Christians, gays and bullying

@"Intelligent" being: The Catholic Church also burned witches during the Inquisition, granted indulgences (look it up), orchestrated the murder of the Cathars, was the fuel behind brutal and bloody conquest in Europe and colonized regions... Do you really want to go there? That "Church" has done a lot more than molest boys (that alone should be enough for people not to see them as a divine authority).
Also, most child molestation is done by hetero men to little girls--given your logic are you now going to claim that all hetero men are a danger to girls? Or is it just bad when gays do it?

what the 'catholic church' pales in comparism to what the europeans / americans did to African slaves, whats the point of your reference? Meanwhile have you considered that pedophiles were created that way as well and by Christina0216's argument, probably should have same right as everyone.

Yes but compare that to thje 500 million or more deaths caused directly by politicians..
I dont know where you get your facts, but the gay priests only molested boys. And its not only priests we have continuos cases of "boys" molested by sport teachers, other teachers and all types of gays. To point at the church when its a problem of the gays its hipocritical and ver biased.

Of coourse I agree that homosexual priests are a danger to boys, but if you look at the news you´ll find the same situation with school and sports teachers and trainers. THe thing they have in common with those priests is being homosexual...

Your argument is easy to disqualify that I wasn't even taking it seriously, if you didn't notice.
You speak as if all cases of rape, sexual harassment and child abuse were against boys. Boys don't make up for not even 5% of sexual attack cases. The vast majority of sexual attacks are against WOMEN, perpetrated by HETEROSEXUAL men, including many cases of child abuse against GIRLS, probably much more than against boys. So if we would follow your rationale of making a judgement on a determined group of people based on some cases, all men are dangerous, all men are sexual predators.
If you think that homosexual men are dangerous to boys because some cases of rape and abuses against boys, then I guess I'm right to say that heterosexual men are dangerous to women and young girls because of the COUNTLESS cases of rape and abuses, right?
One argument worse than the other...

And maybe those priests just did that to boys because they were more accessible, like in prison where inmates rape each other ( regardless of being gay) maybe they would love to do the same to girls, but sport coaches and preachers don't have easy access to girls, plus parents and people around you tend to be more careful about sexual abuse against daughters while being more low-guard and relaxed about boys. Maybe to those priests and coach Sandusky, boys were the next best thing, because for what I know, Sandusky was married.

Thank you for been so condescending, it is true your "gurus" are always right and us the minority always wrong( it sounds to me like a typical case of proletarian thought).
COUNTLESS cases of rape????Where?How Many?
Its all "bullshit", there obviously are cases of rape, assasinations, theft etc. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about something which also has to be accepted in our society, that is the danger of abuse not only to girls but also to boys, and in both cases homosexuals are also involved.

I was not talking about Sandursky, but about thousands of Sandusky's. The only prison mates that rape are homosexuals.

Do I need to prove that heterosexual rape are countless? In what planet do you live? Just check any statistic, in the US and the whole world, heterosexual rape is so common it's not even big news, how many sexual harassment lawsuits against straight men are there? I don't see any logic in what you say, and you have the courage to call yourself "intelligent being". To say that only gay men rape and sexually abuse is the only BS here, haven't you ever hear of a woman who was raped? A girl who was abused? Girls who were trafficked for sexual purposes? Are the gay men who abuse and rape them, too?
Answer my question, if you use some cases to label gay men as dangerous to boys, why can't I say that straight men are dangerous to women and girls, based on numerous cases?
Check the Internet, "intelligent being" ( overly sarcastic mode on) : " surveys have shown that one fifth to one third of all women reported some sort of childhood sexual experience with a male adult" (Hermann- Harvard Univ. Press); " 191,670 rape cases in 2005, 91% of rape victims are female" ( US department of Justice)
Who say the only inmates who rape are homosexuals, have you been there? "In US male prisons, rapist generally identify themselves as heterosexuals and confine themselves to non-receptive sexual acts" (Male rape in US prisons- Human rights watch).

How do you know those priests were homosexuals? Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things. One describes people who are attracted to and fall in love with people of the same gender, the other describes people who have a mental disorder that causes them to be attracted to prepubescent children (gender isn't the important thing, age and sexual maturity are). By the way, pedophiles as a group are measurably less intelligent than the population as a whole (their brains are both different and defective) while gays are just as smart as the the rest of the population.

Yes, there are quite a few homosexual priests due in part to the celibate lifestyle, but conflating homosexuality and pedophilia is just gross ignorance.

In the main you are right (I believe)in that homosexuality does not begit pedophelia but a couple things are undeniable.

The incidence of adult male to boy sexual assualt as opposed to the only other permutation of pedephelia is just so much higher. Also, it has to be noted the stereotype of gay men favoring younger (sometimes much younger) men is not a stereotype- in my experience.

I think both of your "couple things" are correllation without causation.

The pedophelia of men with boys is mostly due to convenience I would think - it's a lot easier and more socially acceptable for grown men to be around young boys (sports coaches, priests, camp/scout counselors, etc) than around young girls.

Secondly, men in general prefer younger partners. In fact, it is historically quite normal for older men to marry younger women.

That statement is just exceptionally stupid. Plenty of heterosexual men rape other men--rape is a tool used by men in war and in gangs to dominate other men. Hetero men in Libya raped dead mens' bodies. Hetero men all over the Middle East and parts of India regularly use boys for pleasure and marry girls under the age of 13. You really need to read up on the subject as it is pretty well documented: even though there is homosexual behavior involved, the male perpetrators DO NOT consider themselves to be gay.

Rape is WRONG whether it is done by homosexual or heterosexual men or women, and whether men or women are the victims. It can happen to anyone--gay or straight, man or woman. The majority of the cases are perpetrated, however, by hetero men against women and girls. It's a fact. And the criminals raping men and boys do not even consider themselves to be gay in most cases.

We have had this argument a few pages back,

It seems to have been started by male homosexuality. It isn't natural, as we see in the fact that they way it is prevented is by condoms. Male homosexual sex needs a protection. And then, thanks to bisexuality and polygamy there is a great spread of it. HMMM looks like nature/biology has something to say about this---namely that male homosexuality is unhealthy and creates disease.

Look at the initial cause---don't be short sighted. As I pointed out, the Red Cross seems to agree with me with the sex with men who have had sex with men questions.

Well, you didn't explain why in progressive countries with lots of gay people like Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, etc have negligible AIDS prevalence.
"It seems", very good, proves that you're not sure. I heard one theory that a Western researcher working in Africa got it from a prostitute and then brought to the US, but still there's no PROOF.
The examples of southern Africa and northern Europe shows that it's not male homosexuality, but carelessness, lack of information and education, lack of access to protection and promiscuity that leads to a high rate of infection.
Yes, the rate of AIDS among American gay men is high, but the point I'm making is that this happens not simply because they're gay, it's not an automatic "punishment, it's because of the lifestyle and the lack of information among some. If a straight leads an unprotected, promiscuous life, he or she will get it too.
The Red Cross double-screen all the blood it receives REGARDLESS of sexual orientation, the question is for further statistical research, to check occurrence of AIDS among groups and if there are changes. It asks about occupation, age, sex, education, etc. Did you think it was to "watch out" for gay blood? Well, then what in your imagination they do with it? They separate and screen it twice? Well, I think that considering the absolute numbers of each group, there is more probability of receiving infected blood from straight people, because the OUT and proud ( who would state their sexuality anytime anywhere) gay population is very small, plus anyone can lie about their sexuality.
Questionnaire is not an efficient way to keep safety, all blood is screened the same way ( carefully) and the questionnaire is for statistical research purposes, I can tell that, statistical research is my job, and I was an intern at the UN. That's why I get so pissed with prejudice, the prejudiced has so much disdain and arrogance that he or she doesn't even take time to check the numbers, compare results, check international data and compare, they base themselves in what they heard, in what "it seems", in their own imagination of how things are, and then stuff their chests to spill their misinformed prejudice.

I said seems because I don't remember what I read in documents on medical research for doctors---I hang out with them, that is what I do--- I don't have access to the document right now as it was internal to the job, but it just had data. You are right, it might be lazy not to research the numbers and data right now. But if you want to, you may.

And I agree with you, it hasn't been proven, but most things haven't been. With most things in life, you are not going to know with solid proof, but you can gather information and come to some pretty likely results. You seem to be the one that wants to avoid the data.
I agree that there could be other factors--I am a scientist, I like to approach things in the scientific method---question, hypothesis, experiment, analysis of data, conclusion. But I definitely thing that there is too much evidence to think that male homosexuality does not greatly increase HIV/AIDS.

Your theory about the prostitute from Africa sounds far fetched to me. Where is your proof or evidence? I guess it could be possible, but right now it certainly doesn't seem likely---it sounds like a legend or story.

I never said that HIV/AIDS was a punishment---I said that it is a highly likely consequence from male homosexual sex without condoms. Then I also said that it is spread by bisexual and polygamous lifestyles. That at least seems to be the most scientific theory. From what I read in your posts, you too agree with my evidence, but you don't want to draw the conclusion.

No, obviously I do not think that the Red Cross is anti gay. It is interested in healthy blood, nothing else. So, I only pointed to that to illustrate that in the medical world, even though it is focused on as little as possible, when it comes to health, the medical world does not take the blood from people who have had sex with men who have had sex with men. And I do not think that the Red Cross is being political or judgmental. It just has decided that such blood isn't worth taking because so frequently it is diseased. I was using that as illustration, not as an argument. I think I said that before, but maybe I wasn't clear.

From what I understood every time I was questioned, answering yes to any of those questions disqualifies you from being eligible to give blood. No, I don't think it is ONLY to watch out for gay blood. But that is one of the eliminating criteria. Just like living overseas for over 5 years. Collecting the blood isn't worth it since so many pints would be useless. It is about not wasting the time on likely useless blood. It is a money thing.

"I agree that there could be other factors--I am a scientist, I like to approach things in the scientific method---question, hypothesis, experiment, analysis of data, conclusion. But I definitely thing that there is too much evidence to think that male homosexuality does not greatly increase HIV/AIDS."

it's the first time you spoke as a "scientist", now let me break it to you " scientist", homosexuality is NOT directly related to AIDS increase. I gave you two good examples that disqualify this claim: southern Africa and northern Europe. High AIDS prevalence results from ( here I go again...) carelessness, lack of information, education and protection, and promiscuity, as a scientist you should be the first to claim this, because all of the real medical scientists I know claim the same, it's a non-issue.
The high prevalence of AIDS among gay men in the US, results from the factors I wrote above. Gay men in East Asia don't have AIDS, and believe they do exist, Gay men in northern Europe don't have AIDS.
Congratulations! You are the first "scientist", who would jump in the defense of a prejudiced statement like the one from the first post, the first one who would speak about the causes of AIDS without mentioning the key words of "education" and "prevention", you must be some "scientist".
About the prostitute thing I SAID I had no proof, I was trying to state that there are many unproven theories, including one that says that it was heterosexual Haitians who brought AIDS to the US, we DON'T know, so let's stop making judgements.

somehow this comment has now been removed from viewing.
Why?

I did not mean to imply it was a penalty ONLY for one group.
A lot of people get a lot of nasty bacteria and viruses by having sex outside of marriage.
But to those who say it is not a penalty, what do you think it is, a bonus?
Some people are so patriotic to their cause that they ignore the obvious.

Thank you.

Interesting, do you have any data to support that supposition?

Data? I think it's just standard definitions.

pe·do·phile   [pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

Notice the adjective "young".

Now being attracted to a fully developed 16 y/o is in no shape pedophilia. Biologically she is a woman. Only because of statue is she considered otherwise. Imagine if a law was passed that made the age of consent 25. Would being attracted to a 24 y/o then be pedophilia? No. It has to be biological difference of non-puberty not a legal definition of adult.

You are of course a very sick man. A 16yr old child is not fully developed woman- in any sense!

Your grandfather and great grandfather and great-great grandfather s most likely disagree. So shut your ignorant mouth up.

I'm surprised at the lack of sophistication in your reply.

First, at issue to Savage is the Bible's condemnation of his chosen lifestyle. We must, therefore, use the Bible's definitions. Your BASIC research did not, apparently, include a Bible, the text in question. Your appeal to"basic" research is the equivalent of saying, "other anti-Bible sources clearly say that pedophiles are different than gay people." The Bible, is the text in question. It makes no such distinction, sex with a person of the same sex, that's it. Age is irrelevant for spiritual purposes if not for legal ones.

Second, You are assuring me about people you have never met. You are judging people you have never met. Making "absolute" statements about people you have only heard about from other people who hate them. Church goers are there to fix themselves. I attend a Southern Baptist church in South Alabama. We help our neighbors. All of them.

Third, my central point is just that children are born with a variety of inclinations (nature) and are impressionable (nurture). That is pure Evolutionary Science (Read "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright). Parents are, as a matter of BASIC Biology, dependent on their offspring for genetic fitness. Consequently, the parents who love and nurture said children are hoping for grandchildren that they can love and nurture. The malleability of personality makes avoidance of homosexual influence genetically advantageous. That's not our absolute it is science's.

Everyone who loves their children is, at least, hoping to also be able to love some grandchildren. Homosexual activists just pick on Christians because everyone else does. They deal in hate against a group that cannot easily rebut claims made on television, university campuses and in print media. Wars are just no fun against a poorly defined enemy.

Homosexuality from a Christian's worldview is no worse than myriad other obstacles to spiritual development. I don't at all doubt that those cookies are good. If they tasted bad, they wouldn't be in the least bit dangerous. Homosexuality, like many other choices (you can say it's not a choice, but I can be gay tomorrow if I decide to be) extrapolated into eternity take one further from God. It becomes central to your definition of self, like money to the greedy. Christians should be unable to describe ourselves without some mention of Jesus.

1modaddy's mindless commentary is purposefully provocative and oriented towards making a name for himself. However, nothing that he represents as learned erudition is in any way based in anything but his own fantasies. Two ready examples:

"People in all cultures and in all time periods have been at least mildly antigay to protect their genetic legacies." Such a sweeping assertion is surely groundless. Proving it would require perfect knowledge of all societies that have ever existed, a sheer impossibility; while proving the opposite is easily done: Ancient Greece and Rome showed no evidence of any "anti-gay" tendencies, precisely because, while same-sex relations were everyday, the concept of "sexual orientation" and "homosexuality", per se, had not yet been invented and would not be invented for some 19 centuries. It is, in fact, only since the 20th century that "anti-gay" fervor has come to its apogee.

As for a populace's "anti-gay" tendencies having anything to do with protecting its genetic legacy, it is in fact its genetic legacy which leads to anyone being gay/bi/straight, in the first place. The mistake that 1mo makes is thinking that being gay is some kind of genetic disease. In fact, the well-reported observation of homosexual conduct and stable homosexual pairings amongst 1,500 species of animals as diverse as reptiles, birds and mammals (especially, all the primates) proves conclusively two things: That homosexuality is an entirely normal part of the spectrum of sexual responsiveness and has been for over 320 million years, since these species last had a common ancestor. Further, that the very spectral nature of sexual responsiveness is ESSENTIAL to the survival of any highly social species, such as our own.

1mo would suggest that humanity find a "cure" for what he regards as a "genetic mistake", lest the populace succumb to this "disease". In his fantasizing on this, he ignores the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence to the effect that homosexuality is no disease, at all, but a completely normal part of the human experience and essential to the survival of our species. That he doesn't see this at all merely shows how very uneducated and limited is his vision, if not worse.

My thoughts exactly. I thought people who read the Economist would be more educated and informed. I'm rather disappointed, sometimes I find absurds. The Internet is very democratic, some people here would never be discussing in a same room in real life, due to class, educational and geographical differences.

My thoughts exactly. I thought people who read the Economist would be more educated and informed. I'm rather disappointed, sometimes I find absurds. The Internet is very democratic, some people here would never be discussing in a same room in real life, due to class, educational and geographical differences.

"Socially, not all gay people are pedophiles, but all pedophiles are gay.".

Where did you get that funny idea?

Homosexuality cannot be a genetic dead end - it must serve a purpose, else the theory of natural selection would suppose the gay gene would have died out. If it continues down the ages, then it has some biological, selective purpose. I would say it is likely to continue as we are not naturally 100% gay or 100% straight, but somewhere on a scale between. The gay and straight labels are socially constructed, and if you look at the genetics of homosexuality it can only support that further.

To your original post:

"People in all cultures and in all time periods have been at least mildly antigay". How about ancient Greece?

Homophobia is a social choice by a society, because culture is not some immovable force. If enough individuals decide that homophobia is wrong, then regardless of culture, the society will not be homophobic, or at least have that opinion be mainstream. Of course, culture affects the number of people who so choose, but it's not impossible for people in an anti-gay culture to be accepting of gays.

And like several of the commenters above, I take issue with your point that "all pedophiles are gay." First, you rebut Josh2082's comment by saying that the Bible defines it such. Your original statement was not referring to what the Bible says, but rather an assertion that what you said is true. Second, your argument seems to be that historically and socially, people would rather condemn innocent, gay non-pedophiles along with gay pedophiles to protect their children; nuking Pakistan to get Bin Laden, in a sense.

To your second post:

How many of the neighbours that you and your fellow churchgoers help are openly gay? I am not intentionally sarcastic, but it does seem that your description of Southern Baptism is rather unique.

In regards to your point about religion opposing homosexuality because it goes against the evolutionary urge to continue one's genetic lineage (correct me if I misinterpreted): I would think that this seems to contradicts your point rather than supporting it. If religious opposition to homosexuality is evolutionary and thus instinctual in ultimate origin, then that's another reason to not follow the religious viewpoint, because there are also evolutionary instincts which society today does not allow, including male polygamy, the instinct to eat as much fat and salt as possible, etc.

I suppose homosexuality is just another of the acts which religion condemns, when you put it that way, but that seems to me to show the narrow-mindedness and obsolescence of religion rather than showing that religious opposition to homosexuality is not different from its opposition to contraception.

I know that you exist in a world that is "for men only" but I will still educate you:

You said "Homosexuality increases one's likelihood that he will contract the big disease with the little name."

Wrong. Lesbians (who are gay women, FYI) are much LESS likely to get STDs because men are the STD disease vectors. If you need help understanding that, please look in a basic anatomy book and check out the STD stats for lesbians. Sorry to assail your "hetero man as center of universe worldview."

You wrote "In 41 years of Christianity I have never heard a sermon that had outrage as a goal. Peace is always the goal."

You must be hard of hearing. There is plenty of cruelty and rage in Christian speech. Just listen to Fred Phelps! Christians have a VERY specific worldview. When people don't fit into it very carefully, it is time to bring out the hardcore Christian "love." In history this Christian "love" was usually war.

Sorry. I misunderstood the word pedophile. Thought it gave special emphasis to men with boys.

Lesbians cannot be "he's" by definition.

You cite some obscure "Christian" no one has ever heard of as an example of Christian hatred. Savage is given a national audience for his vitriol by every major source of information flow. He lures the sweetest, most giving, gentle people in society (young Christians) to a lecture on journalism and then bullies them from the stage.

Nope, the hatred comes from your side only. Your language is hateful. Your rhetoric is hateful. The homosexual in question (Savage) is hateful. Christians don't fault homosexuals. It is simply the position of scripture that homosexual behavior creates an obstacle to a relationship with God. Anything placed at the center except for Her (if you like) is an obstacle. Your straw man has been in the yard so long that you mistake him for a neighbor.

As a Christian, at least theoretically, the center of my universe is Christ. My time, however, is dominated by my wife and children. They get the very vast majority of all of my resources, time and everything else.

YOU are the center of your universe. That is why you are always demonstrating for YOUR rights. The confinements of your lifestyle have made you artificially small. That is very much the point.

Christina, I think you'll find that most of the sexual constrictions of parochial religion is exactly that: Parochial. It is all about securing the inheritance of fixed wealth through the male line. Control of sexual behaviour is the only way known to the ancients, and although women can be turned to chattel and controlled by force as if they were, indeed, cattle, men have to be controlled by other means. Agricultural societies have the added mythification of seed which leads to the thought that seed should not be wasted.

Homosexuality, as well as recreational sex and over-accumulation of material goods, all have very good natural explanations if you look at what is often called "social Darwinism". Recreational sex is very clearly a major factor in human deveolopment, given that the female is always responsive and hides her ovulation which can have no other purpose than to enable recreational sex.

Homosexuality is most likely (if it is a "selected-for" trait) a means of ensuring male co-operation, given the extremely long childhood/adolescent phase of humans and the strong social bonds and cooperation needed to survive. But then again, homosexuality may simply be an unintended side product of the clearly selected-for recreational sex: Males and females share practically all their genes, and sexual drive stems from our genes. It may not be feasible to differentiate the orientation of sexual desire too finely without it loosing the necessary strength to both maintain propagation and social cohesiveness through active sex lives.

Homosexuality (and various other forms of non-procreational sex) will never lead to a drop in birth rates, it only takes a very small number of active males to ensure procreation and although monogamy reduces the number of sexual partners, it also entices border-line homosexuals (bisexuals) into heterosexual relationships.

Birth rates are falling all over the world, with most western societies having birth rates far lower than the 2.1 per woman needed to maintain population levels. That populations are not falling yet in most of these countries is the still ongoing drop in death rates. Once the baby-boom generation starts dying off, this will reverse and population decline will become the norm in most countries. The only real cause of falling birth rates is female emancipation, particularly female education. Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hey Chris,
3% comes from the U.S. census for the New York City's 5 boroughs. I average down because the incidence of gay people is higher in urban.

As for the early demise of two of my friends I know quite well how when where why they passed... so I here "race to take umbrage" reach deep inside my Dr. Seuss pouch of Economist approved epithets and suggest it is you who are a big fat dummy for supports something she knows little about (especially first hand) and also the incidence of h.i.v. in America among hetero males (excepting i.v. drug users) is nearly low enough to be statistically insignificant.

Go with god young padawan

Your vocabulary already says a lot, when people lack strong arguments they start the name calling, a way to intimidate and silence the opponent (Limbaugh anyone?) I said, there are many polls, which one did you see? Did you check many? Was it a conservative or liberal one? New York has much more than 3%, I can say because Ilive there, the official numbers are around 10%, depending on the poll. San Francisco has 15%.
Again, so the world for you is limited to the US? Did you go to high school? If you did you'll probably know that 80% of the AIDS case is concentrated in southern Africa, where most of the sick are heterosexuals. Which proves that AIDS results from carelessness, lack of information and education. The prevalence of AIDS among young, educated gay man who were born after the epidemic of the 80's is very low, and the prevalence among young heterosexuals of color ( no discrimination or offense intended) is quite higher, perhaps higher. I'm not gonna state this because, unlike many people here, I base my opinions on statistics and studies, not on prejudice and imagination.

The US census is not very trustable, it tends to underestimate the numbers because many people are not confortable revealing their sexuality to the government, which is quite understandable, considering the mistrust gays have for the republican politicians. You should try checking other polls, actually if you want to actively speak against the gays, you should get more information, from diverse sources, not only from the church, off course.
The AIDS thing is a non-issue, have you ever heard any responsible republican politician, medical professional or scholar using this argument? I only hear this from religious whackos like people from Westboro Church, etc.

Also, don't forget that northern European countries, which are much more gay friendly and have a higher rate of homosexuality, like Holland, Belgium, Sweden, have negligible prevalence of AIDS. Don't the realities in southern Africa and northern Europe tell something about AIDS?

Interesting comment, from now on I'll consider most of what you stated.
But I must say that the reason for a fall in birth rates is not only female emancipation but also the cost of raising children in developed countries, where living and education expenses ( and expectations) are high, and the fact that many heterosexual men and women are choosing to marry later or not marry at all.

'Netherlands is in population decline if you count only Danes and not Arabs.'

Especially because the Danes are mostly in Denmark. The Dutch are in the Netherlands.

Chris,
"Your vocabulary already says a lot, when people lack strong arguments they start the name calling, a way to intimidate and silence the opponent (Limbaugh anyone?)"

It's funny you should mention Limbaugh. My mild upbraid in response to being told I was ignorant was taken from now Senator Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot"- A friend of the gay uber alles movement.

If you as most Christians do think that one unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy the infection rate among gay men of all statistical classes is staggering and is not declining toward the desired zero. It has hit a base line and seems to wax and wane for some reason. Africa in its entirety not just the south is unique for a couple reasons.

The virus in h.i.v. is more virulent (transmits more readily) and more lethal there. It is also mutating. The U.S. has two perhaps 3 strains Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic as many as 13 Africa in total is (and it has been a while since I read of it) around 20. So the threat remains real but not insurmountable for the time being.

The larger problem is lack of monogamy among reproducing hetero sexual males which is persistent and has already set the most promising African nations back decades.

My point in participating in these posts has aways been to point up most of all that the guy in this article should not be considered a valid articulater of any point the gay movement wants to make. The man is a reprobate. He brought nothing more than opobrium on the gay community and an now regretably this publication.

cheers again

I agree with your points. Underlying them is the freedom of choice, and the understanding of that freedom. It will always be the female that chooses to have or not have children.

Some western countries have successfully reversed falling birthrates by increasing financial incentives, such as child benefits. This is a real problem, population will start to fall drastically in practically every western nation within a decade or two (when baby-boomers start dying off), with unforeseen consequences to economic growth and state taxation vs. expenditure.

You are absolutely right when you say that education decrease birth rates, but this don't apply only to women, educated men also tend to marry later and have less children in average. The point is that a basic education make people think more critically and make more calculated decisions.
Most women want kids in some moment of their lives, but without financial means or a reliable partner, they are giving up. In the past, women would have children they weren't able to afford and the result was social unrest, poverty and crime, a situation common in developing countries with high population growth.
In countries like Japan and Brazil, the birth rate is similarly low among all regions, among all classes, regardless of education or occupation. ( there's even a WP article on Brazilian working class women and men who don't wanna have children).
To me, avoiding children when you don't have the means to care for them is the LOGYCAL thing to do. We can be sure that birth rates in Europe will fall even more during this economic crisis and I really don't believe it's solely women's fault. Do you think Greek men would want children now? Do you think Greek women should have two or more children to increase the birth rate, perhaps even quitting theirjobs to bear children?
To say that "it's the female who chooses to have or not children" is an over simplistic, male-only perspective and rather selfish. Take me for example: I'd like to have children sometime soon, but I'm currently living in Japan, an expensive place, with a long time boyfriend, who's an amazing guy, but also an hedonistic with a strong aversion to marriage and an even stronger aversion to kids. He's a liberal who believes in equality, which is great, but also means I have to pay half the bills. I'm not complaining, but I really don't think that having children is only my decision. There are only three ways I could have children: by stealing his sperm or setting a trap, or by buying sperm from a bank.
The first two options are morally wrong and the third would be stupid: I don't have the means to raise a child by myself and I don't want a fatherless child.
To say that children and birth rates are only women's responsibility is unfair, selfish and scapegoating.

To say that women are the only responsible for a fall in birth rates is to use them as a scapegoats. It's the same as when conservative and religious zealots se the gays are scapegoats for the same thing.
Ps; about the idea of sharing a male reproductor with other women... I'm not gonna sacrifice myself and my children so other men can enjoy their lives without the guilty of not contributing socially and genetically. Plus it would decrease the human genetical diversity and bring social unrest.

Hi, yes I have often come accross your response, that by saying that female education is the cause of falling birthrates, somehow women are made to be scapegoats. Personally I don't see it like that, I am not blaming anybody for something that just happens.

In general terms, I do think that it is the woman that chooses, if she can, whether to have children. There is such a huge difference in the investment in time, effort and pain that it is only natural that women should control their own pregnancies. Whether or not she is poor or rich, working class or not, it is access to birth control and the awareness of choice that makes the difference. There is a very strong statistical correlation with female education levels and birth rates all around the world, that's just the way things are and there's no need to take offence.

I don't think anybody is "to blame" and collectively, as a society, we need to take shared decisions, such as increasing child benefit, in order for more women to choose to have children. Where I come from, it is quite common for women to be single mothers with several children from different fathers. This is their own choice, to have children and not to be tied to the children's fathers. The birth rate is around 2.1, education levels very high as is GDP per person. We also have a female bishop as head of the national church, a female is well in the lead in the upcoming presidential elections and our prime minister is female, openly gay and married to another woman. It is a society where females are more in control of their lives than any other I am aware of. And yet, even with the strong financial incentives to have children and the extremely good welfare facilities for parents, the birthrate just manages to hover around that needed for a stable population.

This original discussion was about whether homosexuality would lead to a decrease in birth rate. It never has in the past, so why should it now? Historically speaking, population has always reached the maximum food production capacity in agricultural societies in spite of homosexuality. It seems to be a common misunderstanding that homosexual behaviour is somehow on the increase, I guess the reverse is true. Comparing the results of Masters and Johnson for America in the 50s with current research seems to show a marked fall in homosexual practices. And in many ways that is not surprising, with homosexuality being widely discussed and condemned in our times.

So again, homosexuality will not affect birth rates. It is the female choice whether to use birth control that does.

Interesting, i didn't know you were a foreigner, and for what you describe, probably from one of those rich, progressive, equalitarian, extremely socially developed countries from northern Europe, whith an exemplar welfare system, I would even hint Scandinavia. I think when it comes to Scandinavian-like countries, you may be right that women's choice weights very much in the decision of having babies, because in such countries, women are economically empowered, have a great voice in government, are free from social stigmas, yes they have much. It's female wonderland. I would love to live in Sweden or Norway.
But I was talking as a girl from Pennsylvanya, land of Rick Santorum, in the country of the 1%, without health care, who spent years in Brazil, where poor uneducated men are unreliable and often addicted and violent, and the government, until recently, incompetent and negligent, currently living in Japan, the disgrace of the rich world in terms of equality and social liberalism ( to give you an idea, a child of unmarried parents "kongaishi" is discriminated under the law, regardless of being recognized by the father: receives only half of the inheritance) I guess it's understandable that we have different views. Unfortunately there aren't many places where personal freedom is respected and celebrated like in northern Euro countries.
Yes, we were talking about gay influence in demography, this is something we don't need to discuss, I never said it had any influence, actually my goal here was to defend gays from unfair and prejudiced accusations, simply because I think it's all wrong. It's the only worthy discussion I had here.

Hi, yes I'm from Iceland and currently living and working in Denmark. I can imagine it being very different in Japan! My original comment re. childbirth and female education is from statistics on third world countries, particularly those where birth rates were high but are falling.

In my youth, the popular demographic prognosis was one of unlimited growth (with a quite probable Malthusian disaster sooner rather than later). Now, demographic trends have reversed remarkably, with birth rates falling all over the world. The UN now expects humanity to reach it's maximum number in around 2050 with either stagnation or decline from there. When researching why birth rates have fallen, by far the strongest correlation has been with female education.

I have taught young teenagers for very many years and quite frequently when demographics is on the curriculum, and they hear about this theory, that female education is leading to birth rates well below that needed for a sustainable population, quite a few of the girls take umbrage and feel it is an attack on them, as if it is somehow their fault.

Any way, I agree with you on the defend gays thing, being one myself with a gay sister and quite a lot of openly or not gay members of the family. Talking about homosexuality being inherited, it certainly seems to be the case in my family! Not that it's stopped us from having children, I've got two and my gay sister has got two as well! Anyway, all my best to the land of the rising sun, it's friday afternoon here and I'm off to the pub!

@MN: Like many other commentators on this question, you deal in false moral equivalences. LGBT people are not to fault that Christians are slain in inter-communal religious violence, here and there. Self-proclaimed "Christians", however, are often to blame for the continuing violence promulgated against the LGBT community most everywhere in the Western World (where not similarly egged on by fundamentalist Muslims and others).

The Pope, for instance, continues the pogrom started by Aquinas, where he inveighs against the LGBT community, proclaiming that "Homosexuality is inherently evil and homosexuals objectively disordered." He does this on the basis of his misreading of the Bible and in the furtherance of Aquinas's pogrom. But he is sorely wrong, and objective science has already proven this conclusion in abundance. Yet, for all the error of his ways, the Pope's words continue to spur many on to violence against the LGBT community, both directly and indirectly.

How different it might be, if only the Pope proclaimed the opposite of what he's said, already. We'll have to wait, like Galileo, another 500 years for that one!

TexAg,
The problem is that married people DO get special rights from the government (and other institutions) because they are married. Extending a set of rights to one pair of people in a committed relationship, but not another pair, is fundamentally wrong. Whether because the second pair is gay, or mixed race, or not Christian, it doesn't matter.
Perhaps the best solution is to remove any special benefits from being married, but this would go against thousands of years of legal and social precedent.

@Mnbvcxz312: And is it the gays who are persecuting the Christians in these countries? NO. It is usually Muslims (another religion of peace, LOL) who want to murder *both* the gays and the Christians.

So filing joint taxes and getting spousal health coverage are now basic human rights? What universe are you from?

Modern "Christianity" has little to do with what was being proposed by Christ 2000 years ago. Heck, Protestantism has aspects of it that are wildly at odds with Catholicism, which is arguably closer to what Paul proposed, and even THAT has changed quite a bit.

As for liberalism... Well, if you ask people like Mitt Romney, apparently Jesus was all about the Rich and Successful...

Perhaps THERE is the cautionary tale...

My point exactly-- ideology rots and gets turned to private purposes. Ask Martin Luther. That's a risk with all the modern left's ideology, as we've seen in certain black mediocrities like Trayvon Martin's family abusing anti-racism (and copyrighting "Trayvon").

Being capable of being offended is not something I am going to concede simply because some jerk was born liking boys.

I argued against the coruption of a once superior rag. The person at the centre of the piece is a world more contempable than the other American media "Savage". He was not doing a performance art hypocrisy demo for high schoolers. He was simply being what he is- an obnoxious self loathing hate monger who should be give no forum anywhere. Instead, because he is gay the economist and some misguided high school organization give him time and space to simply hate out loud.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your remarks about British vs. American journalism in regards to covering gays. But, as an American, I proudly stand with you in saying that I too am sick of gays whining about their supposed plight.
Frankly, I don't give a damn that they like to have their anuses ruptured, but I sure as hell am not going to pretend that I think it is normal behavior.

As far as I can gather Savage was just replying to Santorum in kind. Santorum placed homosexual relationships in the same category as having relations with a dog. Whether we like it or not homosexuality exists at roughly the same level in all species. Some men, who are principally heterosexual, will choose to have homosexual relations if they are confined together for an extended period such as being in jail or on a long sea voyage. Any situation where women are not readily available.

Santorum's intent was clearly to portray homosexuals as sub human. In much the same way as slave owners portrayed the blacks. I think Savage was justified in using whatever language he chose to frame his reply. I also think the Economist is correct in bringing the matter to public attention.

Actually, he just used too many words to make the point. Because Savage is gay he is socially permitted to trample on younger people. He is given a pass because he is a perceived victim.
Evolutionary Psychologists attribute all personality traits to both genetics and socialization. By definition a trait must be ubiquitous to make their list. Every person, according to them, has within them some capacity for homosexuality.
Biology teaches us that much, if not all, of the behavior we exhibit day to day is for the preservation/proliferation of our genetic material. For this reason, parents would rather not spend their lives' resources and labor raising a child that turns out to be a genetic dead end. Just as homosexuality is a part of the human condition, so is a bias against it.
Savage, and really all progressives, blame cultural resistance to homosexuality on Christians, but the resistance is more systemic than that. It is much more likely that biology/nature is the cause. Anti-homesexual bias is ubiquitous. Christianity is not. Christians' mild temperaments just make them easy targets.
Savage hates Christians. He probably has a higher biological threshold for hatred and has been taught to hate by society.

Yes, Savage is a vile hater of Christians. He is a sad type of person. I will pray for him.

Yes, Savage is a vile hater of Christians. He is a sad type of person. I will pray for him.

you don't understand because your command of english is worse than mine. The word is DRIVEL which is something the person at the centre of this article stives for

I am pretty sure dribble is what spews from the mouth of someone in an unconscious way.

friend, their is no merrit double downing on ones'stupidity

You're very incorrect. I grew up in Rockland County, New York--an area of the USA that is not predominately Christian but rather predominately Jewish. My town specifically had an almost two thirds Jewish majority. As a child of a religious Catholic home, I was often sneered at by the Jews for my religion. Please understand that, despite being the majority religion, Christians and Christianity are still mocked vehemently by people on the left.

You're very incorrect. I grew up in Rockland County, New York--an area of the USA that is not predominately Christian but rather predominately Jewish. My town specifically had an almost two thirds Jewish majority. As a child of a religious Catholic home, I was often sneered at by the Jews for my religion. Please understand that, despite being the majority religion, Christians and Christianity are still mocked vehemently by people on the left.

There is a difference between mocking and cogent arguments explaining why something is wrong. Using religion to force your prejudicial opinions on others is wrong. Somehow I can imagine by your subtext about 'the Jews' I feel like the sneering my have been more accurately described as a refusal to be subjected to antisemitic slander.

Savage was clearly mocking religion. There is no debate on this. As far as my supposed antisemitism, you are incorrect. I have more Jewish friends than I do Christian friends. I was merely making a point that many have scoffed at my religious beliefs. Perhaps you should quit searching for "subtext" in comments on the internet.

Socially unacceptable to do this; socially unacceptable to do that...I think you scorn human nature as much as anti-gay crusaders do. People are always going to mock others, for all sorts of things, and the more people try to squelch it for the sake of their ideals, the more it'll bubble up around the edges. Freedom of speech-- including, yes, the freedom to be homophobic, or to make cruel fun of people-- is better than anything offered in its place.