Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:23:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
Poll
Question: Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 71

Author Topic: Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?  (Read 20452 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: June 29, 2011, 09:13:03 AM »

New York's recent legalization of homosexual "marriage" has made me wonder whether or not it will become an important issue in 2012.

I hope it does. The homosexual agenda is just as big a threat to this country as the economy, health care, unemployment, the wars, and the budget deficit. In some ways, it actually is worse because it strikes at our core values.

I will support any candidate who stands up to the homosexual agenda the most. Anyone who doesn't just isn't serious.
Hateful idiot.  Keep living in the middle of nowhere where you belong.  America should only throw your ass out.

Who would want this sort of hateful idiot?

Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: June 29, 2011, 09:15:01 AM »

Mahmoud Amhadjenad could parrot him as an enlightened American.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: June 29, 2011, 09:55:55 AM »

Serious question: This is actually the first time I've ever heard people wring their hands over a decline in U.S. population. How big of a problem would a decline in U.S. population be? Or, even, a decline in world population? How many people are we supposed to cram on this planet?

I'm far from the type to insist that we need to control birth rates or anything like that, but my god, look at this trend:



I've had trouble finding solid estimates of the maximum sustainable human population for Earth. I've seen 40 billion and 150 billion thrown about, but have also seen estimates as low as 1 billion. (One billion, as in, this current rate of growth and even this current level of population is unsustainable long-term.)

I frequently find people talking about a need to curb the world's population or find a better way to manage the boom in areas where starvation is a real issue. But this talk that we have an evolutionary imperative to stuff even more people on this planet of all is fairly new to me (and, at first glance, counter productive).

Is a tiny percentage of the population not crapping out babies like rabbits really that bad a thing? Do conservatives really want to live in hyperdense urban areas out of necessity?
Logged
HST1948
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 577


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: June 29, 2011, 10:00:51 AM »

Serious question: This is actually the first time I've ever heard people wring their hands over a decline in U.S. population. How big of a problem would a decline in U.S. population be? Or, even, a decline in world population? How many people are we supposed to cram on this planet?

I'm far from the type to insist that we need to control birth rates or anything like that, but my god, look at this trend:



I've had trouble finding solid estimates of the maximum sustainable human population for Earth. I've seen 40 billion and 150 billion thrown about, but have also seen estimates as low as 1 billion. (One billion, as in, this current rate of growth and even this current level of population is unsustainable long-term.)

I frequently find people talking about a need to curb the world's population or find a better way to manage the boom in areas where starvation is a real issue. But this talk that we have an evolutionary imperative to stuff even more people on this planet of all is fairly new to me (and, at first glance, counter productive).

Is a tiny percentage of the population not crapping out babies like rabbits really that bad a thing? Do conservatives really want to live in hyperdense urban areas out of necessity?

Most estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth that I have learned in my Human Ecology classes are somewhere between 20 and 30 billion people.  This said, it is hard to estimate because advances in technology can certainly change/increase this number.   
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: June 29, 2011, 10:12:13 AM »

The degree to which these people are reaching is almost amusing... it shows how weak a position they're in...
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: June 29, 2011, 10:19:45 AM »

Serious question: This is actually the first time I've ever heard people wring their hands over a decline in U.S. population. How big of a problem would a decline in U.S. population be? Or, even, a decline in world population? How many people are we supposed to cram on this planet?

I'm far from the type to insist that we need to control birth rates or anything like that, but my god, look at this trend:



I've had trouble finding solid estimates of the maximum sustainable human population for Earth. I've seen 40 billion and 150 billion thrown about, but have also seen estimates as low as 1 billion. (One billion, as in, this current rate of growth and even this current level of population is unsustainable long-term.)

I frequently find people talking about a need to curb the world's population or find a better way to manage the boom in areas where starvation is a real issue. But this talk that we have an evolutionary imperative to stuff even more people on this planet of all is fairly new to me (and, at first glance, counter productive).

Is a tiny percentage of the population not crapping out babies like rabbits really that bad a thing? Do conservatives really want to live in hyperdense urban areas out of necessity?

I certainly believe that Earth can handle many more people than it currently has, and the higher the population growth, the better. I remember reading that Ethiopia alone could feed most of Europe (or half of Africa). So food, if Africa reaches it's potential, shouldn't really be a problem. If the whole renewable movement is lasting and not a fad, it may reduce our consumption even further, combined with New Urbanism and sustainable living patterns, will make populations in the tens of billions feasible.

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: June 29, 2011, 10:46:13 AM »

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: June 29, 2011, 10:53:05 AM »

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: June 29, 2011, 11:02:46 AM »

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!

But then lot's of people could "touch", and in fact surpass, our standard of living. More to the point,  it would be far worse than it currently is.

Not that it isn't the least of their sins in this argument, but people need to stop looking at population and GDP figures as if real life was a game of Civilization and try thinking about it in terms of actual impact on human lives. Angry
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: June 29, 2011, 11:21:26 AM »

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!

All of a sudden, I envisioned this for the MBTA:

Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: June 29, 2011, 11:22:47 AM »

Honestly, I (as someone that's always favored lowering the birth rate lower and lower) simply don't understand population growth advocates making it the case that it's a do or die for civilization.
Logged
izixs
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.31, S: -6.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: June 29, 2011, 12:19:36 PM »

I fear not enough people saw my warning from before.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: June 29, 2011, 12:28:53 PM »

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!

All of a sudden, I envisioned this for the MBTA:



I'd think this:



or this:



Would be more likely. I bet you that if the US did not exist, we'd be saying 150 million people was the limit for a rich country... there is no reason that our standard of living should be lowered if the population rose.  Europe consumes less than we do, and their standard of living is just about equal with ours.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: June 29, 2011, 12:39:00 PM »

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: June 29, 2011, 12:41:08 PM »

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.

They're Chinese. Point is that densely populated countries need not be like India.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: June 29, 2011, 12:52:02 PM »

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.

They're Chinese. Point is that densely populated countries need not be like India.

And, yes, China also has a notoriously small government, too.

The United States is not set up to handle a billion people.  It could be, but it would go against our current cultural and political norms.  We're not a country of cheap labor or great infrastructure investment.  Our economy is actually built on the fact that our natural resources exceed the needs of the population.

A 300 million person nation with our unemployment rate is bad enough.  Multiple those people by three and we'll eat each other.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: June 29, 2011, 02:35:00 PM »

A 300 million person nation with our unemployment rate is bad enough.  Multiple those people by three and we'll eat each other.

I call pbrower.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: June 29, 2011, 04:48:06 PM »

A 300 million person nation with our unemployment rate is bad enough.  Multiple those people by three and we'll eat each other.

Actually, I think we'd be buying American, and making more efficient use of our arable land.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: June 29, 2011, 04:53:09 PM »

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.

They're Chinese. Point is that densely populated countries need not be like India.

And, yes, China also has a notoriously small government, too.

The United States is not set up to handle a billion people.  It could be, but it would go against our current cultural and political norms.  We're not a country of cheap labor or great infrastructure investment.  Our economy is actually built on the fact that our natural resources exceed the needs of the population.

A 300 million person nation with our unemployment rate is bad enough.  Multiple those people by three and we'll eat each other.

I have a nagging feeling that the same was said in 1911.

It was.
Logged
nhmagic
azmagic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,097
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.62, S: 4.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: June 29, 2011, 05:34:19 PM »

I had such a thoughtful post about this topic and my login timed out - grrr.
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: June 30, 2011, 09:35:35 AM »

Declining populations are quite simply never a good thing. I don't think that this country "needs" more people, but it certainly should not be promoting population decline. The Homosexual Agenda means eventual long term destruction, pure and simple, unless we halt and reverse it at some point.

Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: June 30, 2011, 11:23:20 AM »

There is no reason that an increased birth rate would be a positive. Overpopulation makes everyone's life worse. Immigration is an acceptable alternative, as it alleviates the overpopulation of other parts of the world.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: June 30, 2011, 12:04:34 PM »

Part of the problem with having a declining population is the economic effect known from the article that highlighted its occurance in Ireland called "Contraceptives and the Celtic Tiger". Its main point point is that there is an economic effect of what portion of the total population is working-age. As a society becomes industrialized, it first experiences a drop in the mortality rate causing a population boom. Once contraceptives become available (in Ireland's case through legalization) the society experiences a sudden drop in the fertility rate. This creates a "boom" generation, ie. those born after the mortality drop and before the fertility drop. Once this boom generation reaches working age, the fraction of the population that is working age becomes skewed and an economic boom is experienced. In Ireland, this boom occured in the 1990s, aided by very right-wing business policies, and is called the Celtic Tiger.

But, once the boom generation passes working age, (see the US in 20 years), the fraction of the population that is working age is going to drop off significantly since they have had fewer kids to replace them. Now, too few people are contributing to the economy and too many are being supported by others. This could lead to variety of problems and perhaps the legalization of euthenasia. It's not even so much the decline in population but more the sudden drop in fertility rate. If we could take a slower drop it would work better.

Yeah, as probably everyone can see this is a stretch to link to gay marriage but since this thread has deviated from that topic enough, well, what the heck? In this line of thinking, gay marriage is not the single most important event that is a harbinger of the destruction of western civilization, but rather just another brick in the wall.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: June 30, 2011, 12:29:39 PM »

Yep, but a much less important brick than the others.

Besides, it's not like gays marrying creates more gay relationships or sexual practices.  Well, maybe a few, but I can also see a few more extravagant gays giving up homosexuality because "with marriage, being gay is so over".

[/jest]

End of the day, population levels and reproduction rates are really not the province of governments to aggressively control through social engineering.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: June 30, 2011, 12:48:24 PM »

^^

Well, legalization of gay marriage could help in achieving greater acceptance of homosexuality in the end. If it's more accepted by society, then there are more gay people coming out of the closet. Which of course results in a declining number of closeted homosexuals who have wives and children and only engage in occasional sex with male strangers behind their family's backs.

Which probably means that gay marriage could in fact lead to fewer births, but also to fewer HIV infections and fewer divorces. But nothing's perfect.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 15 queries.