Homosexuality and parenthood: your thoughts.

[Grenartia]

Or, option 4, we can hope for all of humanity to unite, and work towards that goal as best as we can, so that we don't have paranoid people saying things like what I've just quoted here.

Also, think about this. These people you consider to be our enemies are reproducing at a faster rate than us. Which means that if the trend continues, they will have more people than they can feed. Basically, they will starve themselves because they were unwise, and failed to maintain some sort of equilibrium. Anybody who has gotten at least a 10th grade education, in even the worst US states (I actually learned this in 4th grade in Louisiana, which is notorious for being one of the worst states in non-college education), should know that in an ecosystem, any group of organisms that reproduces too quickly will soon consume all available resources necessary for survival. Essentially, that group of organisms eats and reproduces and the offspring eat and reproduce so quickly that soon there is literally nothing left to eat.

As for your view of how society should be, think about this. I would rather DIE, than to live in a world where the only purpose of the individual is to serve society. The freer the individual, the freer the society.

Also, don't refer to the LGBT community as 'homos'.

Wow, Gren, are we two of the same? I basically said the same exact thing as you. Weird.

Twins separated at birth.

Or, option 4, we can hope for all of humanity to unite, and work towards that goal as best as we can, so that we don't have paranoid people saying things like what I've just quoted here.

Also, think about this. These people you consider to be our enemies are reproducing at a faster rate than us. Which means that if the trend continues, they will have more people than they can feed. Basically, they will starve themselves because they were unwise, and failed to maintain some sort of equilibrium. Anybody who has gotten at least a 10th grade education, in even the worst US states (I actually learned this in 4th grade in Louisiana, which is notorious for being one of the worst states in non-college education), should know that in an ecosystem, any group of organisms that reproduces too quickly will soon consume all available resources necessary for survival. Essentially, that group of organisms eats and reproduces and the offspring eat and reproduce so quickly that soon there is literally nothing left to eat.

As for your view of how society should be, think about this. I would rather DIE, than to live in a world where the only purpose of the individual is to serve society. The freer the individual, the freer the society.

Also, don't refer to the LGBT community as 'homos'.

You left out the part where the population collapses and things return to normal. Nature is like a free market.

Well, I assumed that anybody with enough intelligence to operate a computer sufficiently enough to post on NS could figure out that once the population starts to starve, the population will collapse. And the return to normal can only happen if there are surviving members of the population.

If there are too many members of the population when the food runs out, then it turns into the ultimate survival of the fittest. Younger members of the population will most likely be consumed by the older ones as hunger wears on. Eventually, individuals of similar size will be forced to turn on each other, if they haven't already. Its not inconceivable that at a certain point, where scarcity, desperation, and initial population size intersect, all members of the population will suffer rather serious injuries. Some may survive, but most will probably succumb to various infections as a result of extremely weak immune systems, others will probably collapse due to their muscles being consumed for whatever nutritional value the bodies can harvest from them, leaving them vulnerable to being consumed by the few who can hold off serious infection and muscle decay. From here, there are 3 possibilities. One, the trend continues for a while, but the usual source of food has still not returned, with the most likely outcome of this possibility being the death of the entire population in the given ecosystem. Two, the trend continues, but the usual source of food returns quickly enough that the few remaining members of the population can make a slow recovery, though there is a strong possibility of the population suffering long-term negative effects in future generations, due to the strong likelihood of inbreeding as a result of the extremely limited numbers at the time of the return of food. Three, the trend stops, with the normal food supply returning almost immediately. The population recovers almost immediately, and though there is still a sizeable risk of inbreeding in the future, it is not as likely as in the 2nd possibility. If there are enough surviving members at the time of recovery, and no checks on the population (such as predators, disease, etc), eventually the population could again reach a point where it outconsumes itself.

[Sumadesia]

Well, let us not forget the fact that gay parents INEVITABLY raise gay children (just as straight parents INEVITABLY raise straight children), and it would be an awful, sinful thing to allow the creation and conversion of more gays.

My sarcasm sense is tingling!

Your sarcasm senses serve you well

[Forsher]

Wow, Gren, are we two of the same? I basically said the same exact thing as you. Weird.

Twins separated at birth.

You left out the part where the population collapses and things return to normal. Nature is like a free market.

Well, I assumed that anybody with enough intelligence to operate a computer sufficiently enough to post on NS could figure out that once the population starts to starve, the population will collapse. And the return to normal can only happen if there are surviving members of the population.

If there are too many members of the population when the food runs out, then it turns into the ultimate survival of the fittest. Younger members of the population will most likely be consumed by the older ones as hunger wears on. Eventually, individuals of similar size will be forced to turn on each other, if they haven't already. Its not inconceivable that at a certain point, where scarcity, desperation, and initial population size intersect, all members of the population will suffer rather serious injuries. Some may survive, but most will probably succumb to various infections as a result of extremely weak immune systems, others will probably collapse due to their muscles being consumed for whatever nutritional value the bodies can harvest from them, leaving them vulnerable to being consumed by the few who can hold off serious infection and muscle decay. From here, there are 3 possibilities. One, the trend continues for a while, but the usual source of food has still not returned, with the most likely outcome of this possibility being the death of the entire population in the given ecosystem. Two, the trend continues, but the usual source of food returns quickly enough that the few remaining members of the population can make a slow recovery, though there is a strong possibility of the population suffering long-term negative effects in future generations, due to the strong likelihood of inbreeding as a result of the extremely limited numbers at the time of the return of food. Three, the trend stops, with the normal food supply returning almost immediately. The population recovers almost immediately, and though there is still a sizeable risk of inbreeding in the future, it is not as likely as in the 2nd possibility. If there are enough surviving members at the time of recovery, and no checks on the population (such as predators, disease, etc), eventually the population could again reach a point where it outconsumes itself.

The least specialised individuals survive if the population migrates and the best adapted will out otherwise.

[Salandriagado]

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective. The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family.

Yay, trolling.

We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

The world is overpopulated. More children is a bad thing.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships.

More children is a bad thing.

A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone.

There is no causative relationship whatsoever between single-parent rates and birth rates. There is, however, a causative relationship between wealth, equality and birth rates.

At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

Source for there being a significant difference between the quality of life of a child from a single parent home and one with two parents on the same income levels. Then you can go and demonstrate that being raised by two parents who both happen to be the same gender is better than being raised in care.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction.

And collapse human society even quicker.

Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it,

This is exactly what happens if the population rises.

so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk.

More children => poorer. Poorer => more children. This is a positive feedback loop. It is not one you want to be in.

Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

There is a reason for this. More children is not a good thing. Option one kills us all.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

If by that you mean "continue to reduce the population growth rate until we reach a stable, sustainable population" then fuck yes, I'll go with that. Hell, we should, if we're purely considering the long term demographic effects, be encouraging homosexuality over heterosexuality to reduce the birth rate and homosexual adoption over heterosexual adoption, just on the off chance that they do raise more homosexual children.

[Ifreann]

Are you at least consistent enough to oppose single parent families on the same grounds?

Of course! It isn't normal for a parent to be single without a really legitimate reason, and the number of single parents in Western society just shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with our society. No wonder there are so many fucked-up people around if we can't get even basic things like family straight.

In the Islamic world, the very notion of a single mother (or father) is hardly imaginable. A woman will always have a man - if not husband, than her father or brother - take care of her and her children. Likewise, a man whose wife has died is expected to take another and carry on the obligation to care for the deceased spouse's children.

No wonder the towelheads seem to have more and more success, while we Westerners gradually sink deeper and deeper into the ocean of shit we've stirred (or more accurately, allowed a few to stir) over even such basic things like this.

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective.

The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

[Jormengand]

I said that homosexuals could be better, because and only because there is practically no chance of them being homophobic themselves. I thought that was obvious from the fact that I said it.

No, it isn't "obvious" because you just pulled it out of your arse. If there are any difference between gays or straight parenting skills you wouldn't know it. I wouldn't know it. Lacky wouldn't know it.

Point is, and really you should've stopped it right there, there's no real difference between gay or straight parenting. Homophobia, heterophobia, etc. has no bearing on parenting skills. Completely different issues.

Trust me, I wouldn't want to be brought up by homophobic parents...

[Sumadesia]

No, it isn't "obvious" because you just pulled it out of your arse. If there are any difference between gays or straight parenting skills you wouldn't know it. I wouldn't know it. Lacky wouldn't know it.

Point is, and really you should've stopped it right there, there's no real difference between gay or straight parenting. Homophobia, heterophobia, etc. has no bearing on parenting skills. Completely different issues.

Trust me, I wouldn't want to be brought up by homophobic parents...

Yeah... I agree... A parent's ability NOT TO DISCRIMINATE against his or her child is rather fundamental to good parenting...

[Sidhae]

Of course! It isn't normal for a parent to be single without a really legitimate reason, and the number of single parents in Western society just shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with our society. No wonder there are so many fucked-up people around if we can't get even basic things like family straight.

In the Islamic world, the very notion of a single mother (or father) is hardly imaginable. A woman will always have a man - if not husband, than her father or brother - take care of her and her children. Likewise, a man whose wife has died is expected to take another and carry on the obligation to care for the deceased spouse's children.

No wonder the towelheads seem to have more and more success, while we Westerners gradually sink deeper and deeper into the ocean of shit we've stirred (or more accurately, allowed a few to stir) over even such basic things like this.

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

Well then, let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective.

The towelheads who abuse women and despise homosexuals still have an astonishing reproductive success, with an average of 4 children per family. We Westerners can be happy if our average number of children is two, the minimum necessary for long-term survival of a nation.

It's simple numbers, and right now, they are winning. Two homos cannot produce children of their own, and that alone is a reason to discourage such unproductive relationships. A single mother or father can raise a child, but every parent knows how difficult it is to provide for one even in a full family. The rate of divorces and number of failed families mean Westerners have even less incentive to produce children, knowing that there's a good likelihood they will have to raise them alone, and understanding well the near-impossibility to provide for them alone. At least, if they want their children to have the quality of life that the average Westerner does.

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction. Option two - to decrease the average living standard and expectations for it, so raising several children will again become affordable to the average folk. Since few these days are willing to forsake their plasma TV or APC-sized petrol cemetery of a car in order to have another kid, that pretty much leaves option one.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads, but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children. As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

[Ifreann]

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads,

Really now, this incessant name calling is just childish.

but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

I don't see the problem. The workforce is bolstered by immigrants, everything carries on as normal. No harm, no foul.

A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children.

Easier for two parents, perhaps, but not impossible for one. The number of the parents isn't the important factor, the quality of the parenting is.

As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Assertion without fact, again. And even if we assume that a male and female role model are necessary, who says those role models must be parents? Can children not learn from the positive example of other relatives, teachers, neighbours, family friends, etc?

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

You assume that nature supports your assertions. I'm sure you've heard several witticisms about assumption.

[Iuuvic]

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads, but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children. As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

Could we, who don't share in your insanity 'reasoning,' see some behavioral studies that might add some stability to that argument? Ideally studies that directly address the underlined followed by the rest of the highlighted.

[Yuktova]

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads, but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children. As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

I like it when other people give rational, scientific information about population explosions, you ignore them. Is this little debate only between Ifreann and you? Gren and I both gave a response to your comment on how "if we allow ghey marriage, western society will collapse due to underpopulation, and them towelheads will beat us and rule us!" rhetoric, and you ignored us. Nice.

[Mavorpen]

This is actually hilarious.

"Gay people should NOT be parents! They will do a horrible- Hey! Johnny! Stop skateboarding in the house! Why are your grades all Fs!? Why were you arrested for doing drugs!? Why is your girlfriend pregnant!? Anyway, Gay people will make bad parents."

[Episarta]

So instead of putting children into a caring home where the parents happen to be of the same sex, they would rather just have the children stay orphans. Hmm, makes sense.

[St Martin (Ancient)]

Honestly I am fine with Homosexuals being parents. It's not like they are bad people.

[Sidhae]

The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads, but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children. As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

I like it when other people give rational, scientific information about population explosions, you ignore them. Is this little debate only between Ifreann and you? Gren and I both gave a response to your comment on how "if we allow ghey marriage, western society will collapse due to underpopulation, and them towelheads will beat us and rule us!" rhetoric, and you ignored us. Nice.

One person at a time, please. I too don't have all day to sit at the computer replying to each of the many comments individually.

The problem with this scientific information (which is quite often being one-sided and politicized these days) is that it isn't infallible. 400 years ago, every educated and sensible person KNEW the Earth was the center of the Solar system and the Universe, so when it comes to something as complex as human behaviour, I'd rather trust practices that have endured the test of time rather than theories which quite often have political undertones (such as "researches" quite obviously intended to push pro-gay/anti-family views).

[Iuuvic]

I like it when other people give rational, scientific information about population explosions, you ignore them. Is this little debate only between Ifreann and you? Gren and I both gave a response to your comment on how "if we allow ghey marriage, western society will collapse due to underpopulation, and them towelheads will beat us and rule us!" rhetoric, and you ignored us. Nice.

One person at a time, please. I too don't have all day to sit at the computer replying to each of the many comments individually.

The problem with this scientific information (which is quite often being one-sided and politicized these days) is that it isn't infallible. 400 years ago, every educated and sensible person KNEW the Earth was the center of the Solar system and the Universe, so when it comes to something as complex as human behaviour, I'd rather trust practices that have endured the test of time rather than theories which quite often have political undertones (such as "researches" quite obviously intended to push pro-gay/anti-family views).

Whether or not it is infallible is unimportant, what matters here is if it has a rational and testable base; which your argument does not. Without a solid and testable basis your argument becomes a stagnate pool of prejudice nonsense.

Welcome to the material age, where what you say actually needs to be substantiated to be taken seriously.

[Sidhae]

Sometimes common sense and prejudice are separated only by a narrow line.

So, would you please care to provide a particular example of science that proves humans do not need traditional parenting, so that I can properly seek for counter-examples?

[Iuuvic]

Sometimes common sense and prejudice are separated only by a narrow line.

So, would you please care to provide a particular example of science that proves humans do not need traditional parenting, so that I can properly seek for counter-examples?

Common sense perhaps, but not rational sense.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... usted-kids

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

If you are unhappy with this link I have more recent research compilations for you; I thought, however, that this was recent enough given you are basing your stance on "400yo practices."

I'm also pretty sure that others have already posted separate studies which support my, and nearly everyone else's here, stance on this issue.

[Grenartia]

I like it when other people give rational, scientific information about population explosions, you ignore them. Is this little debate only between Ifreann and you? Gren and I both gave a response to your comment on how "if we allow ghey marriage, western society will collapse due to underpopulation, and them towelheads will beat us and rule us!" rhetoric, and you ignored us. Nice.

One person at a time, please. I too don't have all day to sit at the computer replying to each of the many comments individually.

The problem with this scientific information (which is quite often being one-sided and politicized these days) is that it isn't infallible. 400 years ago, every educated and sensible person KNEW the Earth was the center of the Solar system and the Universe, so when it comes to something as complex as human behaviour, I'd rather trust practices that have endured the test of time rather than theories which quite often have political undertones (such as "researches" quite obviously intended to push pro-gay/anti-family views).

Our current information is MUCH more accurate than anything known 400 years ago. And, 400 years ago, every educated and sensible person turned out to be WRONG. And most of them probably died of EASILY TREATABLE DISEASES/DISORDERS.

Let's give some examples of things thought to be true 400 years ago, and things known to be true now.

- 400 years ago, the earth, indeed, was considered the center of the Solar system and the Universe; today, we're not at center of anything except the Earth-moon system, and we're not even sure if the Universe has a center.

- 400 years ago, the sun was thought of as a magical ball of fire that some how stayed lit, and provided life; today, we know that the sun makes its life-giving light and heat by turning hydrogen into helium.

- 400 years ago, the stars were thought to be holes punched into some giant shell of some sort; today, we know that they are the same thing as our sun--giant spheres of plasma turning hydrogen into every other known element.

- 400 years ago, comets and solar eclipses were thought to be signs from God that shit was about to hit the fan; today we know that comets are just giant dirty snowballs, and solar eclipses are nothing more than the moon moving between the sun and the earth, and that neither of these things have any effect on events on earth (aside from the tides and meteor showers) other than the effects we choose to let them have.

- 400 years ago, it was heresy to think that the earth wasn't the only world, and that God didn't create life only on earth; today, we know of 7 other major bodies in our solar system that aren't the sun or the moon, and that there are in fact several hundred major bodies orbiting around other stars, and while we haven't made first contact, the likelihood of other life existing in our galaxy, let alone the universe is a statistical certainty.

And all of those examples were purely astronomy related. I simply chose not to mention the advances in chemistry and medicine.

Anti-family views? Really? It seems like you're the one with the anti-family views here, for not seeing that there are PEOPLE out there who just so happen to be of the same sex, WANTING TO START A FAMILY, and GIVING A LOVING, STABLE HOME TO A CHILD WHO NEEDS ONE!! How is that, anti-family? How many heterosexuals do you know who actually want to have a family, instead of just fucking the nearest person, not caring about who they are, etc, etc. To put it simply, pro-LGBT=/=anti-family. If anything, there are two statements to the complete opposite effect: anti-LGBT=anti-family; and pro-LGBT=pro-family.

Well at least you're consistent. So do you have any concrete reason for this position? You say that children need a father and mother, but upon what facts do you base that assertion?

---

All of this falls at the first hurdle because there's no need to out-reproduce the "towelheads", as you call them. And even if we were to pretend there was, it's still a more pragmatic choice to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The children waiting adoption are already there. If we give them a good family then they'll be more likely to be successful, productive members of society who'll be able to later support a family of their own.

1. The problem is not even in out-reproducing towelheads, but merely keeping the population at the same level it is now. Westerners are about to face a massive population collapse as their society ages, with few youngsters being born to take the place of the increasing number of elders about to pass away. More elders means even more acute need for workforce to keep the living standard at the same level, and that in turn leads to more immigration, and even further population decrease (in percentage) of native Europeans.

2. A child needs two parents because it is easier for two to provide for him if nothing more, and I don't mean just material provision. A child needs a parent that would be there for him, not a mother/father who is never home because she/he is always at work, toiling to pull the ends together and in the end of the day is too tired to be interested in hearing out the kid. Having two parents eases that burden of work, so that parents (except for those obsessed with their career) have at least a little more time for their children. As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

3. Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

1. You mean the same elderly people that for the most part, are retired, are the ones that make up so much of our workforce that our nation will be crippled when they die?

BULLSHIT. How can the elderly contribute so much to our workforce, when the majority of those over 65 don't work? Besides, when they die, that alleviates so many resources (you know, food, water, medicine, housing, etc) for the rest of the people in this country.

2. My mom was and still is NEVER too tired to hear out my problems (. In fact, I'd say that she became a better parent AFTER she and my dad split up. Hell, they BOTH became better parents after that.

As for good 'role models', are you seriously trying to tell me that if a woman leaves the father of her child, then any douchebag who thinks he's awesome shit because he feels like a man by hitting women is a better role model than a woman (assuming of course that the mother in question is bisexual, as that would really be the only way that scenario would be possible)? Really?

There is NOTHING that a man can't teach his kids that a woman can't, and vice versa.

Also, your reasoning is entirely loaded with not only homophobia, but sexism. I don't know what society you think you're trying to save, but I'm sure as hell it ain't mine.

3. Making ideology conform to nature is just as fucking stupid. Plus, homosexuality, contrary to popular belief, is totally fucking natural. Hell, there's an entire species of fucking lizards that can reproduce with 2 females if need be.

To put it simply, your reasonings, and therefore, your argument, holds about as much water as a plastic cup with dozens of holes poked in the bottom of it.

Twins separated at birth.



Well, I assumed that anybody with enough intelligence to operate a computer sufficiently enough to post on NS could figure out that once the population starts to starve, the population will collapse. And the return to normal can only happen if there are surviving members of the population.

If there are too many members of the population when the food runs out, then it turns into the ultimate survival of the fittest. Younger members of the population will most likely be consumed by the older ones as hunger wears on. Eventually, individuals of similar size will be forced to turn on each other, if they haven't already. Its not inconceivable that at a certain point, where scarcity, desperation, and initial population size intersect, all members of the population will suffer rather serious injuries. Some may survive, but most will probably succumb to various infections as a result of extremely weak immune systems, others will probably collapse due to their muscles being consumed for whatever nutritional value the bodies can harvest from them, leaving them vulnerable to being consumed by the few who can hold off serious infection and muscle decay. From here, there are 3 possibilities. One, the trend continues for a while, but the usual source of food has still not returned, with the most likely outcome of this possibility being the death of the entire population in the given ecosystem. Two, the trend continues, but the usual source of food returns quickly enough that the few remaining members of the population can make a slow recovery, though there is a strong possibility of the population suffering long-term negative effects in future generations, due to the strong likelihood of inbreeding as a result of the extremely limited numbers at the time of the return of food. Three, the trend stops, with the normal food supply returning almost immediately. The population recovers almost immediately, and though there is still a sizeable risk of inbreeding in the future, it is not as likely as in the 2nd possibility. If there are enough surviving members at the time of recovery, and no checks on the population (such as predators, disease, etc), eventually the population could again reach a point where it outconsumes itself.

The least specialised individuals survive if the population migrates and the best adapted will out otherwise.

You can't really migrate from the earth at this point.

[Ifreann]

Sometimes common sense and prejudice are separated only by a narrow line.

Which is why common sense isn't to be counted on for anything.

[Sidhae]

Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

[Iuuvic]

Sometimes common sense and prejudice are separated only by a narrow line.

Which is why common sense isn't to be counted on for anything.

*waits for Einsteins quote"

[Iuuvic]

Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

Is there something of substance relating to the debate here or are you just rambling on about how society oppresses your Nazi ideals?

"Or being hated don't give way to hating" comes to mind here...

[Sidhae]

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

[Iuuvic]

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

I assumed that you would be brining something that has real and practical applications in this debate...Since you did say you would if I posted a link to a scientific study. Instead you offer more of this unsubstantiated and irrational ranting.