...Sapien


And so are you! If it doesn't make babies it doesn't make sense. I bet a good portion of gay couples just do it for the trend factor.

not 100%, most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA

No need to make this thread >:(

If it doesn't make babies it doesn't make sense.

The world is already being overpopulated and there are thousands if not millions of children who are being neglected or abandoned by heterosexual parents, who may just have wanted to have sex without taking responsibility for the children, or children who have lost their parents.

I'm gay and I don't have any interest in having children currently. But if I did and thought I'd be a good parent, I'd adopt one or some of all those abandoned or neglected children, rather than have my own.

I bet a good portion of gay couples just do it for the trend factor.

You bet? Generally, rather than just performing some thinking in your own imagination, you would want to determine such a claim by actually going out and asking a sample, or investigating what it means to be gay, i.e. if it's just an idea some people get that they choose, or something they don't really have an influence on. All scientific evidence points in favor of the latter.

I'm gay, I've known that for several years, I've never been attracted to women, it simply has nothing to do with a 'trend factor', whatever that is. Given that in school a lot of people used 'gay' as a slur and spoke negatively about it, it would've been easier for me to be heterosexual, but that's not something I could've changed even if I wanted to. If you've had an attraction try and see if you can suddenly make yourself find someone of your own sex attractive, instead of trying to speak out on something you obviously don't understand at all.

Edited 7/11/2015 17:19:50

Oh look a Gay Communist. Just like LAWLZ the gay Nazi.

Humans are animals. Just like Dolphins and Dinosaurs and there has NEVER been any natural homosexual relationships in animals. We have reached critical gay mass -- gay saturation. Everywhere you go it's gay, gay, gaygay, gaygaygay! Go on social media and say your gay and you get millions of congratulations. Say your straight and nobody cares! Being gay is trendy! I understand there are some people who are naturally gay but it's too hard to pick the sour apples out of the tree.

I think one thing we can all agree on is this thread is gay.

Kellen why did you start this idiotic thread?

There is evidence of homosexual behavior in nature, but it's just that :an unnatural occurrence that is usually just a case of really weird animals.

Overpopulation is a myth perpetrated by the governments of the world to rally support for depopulation movements. The only problem with the population is that of distribution. As said in this skit :
https://screen.yahoo.com/clinton-mcdonalds-000000491.html

It's being intercepted by warlords.

We could all live with a degree of comfort in an area about as large as Texas. If we decided to live in an area the size of the American Midwest, people could live with good space between each other, with room for cities and towns.

Meanwhile, use the rest of the world for resource purposes.

By the time we really do overpopulate, we'll be colonizing mars, mining asteroids for minerals, establishing a base on the moon and preparing to colonize Titan.

Kellen: pls STFU. You make people look bad just because you want attention.
Shut up.

Also, MOST HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES WHO ADOPT ARE LESBIANS (research it). Not gay.



Fleecemaster: Yep, it certainly meets the south park definition of faggotry. (As in, people doing idiotic things to simply get attention to themselves.


Genghis: everything you said was right.

Edited 7/11/2015 21:06:46

@Genghis, I'm not sure if your trolling but for me overpopulation is real, but i guess for some people it's a myth. It's really an opinion of how you want to live.

I want to leave with all the luxury i currently have(2nd vacation house, speedboat, 3 cars), or if possible with more luxury. and at the same time i want to be able to enjoy true wild nature and hunting.
We can not have that all with the current population, even worse, if everyone want to live at western standers, we would need 4~5 planets, or reduce the global population to 1/4~1/5.
(sorce: http://worldcentric.org/conscious-living/expanding-eco-footprint)
So for me, overpopulation is real, and i would like to see the population reduces to a maximum of 1 billion(1/7), what was the eaths population around the year 1810.

next to that, the population growth of the last 65 years is almost only from non-western countries, from 1950, european ethnic population did only grow around 1,5 times, while Western Asia,and Africa countries did grow 5~6 times there population from 1950. And they're coming from there messed up overpopulated countries to europe to steal our living space and prosperity.

I just said we could live in the Midwest very comfortably. We could do all that stuff. Gasoline would actually stop being such a problem because everything is in the Midwest (kek).

I mean, we probably couldn't OWN a yacht, but you could just rent one on a trip to the great Lakes. It's not like we'd all be broke in the scenario i proposed.

I live in the Midwest so I can attest that the great lakes can barely handle the crap/pollution that we put in it every year. It CERTAINLY cannot handle 7 billion people shitting. Every time you would go swimming you would run into a bunch of sewage. Even if you were talking land space then I can't even see your point. Guess what. If you move everybody to the Midwest then WHO IS GOING TO FARM THE REST OF THE PLANET?

There are many logistical/social problems with housing everybody in the midwest like transportation (can you imagine the traffic jams?), multi culturalism (americans can't even get along with themselves. What do you think will happen when you put them in with everybody else?), governing (people would argue endlessly the Capitalism/Socialism and a slew of other issues), Education (what language would you teach kids in the schools and how would you teach them their ethnic history?), and currency (how would we agree on a currency and what to back it with?) just to name a few.

Im a farmer. I like being a farmer. There is lots of space where I live and you don't have to worry about your neighbors. We have a great system right now in the world. The population of the west drops (if you take away immigration) and the rest of the world lives in their third world crap hole in overcrowded, rotting cities.

It is perfect. We in the West/first world get to live in Suburbia or in rural areas and the third world keeps making babies like its the middle ages with minimal health care, poor living standards, crappy wages, horrible dictators and rampant civil rights abuses and the second world (former soviet union sphere of influence) just tries to keep its people fed and angry about something.

(I am generalizing off course. India is in the third world and it is a democracy.)

On topic: I usually don't call people homophobes and I detest the term itself, but Kellen is a homophobe. Simple. You shouldn't hate people because they are homosexual.

Edited 7/13/2015 05:06:47

And that is how you debunk a statement like "Everybody could live in the space of the Midwest."

Try gathering everyone in one place...
https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

Within weeks, Rhode Island is a graveyard of billions.

Personally one child policy is good idea in all western countries... I want three kids when I grow up but its awful for the environment.

Well Nikolai, why would we necessarily group everybody together? We could have everybody in a proper political states with governance divisions. There could be 1 - 4 american provinces, and 5 - 20 chinese provinces. These provinces would have equal-ish populations. Simple. You keep the nations together without having to talk to the other stupid people.

We could handle sewage quite easy. Dump it all in New Jersey (kekekekek). Logistics would be awesome if anything. We'd have the entire rest of the world being very sparse and open. The Rich People could buy themselves nice estates away from everybody else so that they feel special. Meanwhile, we have all this land that can be turned into farmland or mines/industry etc.

Considering all of this, it's not like we are all going to pack up our bags and move to the Midwest. We could simply do this scenario but in seperate pockets across the world.

As far as traffic pollution etc., I did say everything would be pretty close by in a compact environment. You could just bicycle your way to work. Bicycles being cheaper and non-pollutant.

As far as economic opportunity, we could develop simple railways to all the important spots. Or like I suggested, we would have sprawling cities in between the suburban areas.

I only offered the scenario as a thought experiment template. There are other more realistic but similar scenarios.

i dont even know where to start, there are very few posts which dont show a huge ignorance:

kellen, doesnt even desserve na answer

not 100%, most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA

and thats part of their homo sapiens dna

No need to make this thread >:(

need? how do you account for need? i totally disagree with it,b ut i dont own the criteriums to decide whether there is a need or not

All scientific evidence points in favor of the latter.

reality is much more complex than what all those scientific experiments can prove, anyway, why does it matter if its natural or not? if they want to accept you based on nature, let them accept their entire way of living basing it on nature, that would be fun

Just like Dolphins and Dinosaurs and there has NEVER been any natural homosexual relationships in animals

just untrue, but read the previous one

I think one thing we can all agree on is this thread is gay.

can we?

Kellen why did you start this idiotic thread?

questioning is always better than saying that there is no need

We could all live with a degree of comfort in an area about as large as Texas

you are scary, ill say more in reply to your second post

Genghis: everything you said was right.

In terms of overpopulation he might be slightly correct, although the consequences he takes out of it are unnecessary, but mostly scary

next to that, the population growth of the last 65 years is almost only from non-western countries, from 1950, european ethnic population did only grow around 1,5 times, while Western Asia,and Africa countries did grow 5~6 times there population from 1950. And they're coming from there messed up overpopulated countries to europe to steal our living space and prosperity.

i believe people with your kind of lifestyle should be beheaded, but just replying to this specific point, europe grew like that in century preceding their growth and everyone knows no was nor is messed up around here

everything is in the Midwest

americans like this really deserve to be hated and some more terrorista attacks, btu welll, there are some diferente ones (at least i was told so)

It is perfect. We in the West/first world get to live in Suburbia or in rural areas and the third world keeps making babies like its the middle ages

i suppose the perfection part was ironical.
In the middle ages people did make some babies, but msot of them would die, western demographic growth just came around the time of the industrial revolution, which means the middle ages have nothign to do with the current population growth anywhere

Personally one child policy is good idea in all western countries... I want three kids when I grow up but its awful for the environment.

you are as scary as genghis is

We could have everybody in a proper political states with governance divisions.

yeah, thats it, put everyone togetehr in a way that their mutual excluding identities are fed so they end up by killing each other

Logistics would be awesome if anything.

you mean about new jersey? i dont know it but i would care all that much. Anyway, really improved logistics would help a lot with your project (but you know thats part of the way which helped the nazis) and if there were no private means of transportation everythign would be much better everywhere, i do agree with that

The Rich People could buy themselves nice estates away from everybody else so that they feel special.

lets add some class disparities to the identitarian struggle, everyone will be happier then

We could simply do this scenario but in seperate pockets across the world.

they are called cities and they already exist

You could just bicycle your way to work

now think about that in a place with the kind of populational density you are asking for

we would have sprawling cities in between the suburban areas.

wait, you believe you could create that and still have suburban areas, thats funny!

Overpopulation is a problem in certain areas. However, it's not the world-wide catastrophe that some people build it up to be.

It's not the number of people in the world that's a problem at the moment, it's the distribution of those people. Currently we have multiple areas that contain large numbers of people that can't be supported by the local environment. Major U.S cities in the dry southwest are a good example. Arid climates aren't made to support millions upon millions of people to begin with, so droughts there are made even worse. Meanwhile, there are vast swathes of un-populated territory across North America that would be much more supportive of larger populations.

Also, not every country is growing quite so well. India's population might be skyrocketing but birth rates in most western countries have started to dive quite starkly. It's gotten to the point that some European countries have almost reached a flatline in their birth rate and are promoting Natalism policies to try and stabilize things.

Somebody is really focused on homosexuality. ;-)

.

Edited 7/17/2015 03:05:31

I hate to break it to you but socialists can already get married.

signed,
"gay married" Atheist lesbo socialist. (I'm the monster under your bed, I suppose)