|
Post by Lux on Jun 26, 2023 6:48:39 GMT
This is a Monday morning don't be annoying, your thread title was a quote about gay people's supposed lack of interest in having children thus a lack of interest in a stable future which someone else had an issue with, whatever questions you added in the thread afterwards is irrelevant. You can't be serious. You see a trigger word and everything else just goes out of the window? Are you drunk? It was Molly that was triggered.
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 6:50:39 GMT
It's a questionable statement. Historically any society whose conditioning overrides biological programming tends not to survive long. The biological programming is not the same for everyone and it is hetero unions that are creating gay humans. Something they go into denial about it they don't turn out "normal" straight. Sexual attraction is hormonal and innate. Humans aren't really surviving into much worth preserving. Of course the programming is not the same. There are variations of behavioral patterns which allow an individual to survive, thrive and pass on their genes. Also there is a not a single case of "gayness". Especially now.
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 6:52:32 GMT
You can't be serious. You see a trigger word and everything else just goes out of the window? Are you drunk? It was Molly that was triggered. In this case i didn't mean "behavioral trigger" but, you know, a word which sets your thoughts on a certain groove. Just try to get past that. This is not about gays. I do regret that I put the word into the thread title though.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 26, 2023 6:54:07 GMT
Lots of gay people have biological children and also will adopt, so you’re talking nonsense. If they have natural biological children, then they are bisexual and that is natural. If they aren't bi and fully gay, they are then undermining their own state of being of what being gay represents. They are then operating from the same self-gratification regarding children that straights do. It doesn’t matter how many kids gays have or don’t have and children are more often an unplanned consequence of recreational sex than family planning. How about the straight people who are not having children? You seem to think “straight” means a desire to have a family. There are millions upon millions of straight parents who neglect their children. This has been the way of world since the Stone Age. They either can’t or won’t give their children a proper quality of life.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 26, 2023 6:59:33 GMT
Are you drunk? It was Molly that was triggered. In this case i didn't mean "behavioral trigger" but, you know, a word which sets your thoughts on a certain groove. Just try to get past that. This is not about gays. I do regret that I put the word into the thread title though. Papa, you're allegedly not a stupid man you should know how to phrase things it is not up to others to figure out what's going on in your head. Next time if you want to ask a question ask a question. The thread is about gay people with a side question, if you want to edit the thread that's your decision that's why you have that option but don't ever reply to a user as if they're crazy because you're stupid.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Jun 26, 2023 7:18:44 GMT
The female gay dynamic is not quite the same as the male one.
I usually hate the 'but not all.......' response or argument.............but every individual can have their own views and opinions.
I do not doubt that some gays do want to have children/family.
I also know for a fact that plenty of heteros should have been prevented from ever breeding.
So it's a mixed bag.
Male sexuality as we know it, be it homo or hetero, operates on a different sphere to that of the female. That is just biology and nature's gender attributes. Men want different things than what women would want from sex.
Breeding is taken for granted. It is not a right, but a given for those that are willing to take upon the ideal responsibility of bringing up children and what they have to offer. Most breeders offer jack squat and are more concerned with image in the eyes of others and self.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Jun 26, 2023 7:19:33 GMT
I don't see it as a stable foundation for a society\collective. Giving birth is egotistical within itself.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 26, 2023 7:22:28 GMT
I don't see it as a stable foundation for a society\collective. Giving birth is egotistical within itself. How?
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Jun 26, 2023 7:23:55 GMT
Giving birth is egotistical within itself. How? It is the notion of self-being. Flesh is ego notion of self and it all depends on the reasons one chooses to breed its spawn.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Jun 26, 2023 7:26:29 GMT
If they have natural biological children, then they are bisexual and that is natural. If they aren't bi and fully gay, they are then undermining their own state of being of what being gay represents. They are then operating from the same self-gratification regarding children that straights do. It doesn’t matter how many kids gays have or don’t have and children are more often an unplanned consequence of recreational sex than family planning. How about the straight people who are not having children? You seem to think “straight” means a desire to have a family. There are millions upon millions of straight parents who neglect their children. This has been the way of world since the Stone Age. They either can’t or won’t give their children a proper quality of life. There are way more straights willing to have kids than those that don't. That is the hetero dynamic. Plenty of women though won't have them because no man would want them.
If they aren't able to afford their brood a proper quality of life, then they can get neutered.
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 7:29:58 GMT
I don't think counting the recent dip in birth rates by legal Americans or the Japanese means that the human population is headed towards 1/4 of it's current figures.
I suppose we shall see
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 26, 2023 7:32:07 GMT
I don't see it as a stable foundation for a society\collective. Giving birth is egotistical within itself. Only, I think, when you try to find reasons for it beyond biology. Following your natural instincts is the very opposite of being egoistical because they exist for the good of the species. Not for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2023 7:33:46 GMT
I don't see it as a stable foundation for a society\collective. Giving birth is egotistical within itself. There does come a point where the woman gets tired of carrying the baby about all the time.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 26, 2023 7:33:47 GMT
The biological programming is not the same for everyone and it is hetero unions that are creating gay humans. Something they go into denial about it they don't turn out "normal" straight. Sexual attraction is hormonal and innate. Humans aren't really surviving into much worth preserving. Of course the programming is not the same. There are variations of behavioral patterns which allow an individual to survive, thrive and pass on their genes. Also there is a not a single case of "gayness". Especially now. You’re full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 26, 2023 7:35:18 GMT
Giving birth is egotistical within itself. There does come a point where the woman gets tired of carrying the baby about all the time. I wonder if stupid babies carry lower than the smarter ones.
|
|