Why Homosexuality Should be Banned

[Baneat]

3: Unnatural: It clearly goes against basic human nature on a Biological and psychological level. Men are meant to be attracted to women in order to propagate the species. Anything that goes against human nature is obviously wrong.

4: Immoral and Hedonistic: The infertile having sex is hedonistic? No, if there're married its not, there's nothing wrong per say with pleasure. Its when a person ignores basic ethics and morality in order to achieve pleasure, thus making pleasure their ultimate goal, that it becomes hedonism. And according to my morality? There's one, objective morality, personal opinions aside. But I don't want to argue about relativism, if that's what you're putting forward, when that's kind of off topic...maybe a different time.

It's natural for us to be wandering around naked, living in our own excrement. Are clothes and waste management terrible, evil things too?
It's also human nature to kill, rape, maim. Should we abolish all the laws condemning these?

Except that gay sex isn't just pleasure. It's about love and affection just as much as straight sex. If gay sex is hedonistic, then all sex is.

And if it is hedonistic, well who the fuck are you anyway? Your objective morality has no reasoning at all behind it. None, it's tautological templar (It's right because it's moral, it's moral because it's right)

Naturality means nothing, but I'll entertain it for the lulz. Humans are natural beings, thus, they can never do anything unnatural.

Explain to me why raping, killing, maiming, wandering in our own excrement and being naked are a part of human nature...and I already qualified why gay sex is hedonistic: it ignores basic ethics and morality in pursuit of pleasure; the same could be said for straight sex outside marriage.

WOAH NELLY basic ethics? I've done far more than my fair share of normative ethical philosophy, and if there was an ethical basis against it, it's most certainly not "basic" or I'd have already observed it.

Your basic ethical (And subjective, don't bullshit me on this) and moral reasoning is? Just expand it, it's easy, apparently, it's basic.

Why it is immoral hinges in a believe in God (no, its not God said so, so therefore we have to do it)...I don't know your religious views and I don't want to assume anything, so you'd have to fill me in before I could give it.

And also, try not to be so aggressive, its a debate; we're both seeking the truth, not violently wrestling for it.

I was making a point, you're no moral authority on anything, it's a giant tautology (Which you've yet to address). Literally, who the fuck are you, not "I want to piss you off"

Don't mix in "God" with "Religion", God's necessary to Religion, Religion's a contingent to a belief in God

<Agnostic atheist if you deem it relevant.

If you base morality off some fuckin book made a long time ago by other people and assert it as truth and word of god (A God who cannot be wrong) - then I can't help you. You're not seeking truth, faith makes truth impossible.

Well, you know what(Oh fuck Godwin, it's an easy example and I can't be bothered)? Mein Kampf. It was all correct, all true, everything in that is the moral objective truth.

Enjoy.

See, now since your an atheist, I have to engage in a whole religious debate...see my earlier post...and faith makes truth impossible? Think about that for 3 seconds, and try to figure out why radical skepticism is completely irrational.

And who the fuck am I? Who the fuck are you?

Noone important. I back out of forcing opinions onto people. I accept that I am not a moral guardian, I do not have an objective answer to morality which is right. I have no moral truth greater than yours by intrinsic factors. In fact, the only thing that can justifiably be forced is that which is forcing morality into people.

Faith makes truth impossible by virtue of its definition.

 

[SarahSyna]

last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

I'm pretty sure considering the majority of humanity is heterosexual and we are currently in an age of population overgrowth, having a population percentage of nearly 8-10% of identifying homosexual individuals not creating babies has a very strong inclination to do fuck all in holding back the majority from propagating the human race, I'm afraid.

If those numbers were reversed, or homosexuality was more about 40+% of the population.. then you might actually have a legitimate argument upon that basis.

Not even that satisfies me. There's no moral obligation to maximise the number of lives (If you're not a utilitarian), hence why we do not force people to fuck *constantly* and make as many babies as possible (A way to achieve nozick's "Repugnant Conclusion").

Just because natural selection made it so that it's purposeful doesn't make it a moral duty.

Plus, I've heard a few arguments that homosexuality exists as a natural (that oh so important word) way of stopping the population from getting out of hand.
Plus, while gay folks may not be able to have kids, but they still have maternal/paternal instincts. There's a load of kids who needs good parents, and it's a damn sight better for them to have gay parents than no parents at all.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

I'm pretty sure considering the majority of humanity is heterosexual and we are currently in an age of population overgrowth, having a population percentage of nearly 8-10% of identifying homosexual individuals not creating babies has a very strong inclination to do fuck all in holding back the majority from propagating the human race, I'm afraid.

If those numbers were reversed, or homosexuality was more about 40+% of the population.. then you might actually have a legitimate argument upon that basis.

Not even that satisfies me. There's no moral obligation to maximise the number of lives (If you're not a utilitarian), hence why we do not force people to fuck *constantly* and make as many babies as possible (A way to achieve nozick's "Repugnant Conclusion").

Just because natural selection made it so that it's purposeful doesn't make it a moral duty.

Oh, I agree. Making babies for the sole sake of making babies is pointless and just crowds up the planet. What I was referring to was closer to possible extinction if those numbers had been reversed and there was absolutely no babies being made whatsoever to enable the human race to survive.

Personally, I just find fucking useful for keeping intimacy and physical pleasure in a relationship. If I have a kid someday, sure, but I'll only fucking deal with one at a time, for sure. Damned money taps, they are..

 

[Raskolnikov34]

3: Unnatural: It clearly goes against basic human nature on a Biological and psychological level. Men are meant to be attracted to women in order to propagate the species. Anything that goes against human nature is obviously wrong.

4: Immoral and Hedonistic: The infertile having sex is hedonistic? No, if there're married its not, there's nothing wrong per say with pleasure. Its when a person ignores basic ethics and morality in order to achieve pleasure, thus making pleasure their ultimate goal, that it becomes hedonism. And according to my morality? There's one, objective morality, personal opinions aside. But I don't want to argue about relativism, if that's what you're putting forward, when that's kind of off topic...maybe a different time.

It's natural for us to be wandering around naked, living in our own excrement. Are clothes and waste management terrible, evil things too?
It's also human nature to kill, rape, maim. Should we abolish all the laws condemning these?

Except that gay sex isn't just pleasure. It's about love and affection just as much as straight sex. If gay sex is hedonistic, then all sex is.

And if it is hedonistic, well who the fuck are you anyway? Your objective morality has no reasoning at all behind it. None, it's tautological templar (It's right because it's moral, it's moral because it's right)

Naturality means nothing, but I'll entertain it for the lulz. Humans are natural beings, thus, they can never do anything unnatural.

Explain to me why raping, killing, maiming, wandering in our own excrement and being naked are a part of human nature...and I already qualified why gay sex is hedonistic: it ignores basic ethics and morality in pursuit of pleasure; the same could be said for straight sex outside marriage.

WOAH NELLY basic ethics? I've done far more than my fair share of normative ethical philosophy, and if there was an ethical basis against it, it's most certainly not "basic" or I'd have already observed it.

Your basic ethical (And subjective, don't bullshit me on this) and moral reasoning is? Just expand it, it's easy, apparently, it's basic.

Why it is immoral hinges in a believe in God (no, its not God said so, so therefore we have to do it)...I don't know your religious views and I don't want to assume anything, so you'd have to fill me in before I could give it.

And also, try not to be so aggressive, its a debate; we're both seeking the truth, not violently wrestling for it.

I was making a point, you're no moral authority on anything, it's a giant tautology (Which you've yet to address). Literally, who the fuck are you, not "I want to piss you off"

Don't mix in "God" with "Religion", God's necessary to Religion, Religion's a contingent to a belief in God

<Agnostic atheist if you deem it relevant.

If you base morality off some fuckin book made a long time ago by other people and assert it as truth and word of god (A God who cannot be wrong) - then I can't help you. You're not seeking truth, faith makes truth impossible.

Well, you know what(Oh fuck Godwin, it's an easy example and I can't be bothered)? Mein Kampf. It was all correct, all true, everything in that is the moral objective truth.

Enjoy.

See, now since your an atheist, I have to engage in a whole religious debate...see my earlier post...and faith makes truth impossible? Think about that for 3 seconds, and try to figure out why radical skepticism is completely irrational.

And who the fuck am I? Who the fuck are you?

Noone important. I back out of forcing opinions onto people. I accept that I am not a moral guardian, I do not have an objective answer to morality which is right. I have no moral truth greater than yours by intrinsic factors.

Faith makes truth impossible by virtue of its definition.

And did I claim to be something more than this? No, I gave my thoughts and was accused of forcing them onto people...

And also, the faith+reason thing is an entirely different path I don't want to go down...try parts of Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" for info on it...


And I'm not taking this argument any farther.

 

[Blair Bennett]

-snip-

I would just like to point out that you basically just said what I would have liked to, but with much more linguistic skill and articulation than I could ever have mustered, and for that I thank you.

 

[cobra_ky]

Why am I anti-gay marriage?

Because its not conductive to a happy, functioning society. It would completely destroy the institution of marriage (something already suffering from the amount of divorces). Gay marriages are almost always unhealthy, they leave the children involved in particular without proper role models, and leads to unhappiness for them later on. And, yes, homosexual is completely unnatural, and is (warning: this may be offensive) frankly immoral, hedonistic behavior. From a biological, ethical, and psychological perspective, it is unnatural behavior that should not accepted by society.


And no, I don't hate or fear homosexuals, I don't support any sort of violence against them. And don't take this as a hate speech, I'm open to debate and seeing your points of view as well.


Here's a website that has some points for and against it (and no, I don't agree with their point about religions): http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm

would you rather children go with out homes and change home every year or so, from what i have seen when that happens more time then not the kid dose not end up right. and it is natural this is a list of mammals alone that show homosexual behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior#Mammals

Okay, can someone explain this to me? Why do gay animals excuse gay humans? Animals are cannibalistic, kill their young, promiscuous, and seek only to fulfill their base appetites...and we should emulate them...? Isn't man distinguished from animals by his freedom to choose the good? Or are we just animals now?

the point is that there's a mountain of evidence that homosexual behavior occurs naturally in other species, so you can't even properly posit the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy>fallacious claim that "Homosexuality is bad because it isn't natural." Find another argument.

oh, last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

this is a very naive view of natural selection. ant and bee colonies survive by producing thousands of sterile individuals which exist solely to protect and raise young which are not their own. Procreation is not the only means of protecting one's genetic legacy.

but hey, if you're not up to arguing this right now, i understand. go sleep it off.

 

[Baneat]

Noone important. I back out of forcing opinions onto people. I accept that I am not a moral guardian, I do not have an objective answer to morality which is right. I have no moral truth greater than yours by intrinsic factors.

Faith makes truth impossible by virtue of its definition.

And did I claim to be something more than this? No, I gave me thoughts and was accused of forcing them onto people...

And also, the faith+reason thing is an entirely different path I don't want to go down...try parts of Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" for info on it...

And I'm not taking this argument any farther.[/quote]

Didn't say you said you were, but needed to iterate that you are not. I've read the Summa Theologica, fact is, by taking faith (unproven belief) - You cannot have truth, simple semantics. By any aspect of knowledge (Tripartite's not perfect but we'll roll) - Sound justification is utterly necessary to knowledge, and since if something is true, and soundly justified (And obviously) believed in then it is known. There's a truth out there, but faith can't get you it because it cannot get around the fact that it no longer becomes faith once you justify it.

F'd the quote thing up.

 

[Ogargd]

I thought you'd be a religious psychopath for a second, then I watched the video and I laughed, he made some good points but unfortunatly there are people who would take him seriously.

 

[mega48man]

last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

I'm pretty sure considering the majority of humanity is heterosexual and we are currently in an age of population overgrowth, having a population percentage of nearly 8-10% of identifying homosexual individuals not creating babies has a very strong inclination to do fuck all in holding back the majority from propagating the human race, I'm afraid.

If those numbers were reversed, or homosexuality was more about 40+% of the population.. then you might actually have a legitimate argument upon that basis.

you had to bring numbers into this.....damn

heterosexuals who don't have babies still fuck, right? however, changes in contemporary society have made it "ok" to not have babies. it's not post WW2 where people were encouraged to have kids, or industrial revolution era america where women were expected to have at least 1 child. this is an america where some people don't want to pay for years of child support or even put up with having kids.

put that wasn't my point. my point was penis+vagina=babies. and square root of babies is ensuring the survival of the human race. that's where i left my statement, you turned it into an argument. i'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying things that make sense. bread+butter=food, right? then penis+vagina=babies

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

Ugh, this debate always puts me in a bad spot.

My religion says it's bad, but I'm stuck wondering, what level "bad" it means? I wouldn't think it's on par with things like murder, but having it on the same level as "talks in the movie theater" doesn't make any sense either. I'm still haven't gotten a clear answer from anybody about what, exactly, is bad about it, but frankly, I'd rather distance myself from the whole affair than start talking about it.

I don't really care who you're getting your jollies with, as long as you leave me out of it.

 

[Raskolnikov34]

Noone important. I back out of forcing opinions onto people. I accept that I am not a moral guardian, I do not have an objective answer to morality which is right. I have no moral truth greater than yours by intrinsic factors.

Faith makes truth impossible by virtue of its definition.

And did I claim to be something more than this? No, I gave me thoughts and was accused of forcing them onto people...

And also, the faith+reason thing is an entirely different path I don't want to go down...try parts of Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" for info on it...

And I'm not taking this argument any farther.

Didn't say you said you were, but needed to iterate that you are not. I've read the Summa Theologica, fact is, by taking faith (unproven belief) - You cannot have truth, simple semantics. By any aspect of knowledge (Tripartite's not perfect but we'll roll) - Sound justification is utterly necessary to knowledge, and since if something is true, and soundly justified (And obviously) believed in then it is known. There's a truth out there, but faith can't get you it because it cannot get around the fact that it no longer becomes faith once you justify it.

F'd the quote thing up.[/quote]


See, this is completely off topic, and I'm working on little sleep right now...so privete message me later and I'll continue the argument.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

he trolling... every thing he said was pure bullshit but funny since he din't seem to mean it and used sarcasm. in fact he kinda mocked the the anti gay rights groups. so it's good trolling

 

[mega48man]

Why am I anti-gay marriage?

Because its not conductive to a happy, functioning society. It would completely destroy the institution of marriage (something already suffering from the amount of divorces). Gay marriages are almost always unhealthy, they leave the children involved in particular without proper role models, and leads to unhappiness for them later on. And, yes, homosexual is completely unnatural, and is (warning: this may be offensive) frankly immoral, hedonistic behavior. From a biological, ethical, and psychological perspective, it is unnatural behavior that should not accepted by society.


And no, I don't hate or fear homosexuals, I don't support any sort of violence against them. And don't take this as a hate speech, I'm open to debate and seeing your points of view as well.


Here's a website that has some points for and against it (and no, I don't agree with their point about religions): http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm

would you rather children go with out homes and change home every year or so, from what i have seen when that happens more time then not the kid dose not end up right. and it is natural this is a list of mammals alone that show homosexual behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior#Mammals

Okay, can someone explain this to me? Why do gay animals excuse gay humans? Animals are cannibalistic, kill their young, promiscuous, and seek only to fulfill their base appetites...and we should emulate them...? Isn't man distinguished from animals by his freedom to choose the good? Or are we just animals now?

the point is that there's a mountain of evidence that homosexual behavior occurs naturally in other species, so you can't even properly posit the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy>fallacious claim that "Homosexuality is bad because it isn't natural." Find another argument.

oh, last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

this is a very naive view of natural selection. ant and bee colonies survive by producing thousands of sterile individuals which exist solely to protect and raise young which are not their own. Procreation is not the only means of protecting one's genetic legacy.

but hey, if you're not up to arguing this right now, i understand. go sleep it off.

ants and bees are still making sure the babies are being made right? we have Child protection services, and that's people protecting kids who aren't theirs, just like the ants and bees. but that's not relevant. what is relevant; penis+vagina=babies. no wait, that's just porn.

 

[Navvan]

As much as I hate to reference wikipedia,it is the easiest way to capture all of the links I would otherwise have to individually post to show that there is plenty of scientific study material to support exclusive same sex pair bonding in animals both in captivity and in the wild. Here goes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I've read some of the Wikipedia page and some of the articles prior to my original post. I would argue that with perhaps the exception of the pole cats (I'm having trouble finding the source material) those are either not wild animals, or its not exclusively homosexual as they form opposite sexed relationships even if the male/female is only tangentially involved. There certainly are cases where long term male relationships are established and even a few were that is the dominant relationship. In fact I believe it famously stated that there isn't a case were some member of a species of dioecious animals don't exhibit homosexual behavior. I have yet to see exclusive homosexual behavior in the wild. The correct labeling would be bisexuality by human measure.

I'm currently trying to find the article about the pole cats, but have yet to find it. It doesn't help that it is in what I believe to be Spanish as well. If you have a copy in English I'd be more than happy to read it.

Note I never stated exclusive homosexual behavior was not present in animals that are not "wild" such as those in captivity or domesticated. The black swans come closest where they simply use the female to obtain eggs. I will concede that I am being very picky with my definition of pure homosexual relationships in the wild as by my standards even some homosexual humans would not be termed homosexual. The difference is I can ask them.

Although this is simply self interest and has little to do with the topic of this thread (as we shouldn't be using the naturalistic fallacy anyway to defend human rights) so I ask you to message me in private if you do have that article or a reply to this posting that is not directly related to this thread topic.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I have yet to see exclusive homosexual behavior in the wild.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens exhibits exclusive homosexual behavior in the wild.

 

[Navvan]

I have yet to see exclusive homosexual behavior in the wild.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens exhibits exclusive homosexual behavior in the wild.

I stand corrected. I rephrase my statement to non-human homosexual behavior.

 

[Saluki_princess]

Awesome video. It's old, but I've never seen it before, so thanks for sharing!

 

[ShadowsofHope]

last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

I'm pretty sure considering the majority of humanity is heterosexual and we are currently in an age of population overgrowth, having a population percentage of nearly 8-10% of identifying homosexual individuals not creating babies has a very strong inclination to do fuck all in holding back the majority from propagating the human race, I'm afraid.

If those numbers were reversed, or homosexuality was more about 40+% of the population.. then you might actually have a legitimate argument upon that basis.

you had to bring numbers into this.....damn

heterosexuals who don't have babies still fuck, right? however, changes in contemporary society have made it "ok" to not have babies. it's not post WW2 where people were encouraged to have kids, or industrial revolution era america where women were expected to have at least 1 child. this is an america where some people don't want to pay for years of child support or even put up with having kids.

put that wasn't my point. my point was penis+vagina=babies. and square root of babies is ensuring the survival of the human race. that's where i left my statement, you turned it into an argument. i'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying things that make sense. bread+butter=food, right? then penis+vagina=babies

I realize that, however just because penis + vagina = babies, and propagating the species = long term survival of the race, doesn't mean that everyone and their mothers will have to create a baby of their own at some point in their lives. We have enough newborns and children in existence all around the world right now to survive several more generations with only half of the total number of heterosexuals in the world right now fucking for the purpose of baby creation, no less (assuming no World War III or a Hitler intent on killing off all the children, that is). We won't find a shortage of children being born from heterosexuals fucking anytime soon, I guarantee it.

As for your statement about the era after World War II, that was for the reasoning that several million human beings had just been snuffed out of existence due to fighting a damned war in which they were killed, and those whom returned were anxious with their long not-seen wives to have sex again and celebrate a return home by bringing into the world a new life when the world itself had just killed off so many. Our most recent modern day society has not had to deal with the amount of human death globally that those living during World War II had, and naturally do not feel as strong of an urge to bring more life into a world that is already struggling to maintain the life it currently supports. Human beings do not fuck to make babies when there is dwindling room and resources for them to come into the world to survive upon as another mouth to feed and a body to clothe, after all. There is survival of the race in terms of population, and there is survival of the race in terms of actually surviving the next few decades of one's life in a more or less healthy manner.

Guess which terms we are living in today?

 

[SarahSyna]

ants and bees are still making sure the babies are being made right? we have Child protection services, and that's people protecting kids who aren't theirs, just like the ants and bees. but that's not relevant. what is relevant; penis+vagina=babies. no wait, that's just porn.

Your logic only works if more gay people = less straight people.
It doesn't work like that.

And no, social services and child protection does not protect children the way a parent does.
And are you really saying that we should just toss all the unwanted children into foster care or some such, instead of letting them be raised by loving, willing parents?

 

[mega48man]

last thing; animals, including humans, are built on the sole instinct to survive and keep our species alive. to do that, we need to fuck and make babies. this usually works best with someone of the opposite sex. however, if 2 dudes fucks, they can't have babies, thus, their basic instinct to further protect the species from extinction that should be there isn't.

I'm pretty sure considering the majority of humanity is heterosexual and we are currently in an age of population overgrowth, having a population percentage of nearly 8-10% of identifying homosexual individuals not creating babies has a very strong inclination to do fuck all in holding back the majority from propagating the human race, I'm afraid.

If those numbers were reversed, or homosexuality was more about 40+% of the population.. then you might actually have a legitimate argument upon that basis.

you had to bring numbers into this.....damn

heterosexuals who don't have babies still fuck, right? however, changes in contemporary society have made it "ok" to not have babies. it's not post WW2 where people were encouraged to have kids, or industrial revolution era america where women were expected to have at least 1 child. this is an america where some people don't want to pay for years of child support or even put up with having kids.

put that wasn't my point. my point was penis+vagina=babies. and square root of babies is ensuring the survival of the human race. that's where i left my statement, you turned it into an argument. i'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying things that make sense. bread+butter=food, right? then penis+vagina=babies

I realize that, however just because penis + vagina = babies, and propagating the species = long term survival of the race, doesn't mean that everyone and their mothers will have to create a baby of their own at some point in their lives. We have enough newborns and children in existence all around the world right now to survive several more generations with only half of the total number of heterosexuals in the world right now fucking for the purpose of baby creation, no less (assuming no World War III or a Hitler intent on killing off all the children, that is). We won't find a shortage of children being born from heterosexuals fucking anytime soon, I guarantee it.

As for your statement about the era after World War II, that was for the reasoning that several million human beings had just been snuffed out of existence due to fighting a damned war in which they were killed, and those whom returned were anxious with their long not-seen wives to have sex again and celebrate a return home by bringing into the world a new life when the world itself had just killed off so many. Our most recent modern day society has not had to deal with the amount of human death globally that those living during World War II had, and naturally do not feel as strong of an urge to bring more life into a world that is already struggling to maintain the life it currently supports. Human beings do not fuck to make babies when there is dwindling room and resources for them to come into the world to survive upon as another mouth to feed and a body to clothe, after all. There is survival of the race in terms of population, and there is survival of the race in terms of actually surviving the next few decades of one's life in a more or less healthy manner.

Guess which terms we are living in today?

holy shit, you're repeating what i'm saying. i'm done.