Social Question

rockfan's avatar

What is your reaction when anti-gay activists say that homosexuality will lead to population decline?

Asked by rockfan (12009points) May 19th, 2015

I usually just laugh in their face.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Laugh was my first thought too. Seriously, get a real agenda.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

The anti-gay movement will clutch and clay at anything won’t they?
They should find something else to get upset about and leave the gay people alone.

hominid's avatar

Well, I have yet to hear this. But it’s a rather curious statement for a couple of reasons:

First, what does the “will” indicate in that statement? Either homosexuality does or doesn’t have a net affect on population. “Will” indicates that it has not yet had an impact on population, but in the future it will. Odd.

Second, I’ll assume that someone making this statement sees population decline (or a slow down in population increase) as a bad thing. I’m not sure why this would be. We have (or will have) an overpopulation problem.

Third, I’m not sure how any of this is relevant to those who wish to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

fluthernutter's avatar

Population decline wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

However, there are studies that show that the female relatives of gay men tend to be more fertile than average.

Seems like it evens out.
Though can any reasonable debate be had with anyone who believes such absurd things in the first place?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Is it necessary to perceive the statement as being against homosexuality? Or that population decline is good or bad? Seems like a simple statement with a certain amount of deductive reasoning to support it. Nothing more.

I don’t think it necessary for me to have any “reaction” at all. I might reply “Oh really? I can see how that might be true”.

But I don’t see any indication that the statement presupposes homosexuality or population decline are necessarily good or bad things either way.

fluthernutter's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Because it’s coming from an anti-gay activist? The OP set the context.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Edit… Oh… I see the statement came directly from “anti gay activists”. Coming from them, sure, it’s considered negative. Coming from gay rights supporters, perhaps considered positive.

Why is it that the same statement is perceived differently depending on knowing where it’s coming from?

How does the statement stand on it’s own, without coming from any particular group? What does that say about our own individual perceptions and agendas?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Wait a minute. Why would population decline be a bad thing?

Zaku's avatar

Exactly here’s to population decline, particularly amongst anti-gay bozos.

Coloma's avatar

Stupid, but we certainly need a population decline whoever wants to jump on board is alright with me.

Mariah's avatar

That’s an incredibly stupid argument; population decline would be an excellent thing to have happen.

kritiper's avatar

Far fetched. That scenario would only happen if everyone were/became gay. That won’t happen. We’d all become sterile from all the pharmaceuticals in the water first.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The absurdity of the statement pretty much nails down the case for a reduction in the idiot population.

syz's avatar

If it were true, halleluiah. Too bad it’s not true.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

I’ve never personally heard someone state this before. If it did occur, I’d ask a lot of questions until we either come to the same conclusion or one of us walks away in frustration. A rational discussion on this subject is worthy of investing the time to hold it.

cookieman's avatar

Bullshit, but I certainly hope that the expansion of marriage rights to homosexuals increases the adoption rate.

Lotta kids without homes and some gay folks wanna be parents too.

Blackberry's avatar

“Oh look, another dumbass.”

Coloma's avatar

Actually gays adopt more so this is a good thing. I know a gay couple that have adopted 2 children. This is what we need more of, less births more homes for children already living.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Nice answer @Coloma well said.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@Coloma Would you mind expanding on “Actually gays adopt more…” Adopt more than people who are heterosexual? Than bearing their own children?

tinyfaery's avatar

I’d say good and urge them not to breed.

Coloma's avatar

@Pied_Pfeffer Some go for IVF but many adopt, at least equal to or perhaps more than heterosexuals in some instances. I’ll have to try and find some stats when I have time.

Pachy's avatar

Pity for their Cro-Magnon mentality—and anger. The same feelings I have for climate change deniers and pro-gun activists.

Esedess's avatar

lol, then homosexuality might actually save the Earth.

marinelife's avatar

No more than heterosexual couples who can’t or choose not to have children will.

Blondesjon's avatar

I spit out my boyfriend’s penis and just shake my head.

ibstubro's avatar

Well, ”*Yeah Gay!!”
Humans are due for a huge population decline.

kritiper's avatar

@ibstubro GA! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

The whole issue bores me. Frankly as long as homosexuality isn’t overly visible, me and mine aren’t disadvantaged by discriminatory “affirmative action” policies, I don’t care.

Gabby101's avatar

I agree with some of the others – that sounds like a pro-gay statement to me!!

I actually think it is probably true. I would guess on average, homosexuals procreate less than heterosexuals. But seriously, it’s not a anti-gay statement because a population decline at this stage of the game is not a bad thing. I’m always puzzled by people that are concerned with population decline.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Gabby101 The problem with population decline is economics. If people aren’t having enough children to support themselves in old age, then we are left with two options. Either we pay more taxes to pay for healthcare, accommodation etc for the elderly, or we leave them to poverty in their final years. The tax route would require crippling taxes that would be a disincentive for people to work, and would destroy the economy. The poverty route is unconscionable. I agree in principle that we have overpopulated by a huge margin. But there is no known way to create an ethical, wealthy society when the population is in decline.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther