Gay relationships are not encourage because they use the men up. Assuming a healthy rate of 2.1 children per family, every gay union uses up 2 healthy, virile, otherwise normal men, men who can potentially contribute 4.2 children
When you're practically hanging on with one finger to a stable population, you need every able-bodied man you can get your hands on, not have them waste their energy (or lives, potentially) on a... biological deadend
Well, that is true, I have to give you that. But then why don't we encourage polygamy, etc? After all, one man to several women would encourage a greater population, would it not?
Or how about allowing women to work? For every woman who goes to work with no intention of starting a family, that's another two point one children gone, isn't it? Why don't we pull an India/China and force women to marry at the age of thirteen and bear children till they're thirty?
It's simply because we do not want to discriminate against women, because society thinks it's wrong, am I correct? As such, why can't society's ideas make it wrong to discriminate against the gay population?
Hmmm. I've been semi-following it because it's related to my Passionata, but I haven't really had the time to sit down and read the papers.
But in any case, the bits that I've read in the papers give me the feeling that Dr Balaji talks a whole load of bullcrap. I would elaborate, but I'm kind of tired. It's mainly to do with the improbability of his arguments anyway.
Oh, and you may be interested to know that the 1992 Report from the Committee of Censorship Review requested that laws against PDA by gays in public and private remain in place. Quite funny, when I read it. To actually specify a thing like that amuses me to no end.
ah, the gay issue. I've argued it with many people in many settings, but I've given up trying to be reasonable and just don't argue anymore. no one ever listens.
er, muchly-belated comments here, but:
you're going to TOKYO. for $900? ONLY?
*dies*
and you might have to quit fencing? *pats* that's sad. and you've given up the pretty leather... ;_;
Comments 23
Gay relationships are not encourage because they use the men up.
Assuming a healthy rate of 2.1 children per family, every gay union uses up 2 healthy, virile, otherwise normal men, men who can potentially contribute 4.2 children
When you're practically hanging on with one finger to a stable population, you need every able-bodied man you can get your hands on, not have them waste their energy (or lives, potentially) on a... biological deadend
Now start flaming xD
Reply
Reply
Well, that is true, I have to give you that. But then why don't we encourage polygamy, etc? After all, one man to several women would encourage a greater population, would it not?
Or how about allowing women to work? For every woman who goes to work with no intention of starting a family, that's another two point one children gone, isn't it? Why don't we pull an India/China and force women to marry at the age of thirteen and bear children till they're thirty?
It's simply because we do not want to discriminate against women, because society thinks it's wrong, am I correct? As such, why can't society's ideas make it wrong to discriminate against the gay population?
Reply
Or, how about if you don't care about Singapore's population decrease? (: Yeah, more food to go around. Pass the cheese!
Reply
But in any case, the bits that I've read in the papers give me the feeling that Dr Balaji talks a whole load of bullcrap. I would elaborate, but I'm kind of tired. It's mainly to do with the improbability of his arguments anyway.
Oh, and you may be interested to know that the 1992 Report from the Committee of Censorship Review requested that laws against PDA by gays in public and private remain in place. Quite funny, when I read it. To actually specify a thing like that amuses me to no end.
Anyway, deearrrrr, POLITIK OR I GIVE YOU NO LOVE.
Reply
er, muchly-belated comments here, but:
you're going to TOKYO. for $900? ONLY?
*dies*
and you might have to quit fencing? *pats* that's sad. and you've given up the pretty leather... ;_;
Reply
Leave a comment