Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it.

[MrFun]

Fvck you -- who are you to judge for that person, whether they have lived a complete life or not, based purely on this exclusive determinant if they have reproduced or not???

Talk about NARROW-MINDED.

[Ben Kenobi]

Funny to find myself agreeing with Mr. Fun.

Reproducing or not reproducing has nothing to do with living a complete life. That being said,

Ramo:

1. Importing people is good! It's better for the economy than high birth rates. If a person doesn't have many kids, it's more likely that he has a substantial pension. Furthermore, the kids that he have would likely be more highly educated. The influx of immigrants doesn't at all detract from this phenomena, whereas a high birth rate does.

'K. Why does a high birth rate in a developed country reduce people from being educated? Surely in a developed country they will receive a good education regardless of the size of their family.

2. We have a moral duty to liberate people from these oppressive societies by allowing them into our countries.

No, we do not. They have a moral duty to leave if they feel their society is oppressive. We have no obligation to accept them.

3. High birth rates in third world countries are very, very bad things (since, as I pointed out earlier, resources would be divided up more in families). Clearly they have to learn from us.

Why can't they develop, and keep the high birth rates? Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

[Ramo]

'K. Why does a high birth rate in a developed country reduce people from being educated? Surely in a developed country they will receive a good education regardless of the size of their family.

Certainly not in the US. One of the primary determinants of quality of life is family size (since from a fixed income, it gets divided more with more kids), and working class people with large families tend to be unable to give their kids proper education, health care, etc. It might be less important a factor in Canada and other Western states with more comprehensive social services, but the effect is still ultimately there.

No, we do not. They have a moral duty to leave if they feel their society is oppressive. We have no obligation to accept them.

Yes we do. When we, who proclaim we believe in freedom, prohibit them from entering our states, that is an unacceptably act of hypocrisy.

Why can't they develop, and keep the high birth rates? Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

The high birth rates primarily arise from lack of freedom for women, in particular with regards to contraceptives and abortion, as well as professional opportunities. Development and with it education gives women liberty and therefore less kids to deal with.

Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

Once again, finite resources of a parent would be more divided.

[Ramo]

no, of course they're not. Since they don't hamper a person from having a complete life.

Why does a complete life involve having kids?

They effectively don't. since we can all agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, they rarely will.

They can adopt kids, which I don't see as any less complete than biological kids.

CAN be, under very peculiar sircumstances.

Why must the circumstances be very peculiar?

[Az]

I am glad that Ramo has explained why having too much kids is wrong.

Just as having too much kids is wrong, so is not having those at all.

Why does a complete life involve having kids?

What DOES a complete life involve in your opinion?

consider this: today, we're living in a world that is almost unnaturally unbalanced. These days, modern society can survive by 'importing' people. But what if all of the world modernizes? what then?

They can adopt kids, which I don't see as any less complete than biological kids.

One isn't a hindrance to the other, and I think that this is a great solution for childless couples ( as well as a huge responsibility of the biological parents ). But I find it wierd that people wouldn't like to pass a small legacy of their biological selves as well as their intellectual selves.

Why must the circumstances be very peculiar?

In a society with a time-bomb demographic, for example. It is clear that any person that will be born will contribute to the impoverishing of the entire society, and usually will live a miserable life of poverty.

In countries like Russia, for example, OTOH, society is in a state of decay, esp in the ruralities, since people aren't reproducing, as well as the drain of immigration, taking society's finest away, and turning it into a snowball effect.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Funny to find myself agreeing with Mr. Fun.

It's Apolyton moments like these that cause me to reexamine myself, and ask, "Who the fvck am I?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel

There are heterosexuals and homosexuals that live complete, healthy, stable lives without reproducing -- does this mean that these heterosexuals and homosexuals are defective??

I guess we differ on the definition of complete. a person who hasn't reproduced, certainly didn't live a complete life.

Ah, yes, a life with children is so complete. What after all, can people such as Isaac Newton (a few theories, no children) put on their balance sheet to compensate for their abject failure in the progeny popping stakes?

People like Prince Eugene of Savoy, for instance, can only save Vienna from the Turks and defeat the armies of Louis XIV. Didn’t sire any children though.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Well, a bit of painting and decorating and inventing scissors hardly makes up for not begetting bedwetters and squealers, does it?

Botticelli? A few daubs here and there. No bambinos, though. Hopeless.

Jane Austen? Scribbled a bit, no kids. Nuls points. Tchaikovsky? Wrote a few tunes, neglected to father kids. 0/10 on the Azazel child producing success scale.

The Bronte sisters, all three of them? Well they may be responsible for some of the most popular novels in the English language, but could they crank out brats? Nope.

Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas? Hah. Jean Cocteau? Non, non, non, pas des enfants, terribles ou autrement.

Poor George Orwell- so busy scribbling away at ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’, ‘Down and Out In Paris and London’ and ‘Homage to Catalonia’ (as well as fighting for Republican Spain) that he found time only to adopt a son, rather than than produce one of his own.

Other well-known childless failures: Immanuel Kant, Dorothy Parker, Dolly Parton, Christopher Walken, Andre Gide, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Seuss, Helen Mirren, Maurice Sendak, Nanci Griffith, Albert Einstein, Bonnie Raitt, Greta Garbo, John Waters, Alan Turing, Elizabeth I of England, Rimbaud, David Hockney, Francis Bacon the painter, Francis Bacon the essayist and politician, Pope Gregory the Great, Janis Joplin, George Washington, Leni Riefenstahl, Edith Wharton, Emily Dickinson, George Bernard Shaw, Nikola Tesla, Laurie Anderson and her husband Lou Reed, .........



Pathetic progeny-less losers, all of them.

What have they contributed to the human race, other than inverse square laws, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, calculus, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘Swan Lake’, ‘Jane Eyre’, ‘Les Enfants Terribles’, ‘La Belle et la Bete’, the 1812 Overture, the Sistine Chapel, the Madonna of the Rocks, scissors, the Last Supper, La Primavera, ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, the Cat in the Hat, ‘Three Lives’ and ‘Four Saints in Three Acts’, ‘United States I-IV’ ‘Transformer’, cracking the enigma code and virtually inventing computing science single-handedly, creating the Gregorian calendar, writing ‘Pygmalion’ and ‘Man and Superman’, et cetera, et cetera.

How much more fulfilling their lives would have been (especially the women) if they had instead been cranking out a child every year of their lives.

[Master Zen]

3. High birth rates in third world countries are very, very bad things (since, as I pointed out earlier, resources would be divided up more in families). Clearly they have to learn from us.

How little you know about the third world.

You think these people who have 10-12 children have any other choice? You think they just wake up one day and think, "hey, we're poor, let's start a kid factory"? If a famaily living in misery had one kid, the result would be simple: That family would starve. Children is labor. Labor is money. Money is food. Also consider that the health problems in these countries makes it pretty obvious that a big chunk of all kids procreated will die. It was not uncommon for more than half of all pregnancies to result in a dead child or a child who would die shortly after. Call it risk mitigation, but high-birth rates have a sad but effective logic behind them.

"Clearly they have to learn from us". That's even more idiotic than your views on birth rates.

[Straybow]

Yes, they do basically say, "Hey, let's start a kid factory." Kids do not add to the labor or money of a poor 3rd world family, they provide the parents with many potential sources of support in their old age.

It is also a usually cultural rejection of birth control, for any of a number of reasons.

Decreasing family size is usually a result of the increasing investment required in developed countries to raise those children. In the US the average cost of raising a child is something like $250k. That might not include college!

In the US it is possible to raise kids far more cheaply, but in this culture we want to spend on "unnecessary" things that we think are important for our childrens' development.

[Straybow]

Very eloquent molly b, but irrelevant. Being incomplete is not equivalent to being worthless. Parenthood is part of the "complete" human experience, without which there would be no human experience.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ben -

Romans 1:26-7

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

Ben, because of what? Isn't it a bit strange for God to condemn behaviors he intentionally "gave them over to"?

Because they rejected God he "gave them over" (as in, no longer protected them from the consequences of sin in the ranks) to whatever they chose instead of God.

Originally posted by Ned
I expect that proof that being gay is genetic will cause a revolution in religious doctrine and a significant increase in both legal and de facto acceptance of gays.

That might depend on whether the genetic aspects are defective mutation or unusual variations in combination.

Originally posted by Mr. Fun

Homosexuality is NOT a defect!

You say that because you do not want to consider yourself defective. Yet, what if it could be proven that genetic defects are influential to homosexuality… how then would you argue that homosexuality itself is not defective?

Discuss

[Ramo]

How little you know about the third world.

Uh huh.

You think these people who have 10-12 children have any other choice? You think they just wake up one day and think, "hey, we're poor, let's start a kid factory"?

In most cases, it has to do with lack of freedom for women. Both of my parents have 10 siblings eacg, and they were both in middle class families (no danger of starving) in Bangladesh.

If a famaily living in misery had one kid, the result would be simple: That family would starve. Children is labor. Labor is money. Money is food.

And more children means more food used up. There are obviously other dynamics involved, since teenage children in some third world countries tend to bring in more than they consume, and are able to provide support to the elderly. But more often than not, this is mitigated by many years of total dependency.

And I didn't say that one kid is optimal. But neither is 12 kids.

Also consider that the health problems in these countries makes it pretty obvious that a big chunk of all kids procreated will die.

Not over 50%.

It was not uncommon for more than half of all pregnancies to result in a dead child or a child who would die shortly after. Call it risk mitigation, but high-birth rates have a sad but effective logic behind them.

I call bull**** on that. No country has an infant mortality over 50%. The maximum in the world is around 15 or 20% last time I checked, and only a handful of places are that bad. This isn't the 16th century.

"Clearly they have to learn from us". That's even more idiotic than your views on birth rates.

The only thing that's idiotic is your self-reighteousness.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ramo

In most cases, it has to do with lack of freedom for women. Both of my parents have 10 siblings eacg, and they were both in middle class families (no danger of starving) in Bangladesh.

I do not deny that cultural factors play a role here, but you cannot deny that there weren't any economic incentives to have a familiy of that size. One of my grandmothers had 9 kids of which 5 died either during birth or shortly after. This coming from an urban working-class (i.e. borderline poor) household.

And more children means more food used up. There are obviously other dynamics involved, since teenage children in some third world countries tend to bring in more than they consume, and are able to provide support to the elderly. But more often than not, this is mitigated by many years of total dependency.

And I didn't say that one kid is optimal. But neither is 12 kids.

Neither is 12 because there is a degree of uncertainty attached to the number of kids. When a child is born, what is the assurance that he will live old enough to be economically viable and to support his parents? There are three main reasons for this:

1) Support the family in old age due to lack of pensions
2) Assurance that at least some of them will reach adulthood
3) Labor, especially farm labor where more hands are better than a few.

That being said, the risk attached to a high infant mortality rate makes an "optimal" number of children impossible to determine beforehand. Perhaps the optimal number is 4 yet half might die before being adults, hence 8 children are born.

Not over 50%.

I call bull**** on that. No country has an infant mortality over 50%. The maximum in the world is around 15 or 20% last time I checked, and only a handful of places are that bad. This isn't the 16th century.

Oh no? The child mortality rate (under 5) in many african countries is around 250 per 1,000 live births. That does not include those who die during birth. And that is, obviously averaged, much different among the lower parts of the income inequality chain. You can bet that the lower 10-20% on the income scale in these countries has a much higher than 250 x 1,000 death rate. And furthermore this does not take into account death rates after 5 years. There is absolutley no guarantee that these people will survive up to adulthood under the constant threat of infectious diseases, political violence, crime and malnutrion.

The only thing that's idiotic is your self-reighteousness.

well, next time at least get your facts straight

[Az]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Ah, yes, a life with children is so complete. What after all, can people such as Isaac Newton (a few theories, no children) put on their balance sheet to compensate for their abject failure in the progeny popping stakes?

People like Prince Eugene of Savoy, for instance, can only save Vienna from the Turks and defeat the armies of Louis XIV. Didn’t sire any children though.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Well, a bit of painting and decorating and inventing scissors hardly makes up for not begetting bedwetters and squealers, does it?

Botticelli? A few daubs here and there. No bambinos, though. Hopeless.

Jane Austen? Scribbled a bit, no kids. Nuls points. Tchaikovsky? Wrote a few tunes, neglected to father kids. 0/10 on the Azazel child producing success scale.

The Bronte sisters, all three of them? Well they may be responsible for some of the most popular novels in the English language, but could they crank out brats? Nope.

Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas? Hah. Jean Cocteau? Non, non, non, pas des enfants, terribles ou autrement.

Poor George Orwell- so busy scribbling away at ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’, ‘Down and Out In Paris and London’ and ‘Homage to Catalonia’ (as well as fighting for Republican Spain) that he found time only to adopt a son, rather than than produce one of his own.

Other well-known childless failures: Immanuel Kant, Dorothy Parker, Dolly Parton, Christopher Walken, Andre Gide, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Seuss, Helen Mirren, Maurice Sendak, Nanci Griffith, Albert Einstein, Bonnie Raitt, Greta Garbo, John Waters, Alan Turing, Elizabeth I of England, Rimbaud, David Hockney, Francis Bacon the painter, Francis Bacon the essayist and politician, Pope Gregory the Great, Janis Joplin, George Washington, Leni Riefenstahl, Edith Wharton, Emily Dickinson, George Bernard Shaw, Nikola Tesla, Laurie Anderson and her husband Lou Reed, .........



Pathetic progeny-less losers, all of them.

What have they contributed to the human race, other than inverse square laws, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, calculus, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘Swan Lake’, ‘Jane Eyre’, ‘Les Enfants Terribles’, ‘La Belle et la Bete’, the 1812 Overture, the Sistine Chapel, the Madonna of the Rocks, scissors, the Last Supper, La Primavera, ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, the Cat in the Hat, ‘Three Lives’ and ‘Four Saints in Three Acts’, ‘United States I-IV’ ‘Transformer’, cracking the enigma code and virtually inventing computing science single-handedly, creating the Gregorian calendar, writing ‘Pygmalion’ and ‘Man and Superman’, et cetera, et cetera.

How much more fulfilling their lives would have been (especially the women) if they had instead been cranking out a child every year of their lives.

Did I say their lives were meaningless? did I say that their lives had no value?

didn't think so. stop humping that strawman.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel




Did I say their lives were meaningless? did I say that their lives had no value?

didn't think so. stop humping that strawman.

I think his point was simply that the definition of "complete" is in the eyes of the beholder and that many of these people have contributed more to the advancement of the human race than people who have simply procreated.

[Az]

DUH! I also believe that! But:

a) Having kids is a whole aspect of life. An aspect of life that these people didn't enjoy, as well as didn't contribute their share in.
b) While these great people had, there is also an enormous number of regular people, that could have kids, but don't, not because they're busy developing the cure for cancer, or fusion power, but because they can't be arsed to. and That's wrong.