Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Do Koreans Support LGBTQ+? (Ft. Seoul Queer Parade) | ASIAN BOSS" video.

  1. 34
  2. 5
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 안나Anna: No, animals most certainly don't. And if "balance" was the issue, then how come child births and nativity are stagnating in pro-LGBT societies to unsustainiable levels, but the same thing is not happening in anti-LGBT societies? Suppose that your assumption was correct and that homosexuality was a phenomenon generated by a lack of balance in a population (implied overpopulation), then we wouldn't see the statistical figures of child births dropping below an average of 2 children per couple. But in practically every country that has embraced the pride-idiocy we're seeing the average drop below 2. And that is a clear sign of a dangerous population decline and a society growing old in terms of average age. This will have disastrous humanitarian effects on the countries afflicted, because the older an average population in a society gets, the more the few young people will have to work in order to finance the pensions and welfare of old people who are too old, frail and diseased to work. Or, failing that, society will simply be forced to leave it's older generation out to dry (no geriatric care to the elderly, no supvervised retiremenrt homes to help them get through their daily lives with dignity etc.) Either way, this development will have massive humanitarian reprecussions. And as we've already seen abundant proof of in both Europe and the U.S, importing uneducated migrants from the third world does not create any solution to the low fertility. It only generates more costs since the majority of migrants remain unemployed for years and even decades putting extra strain on the welfare budget, and many of them even resort to criminal behaviour, creating a further financial burden for the societies that takes them in. Given the choice of having the economy completely collapse in western countries, forcing young western citizens to work even more than they already do or leaving the elderly simply to die in pain amd anguish. OR Discouraging homosexuality because homosexuals do not lead lifestyles conducive to procreation. Then i'm sorry, i'm going to go with the latter. Homosexuals "right" to live as sexual deviants is not more important than the sustainiability and survival of our economies and societies.
    2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. JamlessJiminie: Well aren't you a biological defect? Biology is, after all, living cells trying to procreate and reproduce at the core of it. Suppose that all human beings or another species evolved to be entirely homosexual. What would happen to that species then when less and less of it's individual members engage in heterosexual reproduction and have less and less offspring? That species would eventually die out within a few generations. So if you are a homosexual, then it's pretty self-evident that you are a defect because your sexuality is unsustainable across generations. Your attraction and sexual habits can never lead to procreation, so your sexuality is therefore an evolutionary dead end. A living species needs fertile heterosexual members that procreates to survive. A homosexual that can't reproduce is just dead weight when all is said and done. Luckily for you, we have developed technologies and a society that will allow you to lead a fulfilling life anyway. We even have technologies that could allow you to reproduce genetically as well, as long as you can accept the usage of sperm donors or surrogate mothers. But the fact that our species has managed to invent technological means to circumvent the shortcomings of your defective nature doesn't make your defects any less of a defect. We have invented wheelchairs as well for people who have disabled legs. Wheelchairs help these people live something closer to normal lives, but wheelchairs doesn't magically turn their disability into a non-disability, just like surrogate mothers and sperm donors cannot make gay people less defective. I don't think you are helped by trying to delude yourself that your defects aren't really defects at all.
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1