IamJoseph

Its in the math. The deminishing ratio works in compounding factors, and so does the lack of repro from increased gay sectors. This posits a double whammy attack. In 300 years the population of hetro becomes less than gay.

The issue is not on the figures per se - it is a guaranteed eventual outcome of negation of the human race in a short span of time - relatively speaking. Even the most die hard gay will have to acknowkedge the total truth in this premise - and that this is not based on bigotry but pure maths, nor does it target gays. Its a fact. Else its only denial.

Keith&Co.

And math is in the assumptions. Please show yours, sugarhitman.

And posits that there are no bisexuals, posits that gays will not attempt to secure offspring, posits that the birth rate among non-gays will not expand to fill the resources available.


Oh, please show how this works. Other than a graph with a declining line.

Please show these pure maths.
Please show the number of gays in the current population.
Please show the birth rate of straights in the current population.
And the birth rate of bi's.
And the birth rate of gays (it is above zero, you must admit).
And the effect of population density pressure on birth rates among straights.

Show the pure math, please. Pretty, pretty please with four-function calculators on top.

Amaleq13

The absence of supporting evidence for your claims or the apparently self-contradictory nature of your claims not relevant to those claims?

Speaking of irrelevant.

Amaleq13

You'll need a proctologist to locate the source.

Keith&Co.

Well, in that case the maths is pretty IMpure.

semiopen

As long as the subject has come up...

My single original contribution to biblical studies is the theory that Joseph (son of Jacob) was gay.

These are my reasons:

He was very deeply attached to his mother. He reenacted her stealing of the Terafim by planting his wine goblet in Benjamin's sack.

His father gave him a pretty coat, he liked to put on make up. The bible mentions many times how beautiful he was.

His strangeness was probably the cause of his brother's animosity.

He was sold to Potiphar as a sex slave. Potiphar was a "eunuch of Pharoh"... this is from Nachmanides. The words for officer and eunuch are the same in Hebrew.

He didn't respond to the advances of Potiphar's wife. Assuming he was thrown in prison for trying to seduce her, why wouldn't the Egyptians have castrated him. Did they have an enlightened attitude about slaves who were sex offenders?

The bible goes through a lot of trouble to detail his marriage, partially to legitimize Ephraim and Mannasseh, but one does have to wonder.

JaronK

The 20% of the population being gay and ending the human race bit makes no sense. If somehow 20% of the population was totally gay (as in, not bisexual at all) and being gay meant never making children, then in one generation that section of the population would be wiped out due to never breeding. The remaining 80% would breed, and then 100% of the population the next year would be bisexual or heterosexual. That's just basic natural selection there... elements of a population that can't breed don't continue.

However, instead of that we find two things. First, not that many people are purely gay. Second, even gay people want children (and a lot of them help out by adopting, which is a rather needed service, while others find a way to reproduce). And third, I'm pretty darn sure that over 20% of the population doesn't breed anyway, just due to things like dying early, being infertile, or choosing not to have children. I don't know the exact numbers obviously, but it's not just the gay ones, or homosexuality would have disappeared completely within a generation.

And of course, I'd maintain that David was bi, not gay, since he definitely had wives to reproduce with.

JaronK

storytime

humm.. if David and Saul were on the outs, seems that Saul's son Jonathan becoming an alli to David a smart move. Thus a covenant of allianced peace and not a marriage of two men. David would have seen future peaceful relations with the people of Saul through covenant alliance with Jonathan. And Jonathan shows his loyalty to David instead of to his own father Saul.

Also, it seems that allianced agreement was in some ways and times referred to as intermarriage, a thing of covenant situation prohibited to the Israelites.

semiopen

I wonder if this was added later as a result of Greek influence.

My understanding the David/Saul stories are attempting to legitimize David's taking the Kingship from Saul's family. The closeness between David and Jonathon, doesn't really advance that argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

In addition to Austin Powers, Scary Movie can be used to help interpret the Bible, their relationship seems "kinda gay" to me.

storytime

It was never "their" land as land belonged to whomever had the ability to hold it. Property owners posess their land until sold or government takes it for whatever reason. For ex., in such a case I could not go back to my county government and say that God gave me the land forever. Neither could the Israelites. Israelites took land and lost land. And not all tribes were able to possess land due to their lesser numbered tribesmen who could not slaughter and destroy everything that had breath within it (as their god commanded). And the so called "promise" was conditional upon the particular tribes ability to take and hold the land. It is interesting how the scribe wrote the story and gave excuse for God's not empowering all the tribes to succeed in taking land. Seems that God left seven peoples in the land of Canaan as a thorn in Israel's side, because Israel did not complete her mission of extermination God blamed her for failure to overcome and prevail.