LGBT Terrific!

[Dr. Cakey]

110% of all statistics are exaggerated.

[Vough]

I think someone forgot to give out the memo that 70%-90% of any given statistics are meaningless in any case. Correlation isn't Causation and all that.

 

I honestly worry about anyone who gives a crap what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. LGBTs don't cause any harm to anyone/anything any more so than equivalent straight relationships, and thus you really can't say it's any less "moral" without reaching to some sort of religious authority.

 

Really now? Tell me more.

 

@Crab Helmet

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

[Dr. Cakey]

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

 

Purely hypothetically, and definitely not something I'm planning on doing once I sharpen my rusty gardening shears, but if I - hypothetically - were to castrate you with - hypothetically - a pair of rusty gardening shears, would that make you Anti-Spiral "anti-life"?

[Guest]

@Crab Helmet

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

Worker bees. Tell me, what purpose do the worker bees serve? Only the queen and her drones mate; the worker bees never have children of their own. Clearly, they cannot reproduce, so they are anti-life, so they don't exist and should all die even if they do exist.

 

And what about old people? By the time people are too old to have children, they obviously have no purpose, since they cannot reproduce, and reproduction equals life. So why should evolution have allowed humans to evolve the ability to live beyond the age of infertility? Clearly, it did not, so old people do not exist. But if you do see one, you should run in fear, as you are life and old people are anti-life, so if you allow yourself to get too close to one, you will annihilate one another.

 

And how about birth control? It's anti-life, so clearly it is evil, as is everyone who uses it.

 

You know what is pro-life? Raping lots of random people. In the good, enlightened states where people understand that abortion is anti-life and is thus always evil under all circumstances, that can get you lots of kids, so it's clearly very much a good thing.

 

In summary: bees, old people, and birth control are evil and don't exist, but rape is a good thing. Wow, it's almost as if this system of logic you've constructed in which not reproducing = anti-life = evil is really, really stupid.

[Hydra of Ages]

Really now? Tell me more.

 

To put it simply: "Moral" is described as exhibiting "goodness" in human action or behavior. What 'good' is defined as, however, is entirely arbitrary depending on the person in question. Religious people have a doctrine that outlines what 'good' is supposed to be; therefore, they can reach to religious authority in order to determine what is 'moral' and what isn't.

 

For people without those religious regulations, however, 'moral' tends to be 'whatever doesn't cause harm to people (or society) and provides benefit to people (and society)'- or something within those lines at any case, as once again, it's entirely subjective. In any case, since homosexual relationships don't cause any harm to anyone or anything, they're no less moral than their heterosexual counterpats.

[Apostle of Calamity]

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

Considering the world is facing overpopulation right now, I would say its good to be "Anti-Life" as you put it.

[Guest Icyblue]

Considering the world is facing overpopulation right now, I would say its good to be "Anti-Life" as you put it.

 

Overpopulation where?! Oahu is a small island and it has 900'000 people on it living, a few hundred thousand more tourists and there's not even the slightest risk of overpopulation. We still have everything in excess, ON TOP OF THAT we can still maintain all of our nature preservation laws and all that. Oahu is smaller than a majority of major cities from what I understand too.

 

The idea of overpopulation in most places sounds hysterical. "Anti-Life" in this person's context can be maintained, however opinionated.

[evilhorus]

 

Really now? Tell me more.

 

@Crab Helmet

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

omg

 

This is hilarious.

 

Test tube babies, btw.

[Guest Konoe A. Mercury]

People are actually trying to argue with Crab Helmet, oh my God.

 

And I have nothing against each individual's sexual preference.

[Apostle of Calamity]

[spoiler=An NPG Forum Paper By Lindsey Grant]

The UN Population Division 2010 world population projections are the best available collection of current world demographic data, but they involve questionable and highly optimistic assumptions about fertility and mortality and ignore external forces that will shape population growth. They assume political and social stability, and they slight the role of migration and the profound changes that it is generating.

Unfortunately they are taken at face value by the media and frequently used to buttress earlier preconceptions.

The author suggests that the present U.N. projection be used as the "no surprises" scenario, and then other scenarios should be developed reflecting the connections between demography and anticipated changes in energy, food supplies, climate, resources, and human health and well-being.

The medium projection now projects that world growth will reach 9.3 billion in 2050 (35% above the present and 2% higher than the 2008 projection) and continue past 2100 at 10.1 billion. The slight rise reflects the failure of fertility in the poorest countries to decline as fast as had been expected, plus a more optimistic view of AIDS.

The high projection assumes fertility levels one-half child more than the medium projection, resulting in 15.8 billion people in 2100, while the low projection assumes one-half child less, resulting in 6.2 billion by 2100.

The new projections divide the world into "high", "intermediate" and “low" fertility countries, as opposed to “least developed", “developing" and “developed" categories. While the UN has not noted it, changes in fertility, mortality and migration will change these categories and the numbers that go with them.

In 58 “high fertility" countries, i.e. those with fertility more than 50% above replacement level, population is projected to rise from 1.2 billion now to 4.2 billion in 2100. They now represent 18% of world population; that is expected to rise to 42%.

To follow demographic convention, the UN had to assume a decline from the present average of 4.9 children per woman in the high fertility countries to 2.1 by 2100. However their average fertility has fallen by only 27% since 1965-70, despite determined governmental and international efforts to promote lower fertility.

The UN population projections do not embody externalities such as climate or the availability of food. Other parts of the scientific community, including other UN organizations, have for two decades been reporting the evidence that the ability of the Earth's natural systems to support human populations is under threat from climate change, the decline of fresh water supplies, desertification, salinization and deteriorating soil quality. World food production depends on nitrogen produced with natural gas and petroleum and will decline with the decline of fossil energy, starting now with petroleum. Already one billion people go hungry now.

Various writers have pointed to the evidence that a world population of no more than one or two billion is likely to be the maximum sustainable at any reasonable level after the fossil fuel era. The countries on the “high fertility" list are the chief victims of those problems. Many are already densely populated, and most already suffer from soil degradation and water shortages. If these countries cannot support themselves, we may well see population growth reversed in this century, but driven more by rising mortality than by the predicted declines in fertility.

In addition, the UN assumes that life expectancy at birth in the “high fertility countries" will rise from 56 years now to 77 years in 2100.

The “low fertility country" projections are easier. Fertility has been below replacement level in most of the traditional industrial countries and have been joined by China, Brazil, Iran, Vietnam, Thailand and various smaller countries. The fertility of these countries is expected to stay the same, and the group is projected to experience a population decrease of 20%, to 2.4 billion, by 2100. Hopefully they will keep pace with the prospective decline of food production.

Generally the media has not shown any joy that these countries may have population growth under control, but the fear that they will be unable to support aging populations. But aging is a transient problem, generated by the shift from traditional societies to modern ones with longer lifetimes. If people live longer, many of them will work longer, unless there is a return to rougher times and shorter life expectancy. That fear of aging ignores the real dependency ratio, which is the ratio of the truly old, the young and the unemployed to the working population. And it ignores the rise in labor productivity that has made unemployment more of a problem than labor shortages.

The U.S. is in the “intermediate fertility" category, with fertility between replacement level and 50% above it, along with India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Mexico and Egypt. This category is projected to rise 26% to 3.5 billion by 2100.

The U.S. and Iceland are the only developed countries in the “intermediate fertility" category. The projected growth of the U.S. is 30% - 403 million people - by 2050 and a 54% i- 478 million - by 2100 - a higher rate of increase than the projection for the whole world. But the U.S. Census Bureau projection of 439 million in 2050 is much greater, reflecting such a big difference that both projections are questioned.

Neither projection is explained by fertility. U.S. fertility is around 2.1, which means the U.S.should not be catergorized as an 'intermediate fertility' country. Its growth (and Europe's) will be determined in large degree by the levels of immigration from poorer societies.

Because much migration is illegal and unrecorded in official statistics and because the U.S. does not measure emigration, it is difficult to estimate immigration numbers. The Census Bureau derives its estimates and projections from a “2006 survey and administrative data", and does not elaborate. The UN Population Division shows a peak of 1.7 million per year in 1995- 2000 and a decline to 991 thousand in 2005-2010; it projects annual immigration at 900+ thousand through 2050 and a decline to zero in 2095-2100.

The expert on U.S. fertility is the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which thinks that the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) dropped to about 1.7 - far below replacement level - in the 1970s. It has risen gradually since then but has stayed below replacement level except for 2006 and 2007. It went back down slightly to 2.08 in 2008, and down another 4% to 2.007 in 2009. Hispanic women drove much of the post-1970s increase in fertility. The TFR for non-Hispanic White women is still only 1.78.

The 2008 TFR among U.S. Hispanics is given as 2.91, declining to 2.73 in 2009. Both figures are remarkably high. If, as I have suggested, we have failed to count all that growth, and if we speculate that the Hispanic population is 10% larger than has been counted, that would lower its 2009 TFR to 2.49.

The Population Division is having comparable problems with its estimates and projections for Europe. Italy is the prime example, both because of its extremely low fertility (1.2) and its role as the favored pathway from the Arab lands into Europe. In 1998, the Population Division thought that Italy's population had peaked in 1995 at 57.4 million and would be declining past 55.8 million in 2010. The new figures give the 2010 population as 60.6 million, and rising. The difference is 9%, and the continuing growth markedly changes the perspective.

The population of both the U.S. and Europe is being profoundly altered by levels of immigration that are not recognized by the statisticians. And that alone makes the forecasts about as useful as a parlor game.

The Population Division warned that projections beyond 40 or 50 years are “little more than guesses", and the projections got increasingly wild as they were extended.

There is a multitude of international organizations doing their separate projections of world economic and social indicators. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) alone has done many studies on agricultural acreage, irrigation, fertilization, yields, technology and trade. It could be enlisted to develop alternative estimates of food production, country by country, for perhaps 50 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies the impacts of climate change on human interests, including food production. There are parallel groups working on issues such as energy, water, forests and other environmental and resource problems. The UN Statistical Division collects data on a wide range of social and economic matters. The World Health Organization could be enlisted in a project to spell out the consequences of the current worldwide growth of urban slums for human health and the likelihood of epidemics.

If these sister organizations could develop joint projects they could then develop alternative population scenarios that could be supported by the prospective availability of food, water, energy, etc. They would offer broad estimates of the adequacy of anticipated food production (for instance) to meet the needs of projected population growth, of countries' ability to import food, of the worldwide availability of food under different demand assumptions, and how those pressures would affect migration.

Such quantified analyses would be the strongest possible inducement to the development of policies that fit real needs. It would serve all countries. The United States might even look at the demographic implications of its policies on labor, trade, the budget, capital flows, foreign aid, and especially on population and immigration. It's about time [/spoiler../////

 

 

August 4, 2011 Credit to article from www.overpopulation.org

The world's population is 7 billion and rising and eventually it will deplete our resources. I did not mean to say we are facing it now. I should have said it will hit our world.

[evilhorus]

The world's population is 9 billion

wat

 

http://www.google.ie/search?aq=1&oq=poopulation+of+the+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=population+of+the+world

 

not ONE place states 9 billion :/

[Apostle of Calamity]

wat

 

http://www.google.ie...on+of+the+world

 

not ONE place states 9 billion :/

WOW! Did I say 9 billion? Sorry I meant 7 billion :(

[Guest Icyblue]

So it's not "overpopulation", it's plugging in figures based on how easily it is to support an aging population. A natural effect of extending the human lifespan from what it used to be. Since now a long life isnt just a luxury for the strong or the rich. It's a right to everyone and it's becoming easier and easier to support a longer life. The problem lies in the supposed, difficulty of providing food and shelter to everyone in this. And the monetary requirements etc to do it. But here's something for you: http://en.wikipedia....ficial_scarcity . We have more than enough of everything.

 

Yet again, however annoying or troublesome "Vough"'s opinion may be on calling the non hetero sexual preferences "anti-life", it can still be maintained in a personal context.

[Dr. Cakey]

What should be added (if we are to discuss this severe tangent) is that while the world is not overpopulated, certain areas are. Overpopulation means different things depending on what we're discussing. If we simply determine the average number of people/acre for the Earth, then no, there's no looming overpopulation threat. Realistically, there are a dozen or more country that are overpopulated or in danger of overpopulation.

[Admiral Tim]

What is the point of worker bees? Only the queen and her mates reproduce, so the worker bees that don't reproduce clearly do not help their species. Therefore, worker bees don't exist.

 

LGBTs are only frowned upon by idiots like you.

 

I don't frown upon them But i know people that do. And Drones aren't LGBT they simply don't breed at all. (But some selected males do.) But in this situation the queen has a couple "Kings" which in many north american cultures today is also frowned upon and vice versa (Male with many wives)

[Guest]

I don't frown upon them But i know people that do. And Drones aren't LGBT they simply don't breed at all. (But some selected males do.)

Drones are the male bees that do mate. Learn some biology before you start throwing around terms like that.

 

But in this situation the queen has a couple "Kings" which in many north american cultures today is also frowned upon and vice versa (Male with many wives)

And all of this misses my entire point: if it is impossible to further one's own genes without reproducing, then why do there exist bees that do not reproduce?

[Guest Remo S. Valentine]

What is the point of worker bees? Only the queen and her mates reproduce, so the worker bees that don't reproduce clearly do not help their species. Therefore, worker bees don't exist.

 

LGBTs are only frowned upon by idiots like you.

You forget that you are making an analogy between bee's and humans. Two complete different species that exist and accomplish things in different ways

 

Homosexuality is simply impractical. I don't mean to stomp these peoples love lives (which i probably will in a moment regardless =/), but the idea of two genders loving one another in way reserved generally for reproduction is so disgsting human it almost doesn't make sense. It's clearly a life choice that one person makes for themselves and if they choose to go that route, let them. We are human and it wouldn't be the first time we choose to do things our way. It's not like smoking is against religion but it's a life choice that goes against the recommendations of medical science, yet people do it anyway. Just understand that this choice is highly impractical from a scientific standpoint and highly immoral from than one religious standpoint.

[Dark]

It's clearly a life choice

 

I'm lost. Like, I'm absolutely baffled at how someone can be this ignorant and stupid.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Except, you know, humans have recreational sex, which you can accomplish in a number of ways with any blending of the genders. Also, you're trying to apply what's disgusting to a global human opinion, which is pretty arrogant. There are these things called phobias which afflict singular people. You would happen to have one called homophobia.

 

>2011

>Deriving morality from religion and equating love with reproduction.

Sure is animal logic and cold Christian love in that post over there.

 

Please Dark, it's clearly a life choice because he said it with confidence. Welcome to religious evidence.

[Luna Lovegood]

 

Really now? Tell me more.

 

@Crab Helmet

I'm going to address this again, in a slightly different way.

Sex is the only means of reproduction. Thus, if your sexuality doesn't reproduce, you are anti-life. There's nothing else about it. If you are gay, you are anti-life.

YOU JUST PROVED 1=2 OMG YOURE SO SMART

 

No. Lot's of women don't want to have children just because of the work it takes. The freaking Pope takes a vow of celibacy. Is he anti-life? No. Just because you do not want to procreate does not mean you do not want others to. I don't want to be a garbage man, but I sure as heck hope others want to.

[Guest]

You forget that you are making an analogy between bee's and humans. Two complete different species that exist and accomplish things in different ways

Do they? Both species have genetic codes, and both species' genes propagate through reproduction. Thus, the essential point that not reproducing ought to be impossible due to natural selection (and yet clearly isn't for the bees) does not stand. To call an analogy invalid, you have to actually point out exactly what difference makes the comparison irrelevant. Differences will always exist when comparisons were made - otherwise, we'd just be comparing something to itself. What's important is whether those differences actually affect the argument. Here, they do not, because the bees provide a disproof by counterexample of the underlying argument - "not reproducing is selected against and therefore cannot have evolved" - and you cannot explain exactly why this does not apply.

 

Homosexuality is simply impractical.

Impractical in what sense exactly? For the purposes of having direct children? Yes, you're right - it does not directly lead to direct biological descendents. Wanna know what else doesn't lead to direct biological descendents? Using YCM. YCM is impractical, so you are an abomination against evolution for using it. Go kill yourself.

 

I don't mean to stomp these peoples love lives (which i probably will in a moment regardless =/),

"I claim not to mean to come across as racist, therefore everything I'm about to say about how blacks are unevolved backward failures of natural selection is okay."

 

but the idea of two genders

You mean "two people of the same gender" here, but I suppose you were too busy evolving to have sixteen kids to bother evolving some literacy.

 

loving one another in way reserved generally for reproduction

Yeah, nobody in the world ever has sex except in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation. Birth control, you say? That's just a myth. And it defies the evolutionary need to have infinity plus one kids, so nobody would use it anyhow.

 

And that's just limiting it to sex. Love is far wider than that, and leads to even more exceptions to your LOVE EQUALS REPRODUCTION COSMIC LAW. Older married couples who still love each other? Not reproducing. Clearly, they are just making unscientific choices that we should all find disgusting.

 

is so disgsting human it almost doesn't make sense.

That's your entire argument? You, personally, are disgusted by it? I'm glad to see that your glorious system of law and morality is based on the logical principle of "Ew, yuck".

 

Also: "I don't mean to come across as racist, but that unnatural brown skin normally reserved for only the deepest of tans is so disgusting it almost doesn't make sense."

 

It's clearly a life choice that one person makes for themselves and if they choose to go that route, let them.

Learn some bloody psychology, you imbecile. The universal scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.

 

Maybe the underlying problem here is that your family history had lots and lots of inbreeding. They probably thought having the most kids possible was important and didn't care with whom they had them. That's really the only explanation I can conceive of for how stupid you are.

 

We are human and it wouldn't be the first time we choose to do things our way. It's not like smoking is against religion but it's a life choice that goes against the recommendations of medical science, yet people do it anyway.

Yeah, and gayness goes against the recommendations of medical science too! It can lead to... chronic... terminal... hypoheteria?

 

Just understand that this choice is highly impractical from a scientific standpoint

Just like growing old. Once you're too old to have kids, science can scientifically prove that you are completely worthless and have no additional function in life, so growing old is impractical and you should probably just kill yourself.

 

In your case, I would recommend killing yourself LONG before growing old. Now would be a good time to start.

 

and highly immoral from than one religious standpoint.

And perfectly acceptable from plenty of other religious standpoints. But hey, don't worry. I'm sure that you personally have discovered the One True God (by blindly believing whatever your parents told you to believe, I'm sure), and everyone with other religious beliefs than yours that holds those beliefs just as strongly as you hold yours must be mistaken, right? Except, wait, statistics says your probably wrong. From a scientific standpoint, believing in your god is impractical.

 

And from my perspective, it's disgusting. But I can say that without messing up my grammar every single sentence, whereas you can't even write something coherently understandable. (It "is so disgusting human", eh? I'm sure that almost means something in your insane dream world.)

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah okay Crab, whatever lets you sin at night.

[Guest]

Yeah okay Crab, whatever lets you sin at night.

I'm afraid nothing will ever be enough to allow me to live with my sins. For you see, I am bisexual, and this shame is a burden I must bear for the remainder of my pitiful existence. At this point, I'm already so sinful I may as well just start killing babies. It's not like that could make me any worse of a monster.

[Guest Remo S. Valentine]

You forget that you are making an analogy between bee's and humans. Two complete different species that exist and accomplish things in different ways

 

Homosexuality is simply impractical. I don't mean to stomp these peoples love lives (which i probably will in a moment regardless =/), but the idea of two genders loving one another in way reserved generally for reproduction is so disgsting human it almost doesn't make sense. It's clearly a life choice that one person makes for themselves and if they choose to go that route, let them. We are human and it wouldn't be the first time we choose to do things our way. It's not like smoking is against religion but it's a life choice that goes against the recommendations of medical science, yet people do it anyway. Just understand that this choice is highly impractical from a scientific standpoint and highly immoral fromthe more than one religious standpoint.

fix'd

 

It seems my point didn't get through

 

by impractical, I meant that a gay marriage is less practical in evolving ourselves as humans

 

YCM is less practical than a getting an actual job because 98% of the time we end up wasting our time (totally made up that stat)

 

loving one another in a way reserved for reproduction

 

As in sex. I never said or mentioned any other form of love besides that

 

Just because I grew up following a certain religion shoved down my throat means that I'm guaranteed to follow that religion, right?

 

Wrong, and chances are you (Crab) and Dark are living proof of that statement. Just because someone claims to be born with a certain desire for their sex doesn't mean they should act on that desire. I understand that religion and sexual desire are two different aspects, but that doesn't change that fact that humans of capabile of changing themselves. That's how we evolve. Tell me, did the great ancient civilizations of Rome, Persia, Greece, Japan, India, and China have as much of a problem as we do today? I understand that Rome may have had it's share of homosexual relationships, but to the point where we are today? If so, I demand evidence. If not, than surely you get the point. I honestly would have tons more respect for the person who is capabile of curving their desires than acting on them.

[Luna Lovegood]

fix'd

 

It seems my point didn't get through

 

by impractical, I meant that a gay marriage is less practical in evolving ourselves as humans

No. Humans are hardly evolving. We're growing taller, but having any major abnormalities that might be better are usually frowned upon.

YCM is less practical than a getting an actual job because 98% of the time we end up wasting our time (totally made up that stat)

 

loving one another in a way reserved for reproduction

 

As in sex. I never said or mentioned any other form of love besides that

Psh. I could have sex with someone I didn't love. Heck, lots of people do.

Just because I grew up following a certain religion shoved down my throat means that I'm guaranteed to follow that religion, right?

Not for sure, but the chances are increased dramatically.

Wrong, and chances are you (Crab) and Dark are living proof of that statement. Just because someone claims to be born with a certain desire for their sex doesn't mean they should act on that desire. Untrue. That IS how evolution works. I understand that religion and sexual desire are two different aspects, but that doesn't change that fact that humans of capabile of changing themselves. That's how we evolve. Stop throwing around 'evolve' as though it is something that happens in a generation. Tell me, did the great ancient civilizations of Rome, Persia, Greece, Japan, India, and China have as much of a problem as we do today? I understand that Rome may have had it's share of homosexual relationships, but to the point where we are today? NO! BECAUSE THEY HAD HOMOSEXUALITY AS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH If I made being Christian illigal, the number of christans would drop very quickly. If so, I demand evidence. If not, than surely you get the point. I honestly would have tons more respect for the person who is capabile of curving their desires than acting on them. Same. So try not praying for a while. I'll respect you. Oh, wait, that's wrong. You have the right to pray, even though I think it's totally useless.