[AmericanEmpire]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think there is little to no hope of reducing the suffering during the dieoff that is around the corner. I just have hopes that, when we get down to a stable world population, that we can learn to live in balance and harmony with the planet.

[Falconoffury]

I am against nuclear weapons because they cause too much damage to the ecosystem. I would prefer the dieoff to involve standard wars and starvation, dehydration, and disease over nuclear holocaust. Let's at least save some of the natural world for the survivors.

If we can learn to live without expansionist and war values, we can make it easier to just live. I just want to live a full life, even in a low energy lifestyle.

[The_Virginian]

Elroy,

That is poor logic. Drinking alchohol is also an offense, yet many in SA smuggle in the goods and drink it.

Does that mean they do not have a chioce to do so?

Adultry is also punnishible by death in Saudi, yet some will do it anyways... can you assume a person has no chioce because they are willing to risk a final sentance?

Same goes for murder in the USA, consequences be danmed, it's done anyways.

--------

For those who read into what they want form my link above:

It does show homosexual "LIKE" behaviour, but it is not a sexual bonding or coitus... and is up to much interpritation. As Cognitive beings, I suggest animal behavior be studied in context, and not made to fit agendas.

Biologicaly speaking, the only mamilian sexual act that is effective in species projection is Male-Female pairing.

This topic is about REDUCING population, and that is why Homosexuality is a part of that plan. (not MY plan, but it is being played out...)

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'S')ince Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin together organized the socially and politically acceptable killing of 40 million people without history looking too badly at them and since Mao was able to organise the killing of 50 million people and still be revered by his people decades after his death it just may be possible to organize a socially, politically, and history-friendly population reduction program quickly and systematically killing off 4 or 5 billion.

Hey listen, if those four scumbags could do it and still be painted as national hero's a half-century after their slaughters, why couldn't someone else try it again if the reward is to become a national hero? I suppose it all depends on how well the propaganda campaign is organized.

I bet someone will go for it. To be painted forever as a hero like those four skanks managed to do is just too darn tempting.

[eastbay]

Omar,

That's my point. Between the four of them they conspired to whack almost 100 million people and the history books still look kindly on them, for the most part. Mao's picture is still beaming out all over China. When I was in Baku in the '80's I coundn't help but notice how revered Stalin still was. And as for the mass-murderers Churchill and Roosevely, it's a truly amazing PR effort that still paints such beasts as national hero's.

The point is that if these guys could get away with killing off a measly 3% of humanity and still be considered national hero's, then it's not inconceivable that we could have a future coalition of 'national hero's' organize the zapping of 80% of the worlds population and 'save the world' at the same time. Imagine how heroic that could be!!!

Everyone loves a hero.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'T')W,

This will not stand.

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

[The_Virginian]

As I stated, the acts of "higher mamals" (we used to call them MONKEYS) are open to interpretation, what the article does point out is that they so called Homosexual acts are is not A) the Full Sex act B) Loving/bonding Behaviour.

Second, Calling fake "Mountings" Homosexual is very unsupported in fact. Practive w/o actual anal sex is not exactly homosexuality, it is dominance, and a psuedo-sexual activity.

If you wish to prove that an act that has no Biological outcome as "Natural" you must prove that the Monkies do it fully (up to ejaculation within the anus) and said "Higher mamals" even penitrate the anal glands.

None of this was stated in the research you showed me.

Instead, I read about acts that are Psuedo-Sexual in nature. I need BIBLICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY in order to counter the Bible.


If not you are comparing apples to oranges.

Third, CONTINGINCY CANABALISIM is not the same as just going down to McManhattan and having a feast on Humans. Most animals will eat of their own kind to keep from starving...and that some Humans did it for protien on a regular basis DOES NOT mAkE IT CORRECT, or even "Human Nature"

But, on the other hand, you cannot rule out that canabalisim is somewhat ingrained in Human activity....

And thus is a POOR example of what is not natural (for it extends life in order to procreate). Yet Cannabalisim is a PERFECT example of what is wrong with the idea "If it is natural then it's OK".

Unless you advocate cannabalisim? (which I doubt you do, I doubt you would say it's ok for me to eat your offspring, even if they consented!)

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'A')s I stated, the acts of "higher mamals" (we used to call them MONKEYS) are open to interpretation, what the article does point out is that they so called Homosexual acts are is not A) the Full Sex act B) Loving/bonding Behaviour.

Second, Calling fake "Mountings" Homosexual is very unsupported in fact. Practive w/o actual anal sex is not exactly homosexuality, it is dominance, and a psuedo-sexual activity.

If you wish to prove that an act that has no Biological outcome as "Natural" you must prove that the Monkies do it fully (up to ejaculation within the anus) and said "Higher mamals" even penitrate the anal glands.

None of this was stated in the research you showed me.

Instead, I read about acts that are Psuedo-Sexual in nature. I need BIBLICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY in order to counter the Bible.


If not you are comparing apples to oranges.

Third, CONTINGINCY CANABALISIM is not the same as just going down to McManhattan and having a feast on Humans. Most animals will eat of their own kind to keep from starving...and that some Humans did it for protien on a regular basis DOES NOT mAkE IT CORRECT, or even "Human Nature"

But, on the other hand, you cannot rule out that canabalisim is somewhat ingrained in Human activity....

And thus is a POOR example of what is not natural (for it extends life in order to procreate). Yet Cannabalisim is a PERFECT example of what is wrong with the idea "If it is natural then it's OK".

Unless you advocate cannabalisim? (which I doubt you do, I doubt you would say it's ok for me to eat your offspring, even if they consented!)

[Jake_old]

The_Virginian

You can't just make up definitions of homosexuality. It really isn't any more specific than sexual attraction between two people of the same sex. Thats what it means.

I don't know what the biblical definition is, perhaps it was mistranslated when I last saw mention of it there.

I think you obsess too much about one particular sex act that some people (not many) engage in.

What about female homosexuality? Is that not covered in the bible? (serious question, I really don't know)

[Jenab6]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'F')or the rest of you who haven’t had your mind made up by your preacher, here is a link from National Geographic about gay sex in animals. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mal_2.html

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', '
')I've no problem with anybody doing disgusting stuff that's bound to make them sick, provided that...

1. I don't see it, hear about it, or get solicited.
2. I don't encounter evidence of it in public places.
3. I don't have to pay their medical bills in any fashion.

[Jake_old]

I'm kind of with you there doly, but I bowed out 'cause I don't want to offend, however, I do not want leaders choosing methods of depopulation.

IF depopulation IS required I would rather leave it to nature, and I see gay people as natural and a good way to reduce population. Sure would beat starving.

[The_Virginian]

RED Jake,

Your contention that I obseess is a typicaly foolish attack on my manhood.

It is within normal boundries to discuss, define and defend ones position. To have people call one "obsessed" because you speak up is a control method (PROPAGANDA) I will not let you get away with.

[Jake_old]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'R')ED Jake,

Your contention that I obseess is a typicaly foolish attack on my manhood.

It is within normal boundries to discuss, define and defend ones position. To have people call one "obsessed" because you speak up is a control method (PROPAGANDA) I will not let you get away with.