Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2023 23:54:28 GMT
It’s his usual bag of catchphrases. That have yet to sink into your thick skull.  |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Jun 26, 2023 0:01:57 GMT
That have yet to sink into your thick skull. You mad bro! |
|
|
|
Post by 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐈⬛ Molly on Jun 26, 2023 1:59:18 GMT
Lol the illiterate moron can’t even follow a thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:29:22 GMT
You should address your questions to gay married posters on the board who have adopted children. I'm sure we have at least one. JC, the opening opinion about gays was just a phrase which got me thinking. What I really wanted to know was: is our biological programming the reason why care about creating stable societies? |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:30:47 GMT
Having children can cause people to think more about how society can move forward to a better future but there are also childless people who still manage to think that way and at the same time parents who apparently don’t give a flying one about what’s going on around them. To simplify things, it depends on the people. Thank you for actually reading but, you gotta admit, this is not really an answer. Everything depends on the people but what drives the people? |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:33:22 GMT
Let’s say you are a gay person in their 20s. There is a good chance you are going to live another 60 years. You should have an interest in a socially stable future since you will probably live in that future. People in the 20s might not be a good example since young folks tend to go into the opposite direction, but I get what you are saying. So, our interest in creating\preserving a stable society is purely egoistical? |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:34:12 GMT
I'll add that children are not the only means of creating a "socially stable future". Everyone - parents and non-parents - in the U.S. can work for policies and the passage of legislation that influence a "socially stable future". (We could discuss what a "socially stable future" entails for several pages). These are tools. I was asking about what drives humans. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:36:01 GMT
This thread is a discussion about stability of same sex Actually not. It's about factors which drive us to create\preserve a socially stable society. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:41:33 GMT
Logic and Psychology dictates that it would be the exact opposite of that statement, for anyone without children. People with children are either going to be selfish for themselves or selfish for their children. Almost never will the father or mother look out for a "socially stable future for everyone". Their interest is in their children if they are caring, although for most parents I ever knew, the children are for their own convenience, as scapegoats, excuses, insurance for their future. The childless person has no special interest. Even if the childless person seeks to help other kinfolk, the bottom line is that the childless person looks for everyone to eventually marry into the family. The obvious recourse for the "future" is the future of their ancestors, which means the childless person is naturally apt to look at a very long range goal. I've actually seen this play out in reality as well as theory. You personal negative experiences aside, what we actually see in nature is parents trying to make sure their children thrive. Safe place for nest\cave, plentiful feeding\hunting grounds etc - this is an animal analogue of a socially stable society. There is no reason this drive would simply disappear after meager 7000 years of advanced civilization. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 3:44:17 GMT
Our behaviour as a species is largely regulated by what is conditioned onto us. It's a questionable statement. Historically any society whose conditioning overrides biological programming tends not to survive long. |
|
|
|
Post by OfUnknownOrigins on Jun 26, 2023 3:49:08 GMT
Are you unable or unwilling to understand written text? I read perfectly fine. Your premise is that gay people have no drive to procreate, which is false. Again, you are starting with a false premise. You do know the gay slang word for heterosexual couples is “breeders,” right? My gay friends have zero interest in having kids and I don’t blame them. Kids cost a fortune today. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 26, 2023 4:13:03 GMT
I read perfectly fine. Your premise is that gay people have no drive to procreate, which is false. Again, you are starting with a false premise. You do know the gay slang word for heterosexual couples is “breeders,” right? My gay friends have zero interest in having kids and I don’t blame them. Kids cost a fortune today.
But some gays do want children/families. One lesbian friend I have had 1 child and adopted another. ![[shrug]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/GNdzQKpfkkHBBwUPdCiE.gif)
No disputing the cost of kids today, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Jun 26, 2023 4:17:16 GMT
This is becoming a big problem. In the past boy children were needed to supply food for aging parents. Now we need young people to provide taxes for our ageing population. The birth rate isnt sufficient. It’s not sufficient only in comparison to the equilibrium of the elitist status quo. Sure. Logans Run and several other speculative stories had workable solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 26, 2023 4:29:53 GMT
Lots of gay people have biological children and also will adopt, so you’re talking nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 26, 2023 4:32:15 GMT
Gay people often do have relatives with children. You wouldn't accuse a childless uncle or a childness aunt of having no interest in the future of their nephews and nieces, would you? They’re gay men and women who married straight partners in an attempt to live a “normal” and have kids from those marriages. |
|
