The debate "Homosexuality is a way of population control." was started by
an anonymous person on
March 30, 2019, 5:28 am.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 61 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 2 arguments, oklagija posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
AlissiaMathew, heyitsben, Sk, toriboo, elegushi and 17 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, Nemiroff, MADHURA, Tobesssss, shakti, castor, lalala, Soviet_motherland, oklagija, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 51 visitors disagree.
You're implicitly suggesting, by homosexuality being a way to control the population, that it's something that can be promoted. Therefore, it must be a choice, there is no other alternative logical implication. (How the hell can something be promoted if it's involuntary?)
You're simply wrong, read some basic biology. While you're perfectly entiteled to pull out your most sketchy arguments of homosexuality being immoral, wrong or "unnatural", it's not a way of controlling population. That's horseshit.
evidence to the contrary:
existence of homosexuality in nonhuman animals.
existence of homosexuality in history.
now you stated that increasing numbers are coming out as gay, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, it just means they didnt go public due to prejudice and persecution. but before christianity made everything into a sin, homosexuality was prominent in ancient greece and Rome, the birth place of western civilization.
also in vitro fertilization and adoption completely negates the gay effect on population. so we already solved that issue if it is one.
Let's just continue this here.
That would be nice.
would you like me to continue this here or your new thread?
I would say that I don't need evidence to the contrary because it is just a hypothesis, but I will look
Never said nature was a being and I know how it must've sounded. Nature is every being as a whole. Every single living thing on this planet has a way to adapt to certain environments. That being said every living thing on this planet has some sort of population control whether it be food scarcity, sickness, sterilization, etc. It's safe to assume that homosexuality is a natural way for the human race to have a certain population control. We've been steadily balancing at 7-8 billion for quite a long time now. From the past 1-2 centuries our population boomed far beyond the Earth's capacity for us (at least without destroying many, many ecosystems).
It's not fact, I know. It just seems like a good hypothesis for "the gay Gene" and what it's for. Think about it. Let me know if you have evidence to the contrary.
Nature isn't a being and doesn't have a goal. Nature doesn't care about population control because it doesn't care about anything; it just keeps goin'.
Hang on, I have a good idea. I'm going to delete this a reword my statement so people won't get confused.
But nature is losing every one of those battles against us. Nature and humanity have proved to adapt to certain situations. It's not to crazy to assume that homosexuality is a great way to control and quite possibly reduce our population. More and more people are coming out as gay. Since our population is always growing it wouldn't be far fetched to say nature is causing this.
definitely more likely, but nature has far more effective ways for population control, like disease, scarcity, or things eating you.
even more likely is that there is no intent or purpose behind homosexuality. instead it is simply one of the many random things that make reality more diverse and complex.
Oh, nowhere near what I meant. I understand the confusion. I could've worded that infinitely better. It's nature's way of population control. My belief anyways. Seems more likely.
that homosexuality was somehow promoted by someone (or someones) in a position of power for a dedicated purpose, population control.
the idea that someone else, or even yourself, has ability to regulate what turns a person on is ludicrous.
How do you think I meant this?