221
Post by: Frazzled
Good thing Libya is a member of the UN Human RIghts Council. I was getting worried they might start promoting..human rights.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/13/new-libyan-leadership-takes-harsh-stance-against-gays-at-un/
United Nations - WORLD
New Libyan leadership takes harsh stance at UN against gays
Published February 13, 2012
A United Nations delegate from Libya’s newly formed government told a human rights panel that gays and other groups threaten “reproduction of the human race,” drawing a stern rebuke from leaders of the international body.
The remarks, reported by Geneva-based U.N. Watch, came just months after the North African nation’s membership was restored to the U.N. Human Rights Council. The reinstatement came amid assurances that the new government that supplanted the brutal regime of Muammar Qaddafi would not brook human rights violations.
Yet the unnamed representative told a panel discussing violence based on sexual orientation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, topics "affect religion and the continuation and reproduction of the human race.”
Council Chair Laura Dupuy Lasserre replied that "the Human Rights Council is here to defend human rights and prevent discrimination."
The Libyan outburst prompted questions by human rights activists about Libya's reinstatement on the council. The nation was one of 47 represented on the council for a term that was scheduled to end in 2013, but the full body kicked it off the council in March 2011, amid criticism of Qaddafi’s human rights record. Gays were subject to flogging and imprisonment during his regime, according to human rights advocates.
“This is our duty to all the men and women who are hoping and struggling to have their rights respected and who, today, are running the greatest risks,” General Assembly President Joseph Deiss told the body before the vote. “Their hopes must not be dashed.”
But the harsh stance against gays voiced Monday has some critics wondering if the new government ushered in by the so-called Arab Spring is any more tolerant than its predecessor.
"Today's homophobic outburst by the new Libyan government, together with the routine abuse of prisoners, underscores the serious questions we have about the new regime's commitment to improving on the dark record of its predecessor, and about its pandering to Islamists in its ranks," U.N. Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer said.
Back in November, when the U.N. General Assembly reinstated Libya on the council, deputy U.N. envoy Ibrahim Dabbashi said "the new Libya deserves to return to the Human Rights Council to contribute with other members to the promotion of values of human rights."
"No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,” he pledged.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/13/new-libyan-leadership-takes-harsh-stance-against-gays-at-un/#ixzz1mS6luRgK
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,
There are the Libyans we're talking about.
Remember what they did to Ghadaffi?
11653
Post by: Huffy
Chowderhead wrote:No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,
There are the Libyans we're talking about.
Remember what they did to Ghadaffi?
 and I was under the impression that they had control over 3 or 4 buildings in all of Libya
514
Post by: Orlanth
People in the west are waking up to the truth that in much of the middle east democracy and fundamentalism are one and the same.
Not everyone votes for party x or party y, but a very clear majority will vote for Allah. So those who stand for Allah on a fundamentalist ticket have a clear route to power.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Chowderhead wrote:No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,
There are the Libyans we're talking about.
Remember what they did to Ghadaffi?
Remember what they did to the doc?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
This is disgusting. Libya should be removed from the UN human rights council immediately.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Chowderhead wrote:No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,
There are the Libyans we're talking about.
Remember what they did to Ghadaffi?
or the previous ambassador.
18024
Post by: Velour_Fog
God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Skarwael wrote:God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?
My God, I didn't realise we'd fallen so low!
Quickly, step up breeding!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Meet new Libya, same stand on gays as the US GOP.
29408
Post by: Melissia
This is entirely without surprise. Still disappointing though.
5534
Post by: dogma
Expected.
Revolution generally does not change much.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Chowderhead wrote:No violations of human rights will take place on Libyan territory in the future and if it happens the perpetrator will never get away with it,
There are the Libyans we're talking about.
Remember what they did to Doc Brown?
Fixed that for you, Chowder.
edit: Ninjaed!
5534
Post by: dogma
d-usa wrote:Meet new Libya, same stand on gays as the US GOP.
Equivocation, and lame.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Damn if only I had thought of it first Ouze. Time to go to the past and ninja.
Almost. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
Man, what can't Australians do. Live a day in the future, get New Years Eve first, and also time travel. Great continent... or greatest continent?
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
dogma wrote:d-usa wrote:Meet new Libya, same stand on gays as the US GOP.
Equivocation, and lame.
I think the phrase you're actually looking for is;
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Don't you know civilised Europe and the USA had a harsh stance against gays 50 years ago?
It didn't change overnight here and it will take time in Libya too.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Boy do I wish mattyrm were here right now.
Breaking News! Islamic Fundamentalists seem to disagree somewhat with being gay.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Well they are quite clearly wrong...
Plenty of people who have 'reproductive sex'...
Too many in some places...
Also they are small-minded etc etc...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So, By their logic priests and nuns are a threat to the human reproduction.
52833
Post by: Alexzandvar
Libya's population is in the Hundreds of thousands.
I say we work on fixing gay rights in the rest of the world.
5534
Post by: dogma
Alexzandvar wrote:Libya's population is in the Hundreds of thousands.
Its population is ~5.6 million, which puts it right around the middle of all countries in the world.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Expected. Automatically Appended Next Post: Alexzandvar wrote:Libya's population is in the Hundreds of thousands.
I say we work on fixing gay rights in the rest of the world.
They won't listen, they will find it "offensive".
5534
Post by: dogma
rockerbikie wrote:
They won't listen, they will find it "offensive".
You don't go for the adults and the teens, you go for the kids; create that subtle doubt.
Most people, once set into a belief, will not change it barring extreme circumstances.
44654
Post by: Lone Cat
This sounds like 'To dethrone Bourbons only to have Jacobins rule over France' remember French revolution?
37755
Post by: Harriticus
This is to gain more popular support in the Muslim/Africa (the latter especially is a place where Libya has lost some credibility). These kinds of things would be very popular there.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Kilkrazy wrote:Don't you know civilised Europe and the USA had a harsh stance against gays 50 years ago?
It didn't change overnight here and it will take time in Libya too.
Have you listened to the GOP presidential candidates? Gays are still destroying the US, having a dug dealer dad in prison is better than having two dads, etc etc etc.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:Alexzandvar wrote:Libya's population is in the Hundreds of thousands.
Its population is ~5.6 million, which puts it right around the middle of all countries in the world.
It also has one of the fastest growing populations in the world. edit: whoops, was thinking of liberia...
52833
Post by: Alexzandvar
Melissia wrote:dogma wrote:Alexzandvar wrote:Libya's population is in the Hundreds of thousands.
Its population is ~5.6 million, which puts it right around the middle of all countries in the world.
It also has one of the fastest growing populations in the world.
edit: whoops, was thinking of liberia...
Damn, was probably think of another country. I digress. My point remains the same.
And yes this years GOP candidates are literally the worst. They always talk about how Reagan would do this or that, however my dad worked in the Reagan white house and he would never do any crap like what this years candidates are doing.
The poop throwing contest in Florida was pretty funny though.
I've had to edit some of this post, if we could please show a wee bit more taste when posting in future it'd be appreciated. Thanks
Reds8n
29408
Post by: Melissia
Obama is closer to Reagan tahn Republicans are.
46037
Post by: moom241
To quote a friend of mine: "I don't care what Reagan would have done, what are you going to do?"
15594
Post by: Albatross
What's the big deal here? So, they said something fairly homophobic. Are we supposed to be shocked?
As someone else pointed out, in the not-too-distant future there could be a US president espousing a similar world-view. What the guy said was actually fairly mild, in the context of contemporary Arab nations and their attitude to homosexuality.
This is a standard Frazzled 'Loony UN' story taken from Fox, and as such, should be largely disregarded.
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
I know where I an't going to, like EVER!
Besides a burka is less than flatering 
15594
Post by: Albatross
Were you planning on going to Libya before this 'furore' erupted, like?
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Albatross wrote:Were you planning on going to Libya before this 'furore' erupted, like?
Frankly I was, it seemed like a wonderful holiday destination, so much good press lately.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ribon Fox wrote:Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.
I know a city with loads of them.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Albatross wrote:Ribon Fox wrote:Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.
I know a city with loads of them.
Athens?
38678
Post by: Blackhoof
Rome?
15594
Post by: Albatross
Bingo!
34906
Post by: Pacific
Kilkrazy wrote:Don't you know civilised Europe and the USA had a harsh stance against gays 50 years ago?
It didn't change overnight here and it will take time in Libya too.
Definitely agree with this. The only way a society can become more tolerant is through education and a gradual movement towards a liberal and developed society. That isn't to say that bigotry will simply cease to exist - after all minorities will always face adversity in developed countries, again usually from the uneducated (I'm thinking of a ballet dancer who was recently beaten up, or the band 'Gay Dad' who were chased through the streets of Liverpool after a gig). However, there are different levels of tolerance, Libya (like most of the world in fact) is somewhat further back on that scale at the moment.
Unfortunately though tolerance doesn't always go hand in hand with economic or industrial development - I lived for 2 years in Korea, and despite them having the 12th largest economy in the world, gay people don't officially exist. There are pop stars on the TV over there that couldn't stub out a cigarette, their wrists are that weak, yet they have tens of thousands of girls screaming like lunatics and crying when one of them does so much as blow their hair out of their eyes. There are signs that things are slowly changing, but quite often such things face a lot of opposition from traditions and as has been pointed out above, the older generation.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Albatross wrote:Bingo!
I was kidding around with the Athens bit, just so we know.
29194
Post by: Luco
Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...
5534
Post by: dogma
purplefood wrote:Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...
More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?
27391
Post by: purplefood
dogma wrote:purplefood wrote:Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...
More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?
True...
39004
Post by: biccat
dogma wrote:purplefood wrote:Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...
More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?
It's only important not to impose your values on others if you value not imposing your values on others.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.
Yes, I imagine that homosexuals, whose relationships are private and harm no one, do want to force their right to not be brutally murdered in the streets, and I'm sure they also would like to enforc their right to not be gang-raped to "fix" them. How DARE they make these kinds of demands!!!
29194
Post by: Luco
I don't think I've ever gotten so much attention on here all at once.
@ biccat. Touche.
@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Luco wrote:I don't think I've ever gotten so much attention on here all at once.
@ biccat. Touche.
@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?
feth me, are we on the endangered species list again? Here I thought we were growing exponentially, but apparently those damn gays have gone and done it and doomed the human race to die out because everybody wants to watch Bravo now instead of have eighteen kids.
I've seen the light. Where can I get some Tea Party literature?
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?
I do. Problem?
We're not the great white shark, you know.
Nobody's hunting us to extinction, and as homosexuals are a minority in comparison to straight or bisexual people, the overall birth rate of the human species remains waaaay beyond the death rate.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:
It's only important not to impose your values on others if you value not imposing your values on others.
So you're imposing your value of not imposing your values on others, onto others.
29194
Post by: Luco
Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.
I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.
I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.
I don't see a damper on the growth of the human race as a problem. The growth itself is a bigger problem than that, as you yourself just pointed out.
Also, as the human race as a whole is increasing in population at an exponential rate, yes, our birth rate is waaaaay beyond the death rate.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.
I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.
Out of interest which European nations?
And considering many gay couples have surrogate mothers or implanted embryos when/if they want children it doesn't really impact population growth that much...
29408
Post by: Melissia
Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?
I dismiss is so hard that it turns into a Bose-Einstein condensate from my cold shoulder.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Melissia wrote:Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?
I dismiss is so hard that it turns into a Bose-Einstein condensate from my cold shoulder.
Can't wait for round... 4?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
This has... gone to plaid.
Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?
Oh my god! Shoot them all!
27391
Post by: purplefood
MrDwhitey wrote:This has... gone to plaid.
Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?
Oh my god! Shoot them all!
Question:
If gay people, by virtue (or lack thereof in some peoples' view) of being gay, threaten the reproduction/propagation of the human race.
Does that mean sharks, by virtue of being sharks, threaten the survival of the human race?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Shoot them all referred to "The Human Race" because it hurts me seeing people act so stupidly. Of course eventually we'll need weaponised sharks to finish the job, so I'd say yes.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.
29194
Post by: Luco
MrDwhitey wrote:This has... gone to plaid.
Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?
Oh my god! Shoot them all!
The thread or the idea? I always assumed it was the entire point of the various religions banning it. purplefood wrote:Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.
I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.
Out of interest which European nations? And considering many gay couples have surrogate mothers or implanted embryos when/if they want children it doesn't really impact population growth that much...
Most notably Germany and Russia. Other nations like Austria and Greece have less than a tenth of a percent growth. Question:
If gay people, by virtue (or lack thereof in some peoples' view) of being gay, threaten the reproduction/propagation of the human race.
Does that mean sharks, by virtue of being sharks, threaten the survival of the human race?
Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is. Mannahnin wrote:Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.
I'm skeptical, but would you have a link to the research article by chance?
18602
Post by: Horst
MrDwhitey wrote:Skarwael wrote:God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?
My God, I didn't realise we'd fallen so low!
Quickly, step up breeding!
My god your right! Well I'm going to do my part.
LADIES! Remove your underpants, and single file please.
5534
Post by: dogma
Luco wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.
I'm skeptical, but would you have a link to the research article by chance?
The argument is that, because homosexuals tend to not reproduce, it should be a genetic trait that is strongly selected for. In essence, if it isn't advantageous, it wouldn't exist.
That said, such an argument depends on the idea that environmental conditions do not significantly impact genetic expression, and further that homosexuality is genetic.
I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Horst wrote:MrDwhitey wrote:Skarwael wrote:God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?
My God, I didn't realise we'd fallen so low!
Quickly, step up breeding!
My god your right! Well I'm going to do my part.
LADIES! Remove your underpants, and single file please.
Horst, sacrificing all for the good of the species.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.
221
Post by: Frazzled
As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.
Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Obviously cloning is the answer.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.
Actually, I give the example of sickle cell anemia. Normally, such a genetic defect would be quite rare, because it's not very good, right? ... except... it is useful. Because people whom have heterogeneous mixtures of normal and sickle cell don't have the negatives of sickle cell while having immunity to malaria (and those who are sickle cell are also immune to malaria). The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual. The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:Obviously cloning is the answer.
I swear its like there was a movie about that.
5534
Post by: dogma
Melissia wrote:
The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.
The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.
I have no doubt that homosexuality is, to some degree, based in genetics, but I have significant doubts that the expression of those genes is entirely grounded in genetic. Its basically an argument from epigenetics.
This, of course, doesn't mean people choose to be gay, its just means that there is no gay gene, or necessarily a collection of gay genes that will always cause the inheritor to be gay.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:Melissia wrote:
The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.
The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.
I have no doubt that homosexuality is, to some degree, based in genetics, but I have significant doubts that the expression of those genes is entirely grounded in genetic. Its basically an argument from epigenetics.
This, of course, doesn't mean people choose to be gay, its just means that there is no gay gene, or necessarily a collection of gay genes that will always cause the inheritor to be gay.
Oh, I was just arguing that the idea that "gay genes" is not itself inherently contradictory, IE, it is not something that would necessarilly be kicked out of the gene pool.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Melissia wrote:Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.
I love logic like that. Like the whole "They can raise a kid because they are one gender", well what about single parents?
29194
Post by: Luco
@Melissa and Dogma's back n forth
I see, that's fairly enlightening. I honestly haven't a clue as to the why's, though I definitely see it as being a recessive gene if it is genetic. Though I've always thought it could possibly be classified it as a mental illness as it gets in the way of basic reproductive instinct. Now before anyone jumps at me and claims I'm insulting them for the sake of doing so consider that I fit solidly in the 'mentally ill' catagory (clinical depression, I know how much reality can be skewed and I know the 'i'm not ill its just the way I am' argument because I've used it before) But even so that still fits into the partial genetic argument as such things are passed down.
Melissia wrote:Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.
What studies have been done to show the psychological stability of those involved of a polygamist relationship and the stability and health of the offspring that the union produces?
There is also a issue here, it will likely propagate a larger number of individuals with tendencies to be disloyal, compared to people who naturally have a tendency to stick with their mate until death will in the end breed a population where nobody has any loyalty at all. Is that where we want to be headed? Granted we are already heading that way thanks to a lack of self-control, but should we nationally endorse something that will lead to that?
@hotsauce: Statistically, are the children of single parents as healthy and psychologically stable as children with two parents?
Links are always appreciated.
Now that I've somewhat insulted just about everybody, none of which is intended at all I'm mostly just looking for information via the collected intelligence that is dakka, I'm going to be off for a long while to get some studying and wargaming done.
Cheers.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I can tell you from experiance that we are no different. and thousands of others can tell you that.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything.
If you want to make your point convincingly, you need to cite sources.
241
Post by: Ahtman
hotsauceman1 wrote:I can tell you from experiance that we are no different. and thousands of others can tell you that.
That is a lot of polygamists.
I learned from Focus on the Family that you get the gay by not having a strong bond with your father, and that there are counselors that can cure you. possibly by making you call them 'daddy'.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Luco wrote:What studies have been done to show the psychological stability of those involved of a polygamist relationship and the stability and health of the offspring that the union produces?
This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point my sarcastic statement was making-- in that the logic used to arrive at the conclusion was inconsistently applied.
And more on topic, I give you a better suggestion-- try to find good, peer-reviewed studies that show homosexual parents as less effective than heterosexual parents. It'll be hard to find, I assure you; the overwhelming majority of the weight of scientific literature on same sex parenting shows that same sex parents tend to produce children about equal to the average (lesbian parents are slightly higher in this regard, while male parents are slightly lower). This was also the US court system's conclusion on reading the gamut of evidence presented to them by both sides of the argument.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Luco wrote:Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is.
So, in other words, you're worried about the stability of something that is a temporary and non-physical feature of the Earth's geography.
Nations come and go, chap. Assuming that gay people are the downfall of empires, though, is one of the funnier ideas I've heard so far.
I mean, I always understood Rome to have fallen through overexpansion and political disunity, but what do I know? It must have been the Gayosexuals. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?
I... I think I admire that.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Melissia wrote:dogma wrote:I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.
Actually, I give the example of sickle cell anemia. Normally, such a genetic defect would be quite rare, because it's not very good, right?
... except... it is useful. Because people whom have heterogeneous mixtures of normal and sickle cell don't have the negatives of sickle cell while having immunity to malaria (and those who are sickle cell are also immune to malaria).
The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.
The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.
You need credible research to back this up if your going to say this.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mr Hyena wrote:You need credible research to back this up if your going to say this.
Say what, though? There were numerous statements in my post. If you want me to quote someone else aside from myself, though, I found this on a quick search: Richard Dawkins discussing the "gay gene", or more accurately, the numerous parts of our genetic code which influence mixed psychological/biological things such as sexuality, and how it could be preserved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0 Richard Dawkins is, for reference, an ethologist, or more accurately, an evolutionary biologist, and quite a famous one (having invented the modern use of the term meme, for example).
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote:As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.
Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?
I like you frazzled. You are the cool type of conservative. if it doesnt affect you you couldnt care less.
29194
Post by: Luco
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Luco wrote:Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is.
So, in other words, you're worried about the stability of something that is a temporary and non-physical feature of the Earth's geography. Nations come and go, chap. Assuming that gay people are the downfall of empires, though, is one of the funnier ideas I've heard so far. I mean, I always understood Rome to have fallen through overexpansion and political disunity, but what do I know? It must have been the Gayosexuals.
Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt. Frazzled wrote: Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?
What if those cheerleaders happen to be cross-dressing men? [not entirely serious with the last bit]
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:Frazzled wrote:As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.
Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?
I like you frazzled. You are the cool type of conservative. if it doesnt affect you you couldnt care less.
Exactly.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I wish there were more like you living near me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:I wish there were more like you living near me.
Melissia wants people like Frazzled around her? Well, you would be safer, but you'd have to deal with marumbas occasionally, and of course wiener dog rallies, rodeos, and tractor pulls
How many wiener dogs does it take to pull a tractor? A lot, a whole lot.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".
But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."
(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.
29408
Post by: Melissia
What they think they are, but not actually what they are.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".
But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."
(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.
True dat. I'm sure its me included. I want spending on education, infrastructure, border security and technology/medical capex at the fed or state level depending on the issue.
29408
Post by: Melissia
It's one of the problems I have with Obama, actually... I wish he'd push infrastructure investment more >.<
Investing in infrastructure is one of the few things that economists generally agree is a good thing for government to do.
A lot of our infrastructure hasn't been replaced since FDR. Upgrading it would create a good amount of temporary jobs locally and would benefit US technology based companies in the long term as we modernize things.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:It's one of the problems I have with Obama, actually... I wish he'd push infrastructure investment more >.<
Investing in infrastructure is one of the few things that economists generally agree is a good thing for government to do.
A lot of our infrastructure hasn't been replaced since FDR.
Agreed. If we'd blown 800 bazillion on infrstructure (like I thought we would) I would have been a much happier man.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Luco wrote:
Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt
On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire 
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.
My cousin once said
"Your a Bleedng heart liberal, so you wouldnt understand"
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.
My cousin once said
"Your a Bleedng heart liberal, so you wouldnt understand"
At 20 you are a liberal
At 40 you are a conservative.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.
Thats a separate saying. Here's a third saying: Why put off for tomorrow what you can get someone else to do today.
5534
Post by: dogma
hotsauceman1 wrote:Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.
Oh, it isn't just conservatives. I got told off by one of my 60's liberal high school teachers for being "...too young to understand why lying is bad."
To this day I maintain that he was just jealous because he was an awful liar.
Silly liberal, tricks are for kids!
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.
I'm pretty sure that's a modified version of something Putin said:
"Anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, those who want it back have no brains."
29194
Post by: Luco
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Luco wrote:
Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt
On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.
The estimated population of the entire world at the time of the Roman Empire is smaller than the population of modern day USA and we aren't doing that badly.
Technological prowess, alright, but are extra workers bad? Extra scientists? Extra pilots to deliver munitions? Extra farmers to supply the population? What of the future? What about if we do hit space era warfare or colonization in the next century or so? Two or three generations down the line, that's a lot of potential people that can be put to use. Considering the advancement of tech in the past century or so I don't think its that far out if we maintain growth.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
But in reality gay people don't represent any real threat to population increase, even if you think we need more people. A small fraction of us are gay, and our population is increasing exponentially.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.
I'm pretty sure that's a modified version of something Putin said:
"Anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, those who want it back have no brains."
I think the Putin quote is newer. Hotsauceman's is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, though I don't think that's right.
Robert Anton Wilson wrote that "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea. " Automatically Appended Next Post: Wikiquote has that quote- it's actually a lot older than Churchill.
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain. According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century French historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. (N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.) This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.
Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
29194
Post by: Luco
eight tenths of a percent is exponential? Many of which are likely due to immigration (the largest population gains in the past 50 years have been Hispanic, which is rather telling since Europeans made up 84% of the population in 1960) so our actual birth rate is much lower.
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
How many times has the human population doubled? How often does it happen?
5534
Post by: dogma
Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.
I've never really understood this argument. Gay people didn't just appear 30 years ago, and start reducing the birth rate. I guess you could argue that by being accepting of homosexuality, we are producing an environment that somehow causes the genes that contribute to homosexuality cause that particular expression to be more likely, but that seems like a rather weak position; especially since its basically tacit to "We should hate the gays."
Of course, I'm not trying to imply that you hate, or even mildly dislike, gay people.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
What's the percentage of straight people that aren't having babies, I wonder?
5534
Post by: dogma
d-usa wrote:The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".
But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."
(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.
Eh, I'm not sure that's true. Its definitely true economically, but in terms of social issues I doubt many US conservatives agree with the nominal libertarian platform.
Either way, your interpretation of the conservative position can be applied to pretty much all political positions, at least when they're expressed as a general platform.
Its a shame that the Libertarian Party is so heavily driven by ideology.
32190
Post by: asimo77
I don't understand the whole "homosexuality threatens reproduction" argument. Regardless of current legislation or social attitudes, gay people are going to still be gay and not suddenly start reproducing.
It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"
If anything heterosexuals need cajoling if you want to make more humans.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Luco wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Luco wrote:
Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt
On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.
The estimated population of the entire world at the time of the Roman Empire is smaller than the population of modern day USA and we aren't doing that badly.
Technological prowess, alright, but are extra workers bad? Extra scientists? Extra pilots to deliver munitions? Extra farmers to supply the population? What of the future? What about if we do hit space era warfare or colonization in the next century or so? Two or three generations down the line, that's a lot of potential people that can be put to use. Considering the advancement of tech in the past century or so I don't think its that far out if we maintain growth.
Because several reasons.
A) Because you need to feed those people, clothe them, pay them, house them etc. That causes strain. Think you can pay for all of those hungry new mouths?
Even with more farmers, where are they going to grow their grain? Farming takes up a hell of a lot of space, and you can't find enough viable farmland for them all.
B) The USA isn't doing too badly because of modern tech. Actually, the increased human population on the Earth means we are actually doing pretty badly after all; the strain on the Earth's resources is being pushed to extremes simply because too many people need too many things from it.
C) If our population continues to increase, eventually we will run into a factor that will cut it down again. That is how populations rise and fall. Too many humans and not enough food or shelter equals a lot of people dying, instead of the limitless stock of workers you seem to be envisioning. Automatically Appended Next Post: Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.
Over 1%?!
GREAT SCOTT, MARTY. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 1955 AND STOP THIS FROM EVER OCCURING.
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.
29408
Post by: Melissia
asimo77 wrote:It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"
The US court system also found this; finding that even if you prohibit homosexual marriage homosexuals will still remain homosexuals.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.
This, +1 so many times.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.
Looks like I have no heart.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
MrDwhitey wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.
This, +1 so many times.
And you know what else? Homosexuals can and sometimes do breed, through artificial insemination and the like.
That, and I bet not every straight couple ends up having kids (indeed I know some that don't want them) and so the argument that population decline is caused by homosexuals not pumpin' out kiddies is clearly logically unsound.
29194
Post by: Luco
dogma wrote:Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.
I've never really understood this argument. Gay people didn't just appear 30 years ago, and start reducing the birth rate. I guess you could argue that by being accepting of homosexuality, we are producing an environment that somehow causes the genes that contribute to homosexuality cause that particular expression to be more likely, but that seems like a rather weak position; especially since its basically tacit to "We should hate the gays."
Of course, I'm not trying to imply that you hate, or even mildly dislike, gay people.
Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.
asimo77 wrote:I don't understand the whole "homosexuality threatens reproduction" argument. Regardless of current legislation or social attitudes, gay people are going to still be gay and not suddenly start reproducing.
It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"
If anything heterosexuals need cajoling if you want to make more humans.
Now that I'm thinking about it the implications are less for those who are homosexuals now than it is for the future. The precursory research I've done suggests it is a mix of environmental issues and genetics, which once identified can be used to eliminate those factors or 'edit' the genes once we get to that point. Of course this is opening another whole can of worms.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Because several reasons.
A) Because you need to feed those people, clothe them, pay them, house them etc. That causes strain. Think you can pay for all of those hungry new mouths?
Even with more farmers, where are they going to grow their grain? Farming takes up a hell of a lot of space, and you can't find enough viable farmland for them all.
B) The USA isn't doing too badly because of modern tech. Actually, the increased human population on the Earth means we are actually doing pretty badly after all; the strain on the Earth's resources is being pushed to extremes simply because too many people need too many things from it.
C) If our population continues to increase, eventually we will run into a factor that will cut it down again. That is how populations rise and fall. Too many humans and not enough food or shelter equals a lot of people dying, instead of the limitless stock of workers you seem to be envisioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.
Over 1%?!
GREAT SCOTT, MARTY. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 1955 AND STOP THIS FROM EVER OCCURING.
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.
Personally? No, I'm waiting until I'm stable, both financially and getting past certain other issues.
There was a pretty neat article about advances in farming tech and one company was endeavoring to put a farm in a skyscraper. Haven't heard anything else about the project since, but if it turns out as a success it will increase potential farmland by an incredible amount. A couple of farmscrapers in a smallish city and you manage to feed the population of the city without need to ship food in from the rural areas and the farmland that does still exist can focus on export and profit. Its a neat idea I think at the very least.
At the moment I don't think food production is an issue for the US, currently (according to the USDA) we are exporting almost half of our wheat production, not to mention the hundreds of millions of tons of food we donate annually to poverty stricken nations.
Granted, I do think we need to get our rear in gear when it comes to clean energy and making it usable for every aspect that its needed for everyday life thus making a significantly larger population more stable.
Honestly, its more like it that its topic of discussion rather then I'm seriously concerned over it. I tend to avoid discussion on topics that I take terribly serious as emotions tend to get thrown into those issues and it winds up a mess. Just decided to throw my hat in the ring more or less and see how Dakka's "infamous" OT section reacts to me.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:MrDwhitey wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.
This, +1 so many times.
And you know what else? Homosexuals can and sometimes do breed, through artificial insemination and the like.
That, and I bet not every straight couple ends up having kids (indeed I know some that don't want them) and so the argument that population decline is caused by homosexuals not pumpin' out kiddies is clearly logically unsound.
Again, I ask how common is that procedure in comparison to how common having children in a heterosexual relationship? The average for heterosexual couples in the US is 2 children.
5534
Post by: dogma
Luco wrote:
Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.
I think you mean "Whether or not accepting it has done anything."
29194
Post by: Luco
dogma wrote:Luco wrote:
Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.
I think you mean "Whether or not accepting it has done anything."
Right, I stand corrected.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Can we please stop using the word 'tech'? It's fething irritating. The word is 'technology'.
Sorry, that particular abbreviation just annoys me for some reason.
|
|
