senate seeking 10 gop votes to secure passage of same sex/interracial marriage protection

[AlexBailey]

There's an interesting additional factoid that almost no one even considers.

Strong Government depends on population expansion. The larger the population, the more powerful government is and its ability to protect that population grows stronger.

Homosexuality defeats the population growth requirement and leads to a weaker government and population.

Add that to a higher social expense (higher DV rates, higher medical care needs, etc) and what you get is an even faster devolution of the government and weakening of the population.

I personally don't care who you choose to have sex with. I do care about overall security for the population and a strong government. An alternative lifestyle has its place in society. What it is not, and never should be, is mainstream because that would harm or eventually destroy the society of which is is part.

That’s an interesting take, Harpy.

So you’re saying homosexuality is bad for society primarily because homosexuals don’t increase the population?

Is constant population growth absolutely necessary?

You also point out the higher incidence of DV in the LGBTQ community, facts say it’s less than 8% higher than the heterosexual population. Do you think it’s more reasonable to want them to not exist than it is to try to address the DV issue?

In your post above, what do you consider to be “strong government”?

 

[HisArpy]

That’s an interesting take, Harpy.

So you’re saying homosexuality is bad for society primarily because homosexuals don’t increase the population?

Is constant population growth absolutely necessary?

You also point out the higher incidence of DV in the LGBTQ community, facts say it’s less than 8% higher than the heterosexual population. Do you think it’s more reasonable to want them to not exist than it is to try to address the DV issue?

In your post above, what do you consider to be “strong government”?

All of this is mental masturbation running in circles trying to figure out how to make what's fact into something it's not.

Face it; bad is bad. It's not the degree of how bad, it's that it's bad. Period.

Homosexual domestic violence rates ARE higher than heterosexual households. FACT, not fiction. It doesn't matter how much higher, only that it's higher. Higher crime/violence rates aren't something to be proud of and the goal shouldn't be to dismiss them as if they aren't a window into that lifestyle and the people involved in it. Alternative lifestyles have higher violence rates because the people who live those lifestyles define themselves by their sexuality and when that sexuality runs into reality those involved tend to engage in violence toward the ones they have sex with.

You can argue the same point in heterosexual relationships with DV problems, and you'd be right, but referencing bad behavior in others doesn't make the behavior under scrutiny any less bad. You can talk about reducing the social stressors to lower the violence rate but that only covers up the problem and tries to shift the burden onto others to accomodate those with violent tendencies by mollifying them in some fashion. What's worse is that eventually society runs out of way to soothe those with this problem and then they lash out again in ways that are larger than familial violence. Can we say mass shooter? Serial murderer? Child abuser? Appeasement doesn't work and it only leads to greater problems down the road. An inconvenient fact not talked about by those who are in the "social re-engineering" business.


Population growth is to be favored over a stagnant or declining population. Why? Because it shows that the policies of that society trend toward stability and an abundance of the things that society requires; food, housing, peace and harmony, etc. A declining population shows that those things are missing or are in short supply.

The reasons why populations grow or decline are based on the policies created by the government/ruling class. Poor policy choices and decisions create less abundance and stability which lead to population declines. Good choices increase opportunities for the social needs of the community and lead directly toward an increasing population. Thus the changes in population numbers are an indicator of whether the government is good for the society, or bad for it.

Homosexuality by itself isn't a "bad thing." However, when society trends toward that to the exclusion of heterosexual procreation, then it becomes an inhibitor to good governance and abundance in society. Socially, homosexuality is a dead end street and no society should make it out to be more than what it is.

The promotion of LBGT lifestyles is a symptom of something larger that points to the fact that the current government/social movement in the US (and other parts of the world) isn't a good thing. In fact, one could theorize that the Democratic agenda in promoting homosexuality over heterosexuality is only one symptom of the larger problem.

Homosexuality, abortion, assisted suicide, drugs, homelessness, crime. All of these by themselves are small bits of the larger picture but it's the picture that's important. Trying to solve the problems inherent in the smaller bits of the individual parts (such as the higher DV rates in LBGT households) doesn't change the overall picture.

The picture we see today is one in which this particular iteration of social ideology can be classed as a culture of death. And that is not good for any society.

 

[AlexBailey]

All of this is mental masturbation running in circles trying to figure out how to make what's fact into something it's not.

Face it; bad is bad. It's not the degree of how bad, it's that it's bad. Period.

Homosexual domestic violence rates ARE higher than heterosexual households. FACT, not fiction. It doesn't matter how much higher, only that it's higher. Higher crime/violence rates aren't something to be proud of and the goal shouldn't be to dismiss them as if they aren't a window into that lifestyle and the people involved in it. Alternative lifestyles have higher violence rates because the people who live those lifestyles define themselves by their sexuality and when that sexuality runs into reality those involved tend to engage in violence toward the ones they have sex with.

You can argue the same point in heterosexual relationships with DV problems, and you'd be right, but referencing bad behavior in others doesn't make the behavior under scrutiny any less bad. You can talk about reducing the social stressors to lower the violence rate but that only covers up the problem and tries to shift the burden onto others to accomodate those with violent tendencies by mollifying them in some fashion. What's worse is that eventually society runs out of way to soothe those with this problem and then they lash out again in ways that are larger than familial violence. Can we say mass shooter? Serial murderer? Child abuser? Appeasement doesn't work and it only leads to greater problems down the road. An inconvenient fact not talked about by those who are in the "social re-engineering" business.


Population growth is to be favored over a stagnant or declining population. Why? Because it shows that the policies of that society trend toward stability and an abundance of the things that society requires; food, housing, peace and harmony, etc. A declining population shows that those things are missing or are in short supply.

The reasons why populations grow or decline are based on the policies created by the government/ruling class. Poor policy choices and decisions create less abundance and stability which lead to population declines. Good choices increase opportunities for the social needs of the community and lead directly toward an increasing population. Thus the changes in population numbers are an indicator of whether the government is good for the society, or bad for it.

Homosexuality by itself isn't a "bad thing." However, when society trends toward that to the exclusion of heterosexual procreation, then it becomes an inhibitor to good governance and abundance in society. Socially, homosexuality is a dead end street and no society should make it out to be more than what it is.

The promotion of LBGT lifestyles is a symptom of something larger that points to the fact that the current government/social movement in the US (and other parts of the world) isn't a good thing. In fact, one could theorize that the Democratic agenda in promoting homosexuality over heterosexuality is only one symptom of the larger problem.

Homosexuality, abortion, assisted suicide, drugs, homelessness, crime. All of these by themselves are small bits of the larger picture but it's the picture that's important. Trying to solve the problems inherent in the smaller bits of the individual parts (such as the higher DV rates in LBGT households) doesn't change the overall picture.

The picture we see today is one in which this particular iteration of social ideology can be classed as a culture of death. And that is not good for any society.

You’ve identified population decline as a problem because it is a symptom of other problems, not because it’s a problem of it’s own. Is there an intrinsic problem to population decline itself or is it just an indicator of some point you want to push?

I don’t buy your premise. You’ve shown no cause and effect, no direct correlation.


Same with homosexuality, you actually say it isn’t “a bad thing” except that it “indicates” worse things - small bits of a larger picture… of what? What is objectively bad? An 8% higher rate of abuse within a population who already have a much higher rate of parental and familial rejection? An 8% variant is not a bellwether when there are so many other influential factors.

You read the tea leaves with your own biases and have not provided an objective argument. You’re showing your own biased agenda, not wisdom or intellect.


(Edited before any response to say “no direct correlation”)

 

[AlexBailey]

Harpy,


If your concern over an 8% higher rate of DV in LGBTQ is so concerning, what do you make of the gender based pay gap in the US being still around 21%?


The difference in life expectancy between CA and WV is greater than 9%. CA has a higher per capita rate of LGBTQ. What do you make of that?


Did you come up with a reason that population growth is necessary or are you only saying it’s good because it typically indicates strength? I think it’s interesting that wildlife management often identifies a need to decrease population to preserve health of a species.

 

[HisArpy]

You’ve identified population decline as a problem because it is a symptom of other problems, not because it’s a problem of it’s own. Is there an intrinsic problem to population decline itself or is it just an indicator of some point you want to push?

I don’t buy your premise. You’ve shown no cause and effect, no direct correlation.


Same with homosexuality, you actually say it isn’t “a bad thing” except that it “indicates” worse things - small bits of a larger picture… of what? What is objectively bad? An 8% higher rate of abuse within a population who already have a much higher rate of parental and familial rejection? An 8% variant is not a bellwether when there are so many other influential factors.

You read the tea leaves with your own biases and have not provided an objective argument. You’re showing your own biased agenda, not wisdom or intellect.


(Edited before any response to say “no direct correlation”)

I get it that you don't want to see the point. That doesn't make the point less valid. Nor do the continued Ad Hom attacks give any credibility to your counter arguments.

Try this: Formulate a response in which you argue the counter premise that population decline is a good thing for the society in decline and its government/national strength benefits from such a declining population.

Then show us an argument on how increased crime and violence benefits society. Or even how that increased crime and violence benefits the segment of society it impacts.

 

[HisArpy]

Harpy,


If your concern over an 8% higher rate of DV in LGBTQ is so concerning, what do you make of the gender based pay gap in the US being still around 21%?


The difference in life expectancy between CA and WV is greater than 9%. CA has a higher per capita rate of LGBTQ. What do you make of that?


Did you come up with a reason that population growth is necessary or are you only saying it’s good because it typically indicates strength? I thatvlught it’s interesting that wildlife management often identifies a need to decrease population to preserve health of a species.

Pay gap isn't violence.

 

[AlexBailey]

I get it that you don't want to see the point. That doesn't make the point less valid. Nor do the continued Ad Hom attacks give any credibility to your counter arguments.

Try this: Formulate a response in which you argue the counter premise that population decline is a good thing for the society in decline and its government/national strength benefits from such a declining population.

Then show us an argument on how increased crime and violence benefits society. Or even how that increased crime and violence benefits the segment of society it impacts.

Show me where I made an ad hom attack in that post.



Homeless and resource scarcity are symptoms of a society that has problems with population growth.

Can you identify a reason that population growth is essential to the health of a society? How does a decreasing population need to be considered a bad thing? - These are questions, not an attack.

 

[HisArpy]

Show me where I made an ad hom attack in that post.

Well, if you insist...

ad ho·mi·nem

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

Proof of concept:

You read the tea leaves with your own biases and have not provided an objective argument. You’re showing your own biased agenda, not wisdom or intellect.

 

[AlexBailey]

Well, if you insist...



Proof of concept:

I provided the reasons for my assessment of your argument in the previous paragraph. Saying you were reading the tea leaves with your own bias was a supported observation. Do you consider that an ad hom attack?

 

[HisArpy]

I provided the reasons for my assessment of your argument in the previous paragraph. Saying you were reading the tea leaves with your own bias was a supported observation. Do you consider that an ad hom attack?

I repeat (with emphasis):

ad ho·mi·nem

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

A statement regarding my "tea leaf reading" isn't about the argument I presented because we're not discussing fortune telling or even my personal habits.

 

[HisArpy]

By the way, where's the counter argument that a declining population is a benefit to the society/government?

Can you address solving the issues of reduced tax revenues from the dwindling taxpayers who still need the same amount of government services (fire/police/hospitals/roads/bridges)? What about reduced food production/distribution as a result of fewer people to do those things?

 

[AlexBailey]

I repeat (with emphasis):



A statement regarding my "tea leaf reading" isn't about the argument I presented because we're not discussing fortune telling or even my personal habits.

Lol. Okay

By the way, where's the counter argument that a declining population is a benefit to the society/government?

Can you address solving the issues of reduced tax revenues from the dwindling taxpayers who still need the same amount of government services (fire/police/hospitals/roads/bridges)?

Your second paragraph finally addresses a problem society has with declining population. Good job. It’s still fallacious to me because it assumes that the current economic model is the only valid possibility. Is that your opinion?

I don’t have an economic model for you, but I’m not alone in thinking that the world population cannot continue to grow at the current rate without creating more friction and problems with resource distribution.

Do you think constant population growth is sustainable for endless generations? If not we’re going to need to figure out a new economic model, no?

 

[jaF0]

Do you think ...

It's a bird brain. It thinks about seed.

 

[Dribble]

stop attributing positions to me i don't own

i'm not in the least surprised; his position was expected, reflecting the kind of backwards, cheese-church thinking of those who elect him.

anger's a waste in this situation; it's a case of getting the facts out there so people can make informed decisions.

Lol...if you think so. Let me enlighten you. Nothing you post on a porn board will ever make a difference in terms of enlightening people. No one here wants to be enlightened. This is the mistake many people make. They think people care. They don't. Watch and learn...you would think things like what the Republicans are doing would make people vote differently. It won't. Republicans here say that isn't how they feel...but they will walk right out and vote a straight Republican ticket without thinking about it. I have watched it both ways...with both parties. After Tuesday, the Republicans will probably control both houses. Know what that means? It means the majority of Americans don't care about women's rights...or gay rights...or hell even Democracy. Acceptance of reality is the key to changing it. Until Republicans are held responsible for their votes...or Democrats...nothing will change. This is why I promote what I do...and why I work within the political system to get heard. It is the only path forward not involving violence. Why Americans choose the paths of violence is beyond me?

 

[jaF0]

^^^

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fee%2Fbc%2Fae%2Feebcaeb54d6e2926350aec6d2870b3fb.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=6a57d53e067cc4628344d45dc4b029027651bbb0cd231a2b2a6e5daaf0096c2d&ipo=images

 

[HisArpy]

Lol. Okay


Your second paragraph finally addresses a problem society has with declining population. Good job. It’s still fallacious to me because it assumes that the current economic model is the only valid possibility. Is that your opinion?

I don’t have an economic model for you, but I’m not alone in thinking that the world population cannot continue to grow at the current rate without creating more friction and problems with resource distribution.

Do you think constant population growth is sustainable for endless generations? If not we’re going to need to figure out a new economic model, no?

The problem with that argument is that it limits itself to an illogical universe.

Fortunately, the universe isn't so lacking as the thinking would have it to be. Population growth will eventually overcrowd this planet, but there are other planets which either are, or which can be made to be in one way or another, habitable for Homo Sapiens.

The drive to get there will happen because of population growth and the social/political pressures it creates. Establishing mankind on other worlds will ensure that if something happens to this one, our species will go on. The resources discovered out there will also help to solve problems here.

Zero population growth, or even a declining population, doesn't solve any problems now or in the future and opens the door for catastrophe.

 

[AlexBailey]

The problem with that argument is that it limits itself to an illogical universe.

Fortunately, the universe isn't so lacking as the thinking would have it to be. Population growth will eventually overcrowd this planet, but there are other planets which either are, or which can be made to be in one way or another, habitable for Homo Sapiens.

The drive to get there will happen because of population growth and the social/political pressures it creates. Establishing mankind on other worlds will ensure that if something happens to this one, our species will go on. The resources discovered out there will also help to solve problems here.

Zero population growth, or even a declining population, doesn't solve any problems now or in the future and opens the door for catastrophe.

Ah yes, the disposable planet theory.

 

[HisArpy]

Ah yes, the disposable planet theory.

As compared to, say, the disposable human being ideology of Democrats?

 

[icanhelp1]

By the way, where's the counter argument that a declining population is a benefit to the society/government?

Can you address solving the issues of reduced tax revenues from the dwindling taxpayers who still need the same amount of government services (fire/police/hospitals/roads/bridges)? What about reduced food production/distribution as a result of fewer people to do those things?

Well, the left is increasing population growth by promoting illegal migration by the millions all the while promoting abortion of our home grown prospects.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, the left is increasing population growth by promoting illegal migration by the millions all the while promoting abortion of our home grown prospects.

That's a population replacement theory, not growth.

But hey, somebody has to pick the fruit and veggies...

 

[icanhelp1]

That's a population replacement theory, not growth.

But hey, somebody has to pick the fruit and veggies...

Where in God's name did you come up with that idea Nancy Pelosi or something LMFAO

 

[AlexBailey]

Where in God's name did you come up with that idea Nancy Pelosi or something LMFAO

“This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.

While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

-Ronald Reagan

 

[icanhelp1]

“This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.

While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

-Ronald Reagan

And he meant legal immigration and secure borders. I'm for legal immigration based on our needs not theirs.

 

[ll74]

And he meant legal immigration and secure borders. I'm for legal immigration based on our needs not theirs.

People immigrate here because of their needs, not ours

 

[icanhelp1]

People immigrate here because of their needs, not ours

We should tend to our needs first. If there is no structure in place for all these illegal migrants they become a liability not an asset. We should accept a controlled number that can be properly assimilated which can benefit both our needs and theirs. That is truly the compassionate way.

When do we establish control over how many enter, 10 million! 50 million! 100 million?