I Just Want To Say I Told You So. RE: LGBT

a reply to: kaylaluv

So you have no idea what you're talking about. Got it. You can (and will) trust whomever you'd like. But don't pretend your blind trust of someone else is somehow equivalent to discrediting my argument.

There is one weakness (that I know of) to my argument in the OP but none of you have spotted it yet.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: lightedhype

I appreciate your more thoughtful analysis. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think normalization will increase the behavior, you don't. Can't get much more fundamental than that.

So what if it does?? If 30% of the world ends up being gay does that change your ability to find someone to marry or have kids with??? Nope. You can still do that if you want.

Does it change how you are allowed to conduct your own personal behavior, other than your ability to openly be a bigot against other peoples personal lives???

How many people acting and thinking like yourself does it take before you feel safe in the world???

a reply to: ScepticScot

Then you didn't understand (even if you think you did). That's not what the OP is about. The OP is about normalization causing more identification.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then you didn't understand (even if you think you did). That's not what the OP is about. The OP is about normalization causing more identification.

Do you consider the normalisation to be a negative thing? Several of your posts suggest you do.

a reply to: mOjOm

I really don't want to get into the statistics of it all, but you're kind of forcing me into it.

I'll run the numbers and post them in a bit. But basically it boils down to our western way of life no longer existing and being overtaken by third world populations. These populations will purge the homosexuals just like the Muslims do.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then you didn't understand (even if you think you did). That's not what the OP is about. The OP is about normalization causing more identification.

Which can be explained for various reasons other than people are choosing it.

But even if that was the case, isn't totally within their right to choose how they live their personal lives and relationships???

Isn't that what we're all trying to do anyway???

a reply to: ScepticScot

For the future of our way of life, yes. Personally for those identifying, no.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

For the future of our way of life, yes. Personally for those identifying, no.

Having people feel they can correctly state their sexualitiy is threat to our future way of life?

a reply to: ScepticScot

If the result is a multiple times higher percentage of the population not having children, then absolutely.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

For the future of our way of life, yes. Personally for those identifying, no.

Having people feel they can correctly state their sexualitiy is threat to our future way of life?

Why is it anyone's business what your sexuality is? Why does it need to be shouted from the rooftops "I'm gay, I'm trans?". Most of us don't give a damn about your sexuality, but when you start bringing your beliefs into our schools? That isn't your private bedroom life, that is pure indoctrination!

But you're right. Your sexual identity is none of my business just as mine is none of your business. Perhaps if you don't want it to be my business, keep it to yourself? Don't try to brainwash my children by bringing this into our educational system?

I know, just destroys the agenda to think logically doesn't it?

a reply to: Dfairlite

I know a lot more about this than you do.

I know, for example, that the more highly educated one is, the less likely that person will have children, or the fewer children that person will end up having. Those statistics are real, and yet you don't seem to be too concerned with people who have a higher education. Nope, you seem to be way more concerned about gay people.

You are sooooo transparent.

If you are so concerned about immigrants taking over by having lots of kids, why aren't you advocating laws limiting how many kids immigrants are allowed to have?

Nope. It's all about teh gays.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

If the result is a multiple times higher percentage of the population not having children, then absolutely.

Doesn't answer the question. How does higher % of people identifying as LGBT threaten our future way of life?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I know a lot more about this than you do.

This statement proves you don't. How could you possibly know how much I know?

I know, for example, that the more highly educated one is, the less likely that person will have children, or the fewer children that person will end up having. Those statistics are real, and yet you don't seem to be too concerned with people who have a higher education. Nope, you seem to be way more concerned about gay people.

All of those things concern me. But your argument of "there's a hole in the boat already, lets poke another!" isn't very convincing.

If you are so concerned about immigrants taking over by having lots of kids, why aren't you advocating laws limiting how many kids immigrants are allowed to have?

I am all for limiting how many immigrants we let in. Not for communist child limits.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

For the future of our way of life, yes. Personally for those identifying, no.

Having people feel they can correctly state their sexualitiy is threat to our future way of life?

Why is it anyone's business what your sexuality is? Why does it need to be shouted from the rooftops "I'm gay, I'm trans?". Most of us don't give a damn about your sexuality, but when you start bringing your beliefs into our schools? That isn't your private bedroom life, that is pure indoctrination!

But you're right. Your sexual identity is none of my business just as mine is none of your business. Perhaps if you don't want it to be my business, keep it to yourself? Don't try to brainwash my children by bringing this into our educational system?

I know, just destroys the agenda to think logically doesn't it?

Who is indoctrinating children?

There really is no agenda other than maybe it would be nice if people weren't discriminated against based on their sexualitiy. If that is an agenda then sign me up.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It actually does answer the question. But you'd have to think further into the future than the next 2 minutes, which you don't seem capable of doing.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

It actually does answer the question. But you'd have to think further into the future than the next 2 minutes, which you don't seem capable of doing.

Failure to answer the question combined with Ad Hominem.

Really convinced me now you know what you are talking about...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

All of those things concern me.

Bullcrap. You are too busy worrying about gay people.

originally posted by: bananashooter
Do you say that being into BDSM is a choice? How about being addicted to sex with anonymous people? How about being into fisting?
Going against our biological roles is nothing more than sexual perversion, I don't care what you are into but don't make it seem like anything else other then perversion.

I think we all have a right to be as perverted as we want as long as it doesn't hurt other people, but I also don't think we have the right to attempt to indoctrinate others into said perversions, especially our children. a reply to: Kettu

A kink is not an orientation. Tie me up & stick a ball gag in my mouth, I'm still straight. Unfortunately (fortunately?) that ain't my kind of kink & won't be, and I'm not going to suddenly turn gay for the hell of it. TF kind of ass-backward logic is this anyway?

a reply to: mOjOm

Alright, I ran the numbers and using your scenario, we'd have a population decline of about 3% per year in the US (if hetero's kept having the same number of kids). Basically the economy would be destroyed. You'd have fewer and fewer people working and more and more people retiring expecting to be taken care of by those who are working.
That's the best case scenario.

The likely scenario is that hetero's keep having fewer children, which if they keep going at the current rate, in a single generation (25 years) the population would decrease by 32.2%. Immigration would have to increase by over 1000% to simply offset this. To maintain growth think about 1200%. Where has enough immigrants that are friendly to western way of life to even supply that? No where.

So what would happen? Well, muslims (3.9 children per woman) and mormons (3.4 children per woman) would take over the US. What do either of them think about LGBT folks? You better hope the mormons can ward off the muslims (quite possible, currently 3.3 million muslims in USA, vs 8 million mormons) because at least they won't start mass graves for the LGBT community.

That's why I say it threatens the western way of life.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I've already answered the question a number of times. But see my post above this for the full analysis.