returns and gets refunds larger than the amounts she contributes. The man gets the benefits of the relationship with little to no costs as many of these women are desperate just to have a man in the home.

So basically, by design of government, intelligent men have incentives not to father children. Our societies are thus producers of fewer, dumber and less talented children. Thus the decline of developing countries is explained.

Homosexuality therefore cannot compete with liberalism/socialism as a driver of the decline of civilization.

I pretty much agree with you. There is no incentive for a man to have a child (other than some ego narcissistic thing). My only beef is there is limited contraception for men. I will not get a vasectomy under any condition, which just leaves the condom. I wish I had more options to protect myself against women trying to get knocked up to get child support from me. Luckily I'm not in a situation where I'm looking for women in my life (I'm spoken for you could say).

My advice to anyone out there- do not have children unless you are absolutely sure she will stick with you for life.

 

[El_Machinae]

TBH, vasectomies and condoms are pretty freakin' impressive pair of tools. Vasectomies are relatively easy, after all is said and done, and condoms ain't an issue once you're mature enough to handle getting and using them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Recently, I've been mulling over the subject of homosexuality and its influence on population growth trends and genetic diversification. In a neutral sense, I've been trying to determine if there is a significant impact on population growth due to homosexuality moving into the popular spectrum in the last couple decades.

What do you mean by " homosexuality moving into the popular spectrum in the last couple decades"?

Will there be a significant impact on population trends in the next few generations due to society's new stance towards homosexuality?

New stance? What new stance?

 

[useless]

How is it popular to be homosexual

 

[Disgustipated]

TBH, vasectomies and condoms are pretty freakin' impressive pair of tools. Vasectomies are relatively easy, after all is said and done, and condoms ain't an issue once you're mature enough to handle getting and using them.

problem is not feeling anything with them on.

 

[attackfighter]

What you toads need to realise is that up until recently females and males were forced to marry for convenience. Females because they couldn't support themselves and males because it took too long to do their laundry back then. But now women and men can stand on their own, so they are not forced into relationships merely to survive. Now they can choose whether or not to pair up, based on the sex appeal of their potential partners.

But unfortunately for the women, they have found that 1,000's of years of sedentary lifestyle and living under the heel of "civilization" have made their menfolk docile and timid. They are no longer posses the proud, independent and adventurous sex appeal that they once had. And so there is no reason for women to take any interest in them. Sex has all but disappeared for today's males and consequently there is little hope for reproduction in this society.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, many did not marry. There was always the unmarried maiden aunt, the uncle who never married and was like a junior partner in the farm or smithy. And numbers of the servant class that could simply not afford to marry. Marriage was never universal.

 

[Traitorfish]

But unfortunately for the women, they have found that 1,000's of years of sedentary lifestyle and living under the heel of "civilization" have made their menfolk docile and timid. They are no longer posses the proud, independent and adventurous sex appeal that they once had. And so there is no reason for women to take any interest in them. Sex has all but disappeared for today's males and consequently there is little hope for reproduction in this society.

What are you on about?

 

[Arakhor]

Toads? Really, now.

 

[Core Imposter]

What you toads need to realise is that up until recently females and males were forced to marry for convenience. Females because they couldn't support themselves and males because it took too long to do their laundry back then. But now women and men can stand on their own, so they are not forced into relationships merely to survive. Now they can choose whether or not to pair up, based on the sex appeal of their potential partners.

But unfortunately for the women, they have found that 1,000's of years of sedentary lifestyle and living under the heel of "civilization" have made their menfolk docile and timid. They are no longer posses the proud, independent and adventurous sex appeal that they once had. And so there is no reason for women to take any interest in them. Sex has all but disappeared for today's males and consequently there is little hope for reproduction in this society.

Thousands of years of sedentary lifestyles lol.

I personally hand dug, with a shovel, the footings for the foundations of 200 residential homes built by my father, starting the summer I turned ten, and, fought in the bus stop wars in the years of forced busing, white versus blacks, using chains and tire irons, and, spent two years felony time swinging a bushwacker on the chain gang, and, worked a 48 hour weekly work shift in a cotton mill while going to high school before that.

You know nothing and I will tell you something that you don't know. I worked six months for a Coca Cola coin catering service, I serviced vending machines and wore a little uniform. The women went wild for the uniform. If we had had the little blue pills back then I could have screwed five a night. They go nuts for the uniform. Thats how to get sex son.

 

[civ_king]

What you toads need to realise is that up until recently females and males were forced to marry for convenience. Females because they couldn't support themselves and males because it took too long to do their laundry back then. But now women and men can stand on their own, so they are not forced into relationships merely to survive. Now they can choose whether or not to pair up, based on the sex appeal of their potential partners.

But unfortunately for the women, they have found that 1,000's of years of sedentary lifestyle and living under the heel of "civilization" have made their menfolk docile and timid. They are no longer posses the proud, independent and adventurous sex appeal that they once had. And so there is no reason for women to take any interest in them. Sex has all but disappeared for today's males and consequently there is little hope for reproduction in this society.

SRSLY?
It's only in the last 50 years are so where it has really turned men timid and spineless, sheesh.

 

[LucyDuke]

The woman has lots of extra income. She gets child support and other support from the government. She gets to file head of household on her tax returns and gets refunds larger than the amounts she contributes. The man gets the benefits of the relationship with little to no costs as many of these women are desperate just to have a man in the home.

Yeah, it's a total myth that single mothers ever really have to work. Their greatest worries are usually just not having enough laundry to do.

My only beef is there is limited contraception for men. I will not get a vasectomy under any condition, which just leaves the condom. I wish I had more options to protect myself against women trying to get knocked up to get child support from me.

You poor baby. It really is unfair for you to have to take responsbility for your own dick protect your innocent semen from all those predatory women trying to take it hostage. If only there were a simple, effective method that would let you screw anyone you want without requiring any sacrifice or effort on your part.

You know nothing and I will tell you something that you don't know. I worked six months for a Coca Cola coin catering service, I serviced vending machines and wore a little uniform. The women went wild for the uniform. If we had had the little blue pills back then I could have screwed five a night. They go nuts for the uniform. Thats how to get sex son.

He's totally right. I basically rip off my clothes any time I think I see a janitor.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah, it's a total myth that single mothers ever really have to work. Their greatest worries are usually just not having enough laundry to do.



You poor baby. It really is unfair for you to have to take responsbility for your own dick protect your innocent semen from all those predatory women trying to take it hostage. If only there were a simple, effective method that would let you screw anyone you want without requiring any sacrifice or effort on your part.



He's totally right. I basically rip off my clothes any time I think I see a janitor.

Women now can take no responsibility, but men can't; the matriarchy is oppressing men.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke post

 

[vypernight]

Why would something that's been pretty much the same for the past million years change trends now?

First page of the thread and it answers the question. Gays and lesbians have been around for thousands of years, and our population hasn't suffered. Maybe it's nature's way of population control, but we aren't in any danger right now.