Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been a "Breeder?"

|

Not more fun than condom roulette?

Brendan O'Neill, the editor of spiked, writes a furious and fascinating book review asserting that some neo-Malthsuian progressives are valorizing homosexuality as eco-friendly. Why? Because gays and lesbians are less likely to have children and children despoil Mother Earth. O'Neill notes that he had encountered this sentiment before in Anthony Burgess' dystopian novel, The Wanting Seed, in which the state harshly discriminates against heterosexual breeders and promotes homosexuality in a future overpopulated Britain. Now O'Neill argues that some anti-ferility elite opinion is beginning to advocate turning dystopian fiction into dystopian fact. As evidence, he cites Guardian columnist George Monbiot who wrote in response to a papal bull calling homosexuality unnatural and immoral:

Reproduction among prosperous people has a demonstrable impact on the welfare of others: thanks to the depletion of resources and the effects of climate change, every child born to the rich deprives children elsewhere of the means of survival. In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight.

O'Neill also goes after the more outlandish promoters of childfree lifestyles who argue that they are morally superior to breeders because of their eco-friendly choice not to have brats. Below is tidbit:

Burgess imagines a future England in which overpopulation is rife. There's a Ministry of Infertility that tries desperately to keep a check on the gibbering masses squeezed into skyscraper after skyscraper, and it does so by demonising heterosexuality—it's too fertile, too full of 'childbearing lust'—and actively promoting homosexuality.

It's a world where straights are discriminated against because there's nothing more disgusting and destructive than potential fertility, than a 'full womanly figure' or a man with 'paternity lust'; straights are passed over for jobs and promotion in favour of homos, giving rise to a situation where some straights go so far as to pretend they are gay, adopting the 'public skin of dandified epicene', as Burgess describes it, in a desperate bid to make it in the world. There's even a Homosex Institute, which runs night classes that turn people gay, all with the aim of reducing the 'aura of fertility' that hangs about society like a rank smell, as one official says. 'It's Sapiens to be Homo' is the slogan of Burgess's imagined world.

Now, nearly 50 years after Burgess's novel outraged literary critics (one said it was 'too offensive to finish') as well as campaigners for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex (who were disgusted that Burgess could write of a homosexual tyranny while it was still illegal in Britain for one man to have sex with another), some of the sentiments of that weird invented world, of that fertility-demonising futuristic nightmare, are leaking into mainstream public debate—to the extent that a writer can claim, without igniting controversy, that 'the benefits of homosexual marriage could be immeasurable' in terms of dealing with the 'social hardships' of overpopulation. No, heteros are not discriminated against in favour of gays; there's no Homosex Institute. But there is a creeping cultural validation of homosexuality in Malthusian terms, where the gay lifestyle is held up by some thinkers and activists as morally superior because it is less likely to produce offspring than the heterosexual lifestyle, in which every sexual encounter involves recklessly pointing a loaded gun of sperm at a willing and waiting target.

And this is not an isolated incident; Burgess is not the only imaginer of mad Malthusian worlds whose ideas have come to some kind of fruition. Such is the Malthusian tenor of our times, so deep-seated is the New Malthusian prejudice against fertility (the f-word of our era), and so widespread is the eco-view of human beings as little more than the hooverers-up of scarce resources, that bit by bit, unwittingly and unnoticed, some of the wackier authoritarian ideas of twentieth-century Malthus-infused literature are finding expression in our real world today.

O'Neill is not objecting to gay sex nor to choosing to have no children, but against polticizing those lifestyles as being morally superior on ecological grounds. The implied concern is that asserted moral superiority could be translated into coercive public policy. Still, it should be noted that the neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) have been agitating for totalitarian measures such as licensing reproduction for decades without any success in the West. 

Go here to read O'Neill's full essay.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

405 responses to “Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been a "Breeder?"

  1. Population control hasn’t worked out so well in China. After decades of female fetusicide, there are now far too many males who have no hope of marriage. Unless their plan was to build an army of conquest…and given the poor demographics in Russia I’d expect the Chinese to make a grab for Siberia sometime in the next 15-20 years.

    1. China declares war, Russia turns off the gas and oil spigots. China goes dark. War over.

      1. Both sides launch nukes.

        No more population problem in Eurasia.

        1. in the best of all possible worlds, this.

          1. You’re disgusting

            1. Yeah right, dude. Pancakes are fucking delicious.

              1. you guys forget the point of the article…they all go gay.
                (not that there is anything wrong with that)

      2. I’m sure China could get gas and oil from places besides Russia. They could do a lot of stockpiling ahead of time as well.

        1. Any of you guys ever hear of a little place by the the name of Iran? Not to mention Iraq, much of which was once Iran and which Iran would like to have back.

      3. Russia turns off the gas and oil spigots

        Medvedev: “Who run Barter Town?”

        ChiComms: *mumble mumble*

        Medvedev: “Can’t hear you. Who run Barter Town?”

        ChiComms: “R…Russia.”

        Medvedev: “Embargo lifted….”

    2. Don’t see the problem. There are too many women in Russia, IIRC. Maybe we’ll have a ‘sabine women’ situation. Although, you know, there are stereotypes about both Russian women and Chinese men that uh, might be a problem.

      1. Some of those Ukrainian women are insanely hot.

        I’ve known a couple personally, but not “known” in the biblical sense, much as I would have liked to.

      2. The surplus of women in Russia is essentially only in the over-65 age group (b/c Russian men have a life expectancy a full 12 years lower than Russian women, due to drink, drugs and violence). Russia’s babushkas are not going to fix China’s bachelor problem.

        Anyway, the numbers of excess bachelors in China are far, far more than any excess of females anywhere can handle: there are projected to be 30 million excess Chinese males by 2020, no country has anything like that kind of extra female population (also, bear in mind that other Asian countries, even without one-child policies, have excess boys as ultrasound has led to selective abortion).

        1. Russia’s babushkas are not going to fix China’s bachelor problem.

          I think you underestimate the tenacity and skill of those stout Babushaks.

        2. My 12-year old self kind of hopes for this kind of future in China.

    3. Plus many Chinese want to move to western countries or prefer westerners in general. For example, my wife moved here just to get an MBA/meet a western guy like me. Good for me, bad for chinese men.

    4. Wouldn’t they be more likely to invade the Middle East? Doesn’t the Middle East have better resources than Siberia?

      1. Probably.

  2. In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight.

    Holy shit. These fucking people have to moralize everything. Recently it was eating. Now it’s whether you have children, and they wrap your sexual preferences into it (as if the latter hadn’t just started to escape that recently as well)? These people’s lives must be miserable beyond belief, with even the most natural of choices coming under their own internal microscope.

    Good. I hope they fucking suffer every day, because they deserve it.

    1. furthermore,

      “In a world of diminishing assets”

      [citation needed]

      1. You got to do in that Movie Trailer Guy’s voice.

        1. Beat me to it. Exactly what I was thinking.

          “In a world…”

    2. They accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them of wanting to snoop on what people do in their bedrooms, then claim to be morally superior because of what they do in their bedroom.

      Is there any limit to their hypocrisy?

      1. Uh, when I said “these people”, I didn’t mean homos. I meant “people who must moralize even the basest of human functions”, like eating, or having children. The people who can’t have an apple without agonizing over whether it was grown locally, for instance.

        1. Right now I am agonizing over choosing between Subway, Panera Bread, and Wendy’s. Everyone makes decisions Epi, even you. I doubt their agonizing causes them suffering. I dare say they enjoy it, a lot. Then they write about it.

          1. Wendy’s. Get the new fries with sea salt; they’re excellent by fast food standards.

            1. I wondered about that and it’s about time this all-important topic made it to a H&R thread. I really believe this will be the beginning of the ascension of Wendy’s to the top of the fast-food mountain. All they were lacking were superior fries and they were set. Why it took this long, I’ll never know. Maybe Dave Thomas had in his will somewhere that they couldn’t change the fries till he had been dead for a certain time, but it is beyond me how a place with Wendy’s menu could have left the shittiest fries in the world on their menu for so long. They were good for one thing: dipping in their chili. These new ones are fucking awesome.

              Matter of fact, I’m gonna have lunch there today. Hopefully with a chick that I can practice breeding with later tonight. (Wanted to have one on-topic comment in there.)

              1. Why it took this long, I’ll never know.

                Frying research is a long and involved, not to mention expensive, process. If anything, Dave had it in his will that they couldn’t change the fries until they achieved unrivaled perfection that would crush all Fry Opposition.

              2. I liked Wendy’s old fries, especially when freshly made. They tasted like potato and, except for not being crinkle-cut, reminded me of drive-in fries from my youth! I have actually driven miles out of my way to get a meal with those fries. I haven’t tried the new ones yet, and I hope I like them.

                By the way, if anyone remembers and loved the old and long-discontinued Taco Bell “Bellbeefer” sandwich (taco fixings on a hamburger bun), head to Del Taco and ask for a “bun taco,” then put their “mild” taco sauce on it. Your sense of nostalgia will be immediately rewarded by that delicious taste.

                At the moment, I am suffering from some kind of bug, for which I am taking prescribed antibiotics, and which has robbed me (temporarily, I hope) of the senses of smell and taste. So you’ll have to enjoy the Wendy’s fries or the Bun Taco for both of us. Bah humbug.

            2. They are pretty good! I brought a lunch to work today, but actually, sloopyinca’s decision to have lunch at Wendy’s is appealing. I may do the same.

              1. DAMN YOU UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA!
                Just kidding, I love my alma mater; but Wendy’s lost (got pushed out of?) the contract they had on campus and were replaced by Burger King. Now, I love a Quadstacker every Tuesday/Thursday as much as the next guy, but Wendy’s had the inside track on the dollar menu, and on a collegiate budget that was a really kick in the balls (not quite Balko-esque). Not to mention they replaced one burger place with another burger place, but it took them a year and a half to open the BK.

                At least our Subway is like one of the top 5 grossing franchises in the country [citation needed] and offers every single one of their sandwiches as a $5 footlong.

            3. Yeah, who would have guessed you could make good fries just by picking out good potatoes, cutting them up, frying them in oil, and putting good salt on them? It’s pure genius. (Had some today, very tasty.)

            4. You win some, you lose some. They’ve changed their Caesar’s salad, and it’s no longer any good.

              At least that’s what my wife said. I’m a Burger King guy, myself.

          2. It’s not just decisions; it’s decisions plus some sort of artificial moral calculus (i.e., local food is better because…). Whereas your agonizing over your choices is merely disgusting (though I would suggest Panera as the best of your awful choices), because you aren’t also deciding whether one of those choices is “morally superior”.

            1. I don’t know what it is, but the name is kind of “foreign-sounding” so it must be eco-friendly.

              1. Panera, that is.

                1. Then you should have suggested Del Taco or El Pollo Loco. Do those foreign-sounding names also make you think eco-friendly?

                  If not…racist!!!

          3. Be careful what you do not choose, because by not choosing, you affect interstate commerce and Congress can require you to buy something else.

            1. You WILL have fries with that!

            2. Way to tie the theads together…clap, clap. (no, not THAT clap)

            3. Posting just to pre-empt anyone quoting Rush here.

          4. I ended up going to the thai place next to the subway. It’s about 3 bucks more and way more satisfying. Though I went with the boring standby, chicken pad thai. I am quite satisfied. No moral calculus involved, though definitely interstate commerce.

            1. It’s Thai food, not burgers or subs, so technically it’s international commerce, right?

              1. Yes, and I ate with a Cuban, an Ethiopan, a Yinzer, a Korean, and a cute Peruvian breeder while being served by a Thai man with a painful looking limp. It was a culturally enriching lunch, though I’m concerned for the nearly crippled waiter, I tipped 20%.

                1. He was just faking so you didn’t give him 14%

        2. If they would only internalize their moral agony, I’d be with you 100%.

          If I can punch these riddled-with-self-guilt fucks in the throat when they start publicly whinging and demanding that we follow their lead, I’m still with you 100%.

          1. This word “whinging.” I like it. I like it a lot.

            I guessed it was a blend of “whine” and “cringe,” but guess what? According to both dictionaries cited in dictionary.com, it derives from an Old English word, “hwinsian.”

            Even better: a cosmic convergence of sound, sense, and etymology.

      2. The hypocrisy is rendered ironic because the very same people look down their noses at the traditionally moralistic, whether it is the Abrahamic faiths, Oriental philosophies, the umbrella religions of Hinduism, or the nature worshipping animists as backwards, paternalistic, and clearly inferior. Even those few whose morality is derived from reason are inferior to people who literally make it up as they go along because it is in vogue with their social circle.

    3. When there is no objective truth, morality must substitute. The problem is that many people act righteous and feel moral. The god-botherers are not the only population with this attribute.

    4. Mr. Burns: So, what do you think of today’s popular music scene.
      Lisa: I think it distracts people from more important social issues.
      Mr. Burns: My god, are you always on!?

    5. Wow, Episiarch, you are a fucking moron. Can’t you read? Or is it just comprehension you have an issue with.

      Monbiot’s comments were a response to the argument that being gay was less moral than being straight. I guess you are such a fucking idiot that you don’t know that author’s comment referring to the exact thing you quoted as a”response to a papal bull calling homosexuality unnatural and immoral” means that the pope/Catholic Church (that’s what ‘papal bull’ refers to) was MORALIZING about this subject (that’s what ‘calling homosexcuality immoral’ refers to) and that Monbiot was NOT moralizing but RESPONDING (that is what the word ‘response’ refers to.

      Aren’t you embarrassed at being so stupid?

      1. Back atcha FS – aren’t you freaking embarrassed as shit for a) defending a serial buffoon (Monbiot) for b) substituting his moralizing for an actual argument against moralizing?

        Bet you don’t like the new Wendy’s fries, either.

        1. In Fat Steve’s defense, Episiarch is a moron.

          He’s just our moron.

          1. He’s just our moron.

            All three of you?

        2. Bet you don’t like the new Wendy’s fries, either.

          Fetch my lynching rope.

    6. If someone really cared about they’d commit suicide. Anything less and you’re just as much of a Gaia-hating asshole as the rest of us.

    7. Recently it was eating. Now it’s whether you have children

      Don’t forget recycling and bike-riding.

      1. Dreaming of riding bicycles to recycle children so they can be eaten is the only thing stopping them from committing suicide.

    8. Of course they have to moralize everything, haven’t you heard “the personal is political”?

  3. Ran gay and lesbian nightclubs in NYC in the early 1990’s and was called a breeder every day. I often felt a need to apologize for being hetero. After that experience it was a surprise to me that there was such a desire for gay marriage and adoption.

    1. Once a gay friend of mine invited me and my wife (girlfriend at the time) to the local gay bar. Patrons and bartenders alike went out of their way to make us feel uncomfortable. Amazing how those who preach tolerance are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet.

      1. Amazing how those who preach tolerance are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet.

        Amazing? Sounds like standard progressive operating procedure (SPOP) to me. At least conservative fundies are honest about their intolerance.

        1. It is much better to be openly hated than secretly despised. Enough cases of people smiling to your face while slandering you when you leave the room will make you crazy.

          1. Enough cases of people smiling to your face while slandering you when you leave the room will make you crazy.

            You wouldn’t do well in a big law firm.

            1. For $400/hour, I’d self-medicate.

        2. Never had a similar experience at a gay bar. Though I see how that could happen at a neighborhood joint, gay or straight. Some local dives are friendly as can be to strangers. Others don’t want you there unless you’ve put your time in already. Thinking of the kind of place where everyone stops what they’re doing and turns to stare at you for a full minute when you walk in.

          1. Some local dives are friendly as can be to strangers. Others don’t want you there unless you’ve put your time in already

            Not sure how the latter stay in business…

            1. It seems that you have to start going there with someone who can vouch for you. Once your bona fides are established you can start coming in alone and eventually you can bring someone else in. Have you never been in a neighborhood tavern?

              1. Right you are. I once wanted to do some interviewing in a neighborhood bar in New Orleans. An alderman who took pity on me took me to one and introduced me to the clientele. But I still had to prove myself to any regulars coming in later.

            2. Sort of like a private club. You have to be vouched by a current “memeber”.

              1. Thx highnumber and H man, I’m socially inept and so would never have figured that out.

        3. I have been to quite a few “gay” bars and never felt like i was being treated any differently. In one instance (an underground gay bar) the patrons made an extra effort to make me feel comfortable (difficult since my world view of gay men having a sense of taste was shattered by the fact they served me a CAN OF NATTY LIGHT! I understand it is an underground bar but CMON!).

          1. difficult since my world view of gay men having a sense of taste was shattered by the fact they served me a CAN OF NATTY LIGHT! I understand it is an underground bar but CMON!

            Maybe they just assumed that’s what straight guys like, and so were trying to accommodate you.

            1. funny but no. They served cans to everyone…NOT EVEN WITH A GLASS. In all fairness it was St. Louis, home of few teeth.

              1. I like beer right out of the can. What am I gonna do, wash a bunch of glasses? Fucking elitists.

                1. I actually fight with my fellow beer geeks about this all the time. The general rule of thumb is NEVER drink beer straight from the can/bottle, but I think that developed as our craft beer scene became obsessed with hops. I find if you’re drinking a maltier beer or a beer with minimal hops (read: any macro beer) you’re really not missing much by drinking straight out of the can/bottle.

                  1. Agreed, but I still don’t understand why anyone would bottle beer in a clear or green bottle. Any child knows that shit turns bad faster, yo.

                    1. lightstruck is a feature not a bug of two major “imported” brands (Heiniken and Rolling Rock!). I think they taste like shit, cause they are light struck. I go to extremes to keep my babies in the dark and cool environment they love. Ohh, not my actual baby byt the way my beer.

                    2. Agreed, but I still don’t understand why anyone would bottle beer in a clear or green bottle. Any child knows that shit turns bad faster, yo.

                      I think CB went for my point, but I’m not sure. If by feature he meant, “the beer goes bad so you have to buy more”, then yes, what CB said.

                  2. Some of us simply prefer wine to beer. 🙂

                  3. While its worse with hops, even malty aroma is lost without pouring into a glass.

                    Plus, at least with cans, you can get a metallic taste from your lips touchiing the can. Bottles this obviously isnt a problem.

                    1. you can get a metallic taste from your lips touchiing the can.

                      I like that part too. I should disclose that I have an almost unhealthy fascination for metal.

                2. BOTTLES BITCHES!!!

                3. You can’t shotgun a bottle. Or, at least, not easily.

                  1. Rolling Rock and Heineken’s flavor are not due to light struck, but off flavors during fermentation (diacetyl).

                    You cannot control light struck flavors (skunking of the hop oils)

                    1. Bah, no, dimethyl sulfide (canned corn).

                      I always get the two mixed up

                    2. diacetly is the bandaid taste/smell don’t brew with your lid on and don’t boil husks.

      2. Once…

        There are a lot of mind-bogglingly bad assumptions in your statement, but the most egregious is that you conflate one incident at one time and place with the actions of an entire community across all places and times.

        That would be like me taking a same-sex, middle aged, unfashionable (like me!) date to a frat row bar and assuming that because of the inevitable negative reception that all straight people are shallow, drunken homophobic jerks.

        Fail.

        1. it is fraternity…you don’t call your country a cunt do you?…ohh, wait…

          1. Oh, christ, you had to recite that stupidity.

            I used to hear that all the time from the stupid, insecure little frat boys. Which served only to further reinforce my decision NOT to pledge any fraternity. As if it needed reinforcing.

            Oh… but by not pledging a frat, did that decision affect commerce?

            1. No, but I call frat boys cunts all the time.

            2. mission accomplished.

              I never understood the hostility to fraternities. We never bother nor harrased anybody. As a matter of fact we invited everyone to our parties and paid for all the beer…why the hate?

              1. I’m with you CB. I got to play football, drink tons of beer, mooch cigarettes, and hang out with 11 sororities worth of women without actually having to look anywhere.

                Those awful, awful fraternities.

          2. My response to frat boys was always “No but I call other countries cunts”. If it aint my fraternity, I will call it a frat all I want.

      3. Being gay at a straight bar isn’t always the most comfortable situation either.

        1. Uh, that’s what I posted five minutes before you. STFU, Tony.

        2. Don’t get me started on being straight in a straight bar…

        3. No one notices you’re gay in a non-gay bar.

          1. Depends on the person. Obviously, a really flamboyant gay person would stand out, and some heteros awareness is higher than others. I used to go drinking with a gay friend at an Irish pub across from where we worked. One day he told me he’d gone there alone one night and gotten hassled, so we had to find another place to drink.

        4. Being gay at a straight bar isn’t always the most comfortable situation either.

          How? It is not as if women are going to come up and hit on you…

          Although if you are a woman (gay or straight) you might find it uncomfortable….depending on how much of a meat market the bar is.

          Plus in all honestly there is no such thing as a straight bar.

      4. I used to hang out at a couple of gay bars all the time, back in like 2003-2005. I’m straight, but at the time I had a lot of gay friends. I was never treated poorly, but of course that varies from place to place. And I’m sure it helped that a lot of the gay men there found me attractive and I was a bit, er, glam or something then. I wore makeup and stuff pretty often. Now that I think about it, I was pretty weird.

        1. (I’m a male, by the way. I know the username confuses some people.)

          1. Bunwalla does sound kinda feminine. Oh, did you mean the slut part?

            1. Ending “a” would make it a feminine noun…

              1. As opposed to a Bunwallo.

        2. You’re an okie right… ever go to the copa? My best friend got kicked out of there weekend before last for being too drunk. Can you imagine how drunk you’d have to be to get kicked out of that place?

          1. Yep. My friends and I got kicked out of there once too, but for a really stupid reason I don’t feel like explaining right now. That place is pretty horrible anyway.

            1. It’s horrid. At least they don’t charge a cover. Everywhere in Tulsa has started charging a cover. Even shitty hole in the wall places. Annoying.

      5. In fact, the reason I like going to gay bars (and why many straight women do too) is that the atmosphere is usually strong on acceptance. Where else can you be an overweight man dressed in women’s clothing without anyone batting an eye? And women often like that they’re not drooled over.

        1. “Where else can you be an overweight man dressed in women’s clothing without anyone batting an eye?”

          Jesus Tony! That is exactly the way I have always pictured you! I amaze myself sometimes. I really do!

          1. Er, no that’s not what I meant.

            1. That which has been posted cannot be unposted. Unless it’s about Moo-ham-ed or sheep.

              1. if Muhammad fucks sheep?

                1. Ever Wonder if Muhammad fucks sheep?

                  My androids dream about it all the time.

                2. Probably not…he had like a million wives.

                  I always wondered if he was a Jew. I mean the Koran has countless references to the Torah.

                  Why would he care or know about the Torah if he wasn’t?

      6. Amazing how those who preach tolerance are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet.

        Not everyone can be MLK Jr. or Ghandi. It’s all the average people who make people like those two seem all that much more remarkable.

        I guess for most people, if you feel denigrated and disciminated against all the time, and a person who you perceive to be a member of the class that does the denigrating and discriminating presents himself or herself, the reaction is to treat that person the way you assume that person would treat you. It’s sort of a defense mechanism, I guess.

        As I get older, my philosophy on lots of these types of issues is more and more becoming: “Meh. Whatever.”

        1. As I get older, my philosophy on lots of these types of issues is more and more becoming: “Meh. Whatever.”

          Preach it, brother!

          … or don’t. It’s all good.

          1. You both sound like you’re members of the Voter Apathy Party.

            1. They aren’t joiners, man.

            2. I would be, except for the brain slug…

    2. I have it on good authority that lesbian bars welcome heterosexual men, as long as they’re good dancers.

      1. So, 0.001% of straight, white men are welcome in lesbian bars?

      2. “Well the first bar things were stop and stare / But in this bar things were laissez faire”

  4. Honestly, how far do you think we are from having our reproduction regulated? It doesn’t seem that far at all to me. It seems like baby steps. Fortunately, I think, the vast majority of people – gay, straight and the rest – intuitively sense the danger and insanity represented by the view of these “anti-breeders”. I have to say that “breeders”, as an epithet is fairly weak. As for me, I don’t see the morality element in sexuality as long as you are harming no one and we are talking about consenting adults. I know that homos have been demonized and persecuted. I hardly think the answer is to demonize those who aren’t homos. I use the term “homo” deliberately – because it is goofy sounding and I have no sympathy for people who are offended by words. If I were gay, I would choose to be called a homo.

    1. Honestly, how far do you think we are from having our reproduction regulated? It doesn’t seem that far at all to me.

      Well, once I have to pay for your kids’ healthcare, I think I should have a say in how many kids you’re permitted to birth.

      If I were gay, I would choose to be called a homo.

      Too close to “hobo” for my tastes. I’d go with “queen”.

      No homo. Errr….No Queeny?

      1. But a queen is a certain type of homo.

        1. Oh, not applicable to any random gay dude? Damn, this gay stuff just keeps getting more and more complicated.

          1. Every culture has its own vocabulary and hierarchy. The first rule of human association is that if the group exceeds 3, rank must be established.

            1. Funny, my whole life I’ve hung out in groups of 3-4. Thankfully we were able to accommodate the occasional 4th without introducing ranks.

              1. Wouldn’t it be easier to just subordinate our group identities to… oh, say… some guy in a nice cushy office on the east coast? In a big white building, perhaps?

      2. “Well, once I have to pay for your kids’ healthcare, I think I should have a say in how many kids you’re permitted to birth.”

        Since, your kids will be paying for my retirement, I have a say in how many kids you must bring forth into the world.

  5. We are all faggots now.

  6. … straights are passed over for jobs and promotion in favour of homos, giving rise to a situation where some straights go so far as to pretend they are gay, adopting the ‘public skin of dandified epicene’, as Burgess describes it, in a desperate bid to make it in the world.

    I liked that novel better the first time I read it, when it was the TV show Three’s Company.

    1. I actually read The Wanting Seed at some point, but wasn’t as impressed as I’d thought I’d be. (I loved dystopian fiction even more then.) Then again, Burgess really bitched up A Clockwork Orange with that last chapter. Kubrick improved on the book.

  7. One additional reason this is retarded is because the populations that would listen to such an argument [white, western, affluent] aren’t “breeding” at replacement rates anyway and their “fertility” or lack thereof, left completely alone, will put a decreasing strain on the environment every year from here on out.

    1. +100. In Europe, for example, the white population is decreasing, and the immigrant (for lack of a better word, “brown”) population is increasing. And the “brown” population is NOT interested in the promotion of being gay or limiting their number of children.

      But addressing that point would involve confronting an immigrant or minority group.

    2. The Singaporeans seemed to listen. They are affluent but Asian and non-white. In fact, current propaganda campaigns to reverse the trend seem to have failed.

  8. In the year 2525 if man is still alive, if woman can survie, they may find. Won’t need your dick, won’t need your hand. If you’re a bottom of course.

    1. I read that to the time travel song from a recent Futurama episode.

      1. I read it to Age of Aquarius. Was your version any better, ’cause mine sucked ass.

        1. They rhyming scheme breaks down after the 1st sentence, so I dunno. I’ll have to try Age of Aquarius and see if it works better.

  9. The biological deadends certainly don’t help public pension schemes like Social Security.

  10. Good luck collecting Social Security in Homotopia!

  11. Are they serious? Have you ever been inside a urban gay couple’s home?

    Never has there been such a model of conspicuous, high-end consumption, all fueled by their child-free disposable income. Why more gays aren’t free-marketeers escapes me.

    1. Why more gays aren’t free-marketeers escapes me.

      Because they have the mistaken idea that liberals care more about gays, so they have to go along with whatever the liberal views on economics are?

      1. My DBA, who is gay, just isn’t capable of thinking outside the lefty box. He literally can’t imagine things ideas aren’t part of his world-view.

        How much of that is intertwined with his sexuality, I couldn’t tell you. But he loves him buying whatever the hell he wants to buy. The amount of money he or his partner will drop on virtually anything, without a second thought, blows me away.

        I guess he just thinks that material things just “appear” and aren’t a product of investment and risk-taking.

        1. In my experience, men dropping money on whatever the hell they want when they have no kids knows no sexual preference.

          1. In my experience, men dropping money on whatever the hell they want when they have no kids knows no sexual preference.

            As a straight, single, childless, male…^^This^^

            (Enjoying my new 6-core Early Xmas Present to myself. Best price/performance upgrade ever.)

        2. What’s a DBA?

          1. Database Admin?

            1. Dude
              Banging
              Asshole

              1. CHOKE!!@@$!1

                Shit, dude, don’t do that when I’m eating an oatmeal raising cookie.

                1. Raisins do not belong in cookies.

                  1. No, raisins don’t belong in salads and entrees. Desserts are a proper application.

      2. Liberals do care more about gays, and I suppose gays tend to be economic liberals because they don’t want to be poor.

        1. If by “care” you mean “pander to but do nothing for in reality” and if by “don’t want to be poor” you mean “don’t have the faintest whiff of understanding” then I agree with you.

        2. Tony, which administration was it that just recently filed a lawsuit to prevent judicial overturning of DADT?

          1. Which party is the one that might pass a repeal of DADT tomorrow (which of course the president would sign)?

            1. Tony, don’t count your chickens before the pen hits the paper.

              1. I’m not, I just know that if it goes down, it will be the GOP’s fault.

                1. This is good sockpuppeting.

                2. I just know that if it goes down, it will be the GOP’s fault.

                  Context: talking about Obama signing the bill.

                  Conclusion: if it fails, it’s the GOPs fault.

                  Did the GOP steal all of Obama’s pens? Get some thugs to break his writing hand? Mind control?

                3. “I’m not, I just know that if it goes down, it will be the GOP’s fault.”

                  Fuck the GOP for continuing Clinton’s policy.

            2. Which party eats shit on crackers and then says it is the finest pate they’ve ever had? Both of course.

            3. Oh, he’ll sign it this time? Because he sure didn’t seem to like it when it came from a court.

              1. Because he sure didn’t seem to like it when it came from a court.

                Hey, Obama likes gays as much as the next straight dude….but he’ll be DAMNED if anyone is going to exercise what should rightly be his Power.

                Plus, if the courts struck down DADT, with what action could Obama regain a few approval points prior to the end of his term in 2012?

              2. I’m pretty sure he’s openly advocated for ending DADT many times. He’s also explained in perfectly understandable English that for the most part the executive doesn’t pick and choose which laws of congress to defend.

                1. I’m pretty sure he’s openly advocated for ending DADT many times.

                  Oh, well based on his track record of doing what he says he’ll do, then it’ll DEFINITELY get vetoed.

            4. Which party is the one that might pass a repeal of DADT tomorrow

              Which log cabin group went to court over it?

              Anyway this is retarded.

              Libertarians are better on this issue then Republicans and Democrats.

              1. Libertarians are better on this issue then Republicans and Democrats.

                K, we’ll see whether the libertarians or the Democrats get a repeal through Congress first.

                1. …libertarians in Congress, they’d vote for such a thing quicker that the D’s.

                  Then again, if the above were true, DADT might never have come into existence in the first place.

                  1. So why aren’t there more libertarians in Congress.

                    1. …too many morons vote Team Red/Team Blue.

    2. Have you ever been inside a urban gay couple’s home?

      Many times, but you obviously know much more affluent homos than do I.

      Why more gays aren’t free-marketeers escapes me.

      I suggest that you ask John, RC Dean, Tulpa or one of the many other all-for-liberty-except-for-homos commenters to answer that question.

      1. Many times, but you obviously know much more affluent homos than do I.

        Possibly.

        I suggest that you ask John, RC Dean, Tulpa or one of the many other all-for-liberty-except-for-homos commenters to answer that question.

        I suggest you lurk more, or set the RDF to “non-subjective.”

      2. I have never seen RC be “except for homos” type comments. Cite please.

        1. That was my first thought too.

        2. I suspect anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage falls under that category. I certainly support liberty for all individuals regardless of who or what they prefer to rub their genitals against; my problem comes from the granting of special privileges.

          1. Tulpa is of course a tireless advocate for eliminating state sanctioned marriage. Right?

            1. Perhaps not tireless, but yes, I think that’s a solution. Or perhaps wrap up the legal nuts and bolts associated with marriage into a civil union paradigm that is open to any pair of individuals, with no presumption of sexual activity.

              1. Let me ask you something, and please be totally honest – do you care whether gay couples are treated as equals to heterosexual couples under the law?

                1. The law does not deal with couples, it deals with individuals.

                  Individuals should be treated equally under the law, yes.

                  1. Do you care whether homosexual individuals who are married have the same rights as heterosexual individuals who are married?

                    1. I’m with Tulpa on this: Fold all the privileges of marriage into the “civil union” batter, and bake at 350 degrees until slightly brown around the edges.

                    2. Tony, of course, will disagree, based on his fetish for the word “marriage”.

          2. Yes.

            1. Yes to Tulpa at 1:11 PM, that is.

          3. I agree with this. and the comment directly above mine. A slip of paper from the state shouldn’t be necessary. If it truly is about “love” then why do you give a crap about the tax break? That’s for homosexual and heterosexual couples.

            1. Should’ve refreshed first. I meant I am against state-sanctioned marriage as highnumber asked.

    3. Well, I am gay free-marketer and there are very few of us…. which has been especially apparent during this tax debate. You have no idea how many guys (interior decorators, gardeners, caterers) whose income is almost solely generated from people making more that $250,000/yr have supported raising taxes on the wealthy.
      I think Wylie is generally right. A lot gays (especially the ones that are painfully obvious when you meet them) are tied so strongly to their sexuality that they refuse to support fiscal conservatives, because they are rejected socially.

      1. they refuse to support fiscal conservatives, because they are rejected socially

        And yet still no traction on the Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal (FCSL) movement. *sigh*

        1. There was a bit of an start-up with the FLCL (Fooly Cooly?) movement a few years ago, but thankfully that died off. I don’t think I could handle a robot coming out of my forehead.

          1. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! I’m voting the FLCL ticket in 2012.

            Fuck “Hope and Change”, I want Crazy Sunshine.

            1. I want haruko on her vespa.

              1. That’s Vice President Haruko Haruhara, to you. Obviously, Lord Canti is President.

      2. It’s also easier to support tax hikes against yourself when you don’t have any stupid wiener kids to worry about. (And yes, I know there are child deductions, but I can tell you firsthand they are orders of magnitude smaller than the cost of raising kids.)

        1. Oops… should have been damn wiener kids. Simpsons reference fail.

    4. Why more gays aren’t free-marketeers escapes me.

      If it makes you feel any better, I know of quite a few.

      1. If the Republicans were smart, they’d stop picking on gays and pick up this demographic. Oh, that’s right, Republicans don’t really support free markets.

  12. I have heard/read lots of people use the term “breeder”, recently, as a slur in much the same way homophobes use the word “fag”.

    I think much of that is a reaction to denying gay people the same right to get married, etc…

    I think it’s like the OJ verdict. When a group of people feel like they’ve been mistreated, because they’re in that group, they lash out at those who they think are mistreating them–in whatever context happens to be available at the moment.

    I suspect this is why lashing out at families with children by banning Happy Meals has whatever support it has. This is why they bandy about the word “breeder” with such venom.

    The intelligentsia argues the merits of this and that within the context of whatever they’re arguing about–but that isn’t what the OJ jury was reacting to. That verdict meant that if we have to suffer injustice, then we will inflict some injustice on you–every chance we get.

    That’s the rap against “breeders” right now too. They’re the ones who are seen, specifically, as having voted against gay rights–so gay people are lashing out at them. That’s what accounts for why these arguments are resonating.

    If we can’t have marriage because it’s the foundation of the family–then we’ll just lash out at the very concept of family. No justice, no peace.

    1. I for one could get behind making straight marriage (heterosexual marriage) illegal. That solves two problems: It makes everyone equal befoer the law, and it protects a lot of people from themselves.

      Bam! Two progressive birds with one stone.

      1. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the US. Gay people all over the country hold wedding ceremonies and none of them have subsequently been taken away by men with guns and thrown in jail.

        1. Sure, until they try and use that marriage to share health insurance or pension benefits.

          1. Or tax treatment

            1. Well, they are always free to marry a women. HURR DURR!

          2. Plenty of insurers have plans for domestic partners. If you don’t like the insurance you have, find a different insurer.

            Oh wait, we suddenly forget about libertarianism when the subject of gay privilege comes up.

        2. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the US. Gay people all over the country hold wedding ceremonies and none of them have subsequently been taken away by men with guns and thrown in jail.

          What would happen to them if they went to the county offices and refused to leave until they were given the same piece of paper that hetero couples are given?

          1. Same thing that would happen to me if I went in alone and demanded a marriage license, refusing to leave without one.

            If an individual does not have a right to do something, neither does a group of individuals. That’s the contrapositive of the fundamental basis of individualism.

            1. You do understand that the hetero couple would be given the piece of paper, don’t you?

            2. If an individual does not have a right to do something, neither does a group of individuals. That’s the contrapositive of the fundamental basis of individualism.

              – Tulpa, the dumb shit who thinks you only need one individual to form a contract

        3. Whether I think legal marriage should be important to them is completely beside the point–the government discriminating against people is the government discriminating against people.

          Expecting them not to complain about being discriminated against is absurd.

    2. Many unmarried gays have adopted children, ya know.

      1. The fact that it’s the City of San Francisco that’s banning Happy Meals?

        Isn’t just a coincidence.

        Next on the list is presumably churches not paying taxes.

        …and it won’t have anything to do with what they say it’s about. All the arguments will go back and forth–but in the end it’s about lashing back at those who they think are actively supporting discrimination against them.

        The hate I’ve seen from those quarters directed at Mormons for allegedly bankrolling Proposition 8 is the same kind of thing…

        “Local LDS leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership?sometimes quite specific?to fulfill this call.[55][56] The response of the LDS membership to their leadership’s appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,[57] such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.[58] About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[59] ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate that about half the donations they received came from LDS sources, and that “eighty to ninety percent” of the early volunteers going door-to-door were LDS.[60]”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..osition_8_(2008)#Religious_organizations

        I graduated from a fundamentalist background myself–albeit not Mormon. Some of my family is still deeply fundamentalist, and I’ve stood up around here and elsewhere for the rights of fundamentalists, even when times were tough–with me calling the recent treatment of the FLDS particularly reprehensible, even as it was happening…

        …but even I have lost sympathy with the Mormons on this issue!

        How can anyone blame people for lashing back at those who actively supported using the government to discriminate against them?

        It’s the same thing with the “breeders” argument… They’re lashing out at those who they think support discriminating against them–nevermind the intellectual arguments. Outside of the ivory tower, it just isn’t about that.

        They’re lashing back at those who are actively using the government to discriminate against them. …and I have a hard time faulting them for it.

    3. “That’s the rap against “breeders” right now too. They’re the ones who are seen, specifically, as having voted against gay rights–so gay people are lashing out at them.”

      So such people are heterophobes?

  13. I thought morality was a choice and homo wasn’t?

  14. Gay couples don’t grow old? Nursing homes staff themselves? Population control in an aging society is very shortsighted.

  15. Be loud! Be proud! Have kids!

    1. Sing it loud,
      I’m straight and proud!

    2. We’re here! We birth children! Get used to it!

      1. I am male…

        and

        We birth children…

        You ARE weird.

        1. Men are generally included in the whole “birthing” process, despite not actually squeezing anything out. Hence the phrase “we’re having a baby.”

          1. I didn’t really give it that much thought, but yeah, this.

  16. Nancy Pelosi’s final act as Speaker: ratifying the Bush tax cuts.

    1. The explosion of her head should be visible from space.

  17. O’Neill notes that he had encountered this sentiment before in Anthony Burgess’ dystopian novel, The Wanting Seed, in which the state harshly discriminates against heterosexual breeders and promotes homosexuality in a future overpopulated Britain.

    This is pretty amusing, considering that Britain and most of the rest of western Europe has voluntarily decided to create their own dystopia, stop having children, and depopulate their own countries.

    It’s one of the big reasons why the Beveridgian/Bismarckian welfare state is on the verge of collapse. Those systems can only sustain themselves over the long haul if people continue to have more and more children to pay for the ever increasing entitlements. No kids, no workers, no taxpayers.

    1. multi-generational ponzy scheme

    2. So it’s like a ponzi scheme.

      1. I meant to write pony scheme… ;P

        1. Ah, the age old dream of the 12yr-old-girl voting bloc.

  18. Never has there been such a model of conspicuous, high-end consumption, all fueled by their child-free disposable income. Why more gays aren’t free-marketeers escapes me.

    Actually existing leftism is a high-end, highly conspicuous consumable.

  19. I thought there was no homosexual agenda and that no one was pushing a homosexual lifestyle?

    1. Blah, blah, snore.

  20. The way things are going at Catholicism HQ, it won’t be too much longer before they *openly* condone homosexuality (instead of secretly forcing on their youngest members).

    Latest breakthrough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbxov7CVi8

  21. If being gay is genetic, then why isn’t the gay gene being selected out of society?

    1. Because it serves some biological purpose, genius.

      1. Awesome non-answer.

        Anyone else wanna take a crack? If the biological purpose is to not breed, then what is the mechanism for the continuation of the gay gene?

        1. For those of you honestly curious about the science behind this question, here’s an article discussing the theoretical models attempting to explain why gay males don’t go extinct. (Lesbians are apparently still a mystery to science– seriously)

          http://www.livescience.com/hea…..ality.html

          If [recent studies turn] out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn’t have been eliminated from the gene pool already.

          1. (Lesbians are apparently still a mystery to science– seriously)

            Liberal arts colleges have only been around for an eyeblink in evolutionary time frames.

          2. This is kind of stupid. Other recessive genes can cause fatal diseases, yet they remain in the gene pool. If a recessive gene that actively kills you doesn’t die out, why should one that merely means you are unlikely to procreate?

            1. A reasonable question, but for which there is probably a very good scientific answer. Many of those fatal diseases aren’t always guaranteed to be fatal, and may often show up after procreation.

              If the parent passes the recessive gene to three children, but only one develops the fatal disease, you still have two children to procreate and pass on again that same recessive gene.

              I’m not a geneticist, but these are all valid questions. Why does a gene that seems to limit or eliminate procreation continue to survive in the gene pool?

          3. I have a theory on lesbianism: women who are generally too ugly to find a lasting male partner are lesbians. If a woman is on the scale of mildly attractive to hot, she is not a lesbian but may be bisexual.

            Anecdotal proof: Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O’Donnell.

            1. Dude, have you seen Ellen DeGeneris’ wife?

              1. The exception that proves the rule?

              2. Yeah, and I’m not convinced that she doesn’t get some man-action on the side, looking like that.

          4. Lesbians are apparently still a mystery to science– seriously

            Women are attractive. Consider the Science settled.

            Next Question.

            1. I’ve applied for a research grant to study the behavior of lesbians in the Czech Republic.

        2. If the biological purpose is to not breed, then what is the mechanism for the continuation of the gay gene?

          There are plenty of genetically-driven disorders that tend to select against reproduction (e.g., short life span or various disorders), but that continue to show up.

          Maybe it’s a recessive gene carried by the female.

          I’m not totally serious there, because I’m not sure there is a “gay gene”. To me, it seems more like body chemistry – hormones not quite in the right balance at the right times during development or growth.

          Not as simple as a single gene that functions like a light switch – if it’s one way, you’re gay; the other way, you’re not.

          1. I agree with the thinking that there isn’t a “gay gene.” But I think it does a great disservice to homosexuals by saying their hormones are not in the right balance. That’s why I lean towards nurture of nature. Would you rather say you actively participated in the decision to become a homosexual or that you had an imbalance that forced you to be a homosexual?

            I think acceptance of homosexuals as regular people who just happen to have sex with the same sex is necessary in eliminating this stigma, but I’m also not sure that is something the homosexual community wants. As was the case with minorities after the Civil Rights Act passed, there tends to be a focus on restoring the balance (read: having the same imbalance but in the previously discrimated’s favor).

            1. read: having the same imbalance but in the previously discrimated’s favor

              The good ‘ole Master/Slave reversal.

              Is there anything that Frank Herbert left out of Dune?

          2. According to Professor Kinsey’s research, every person is some % homosexual, that that trait can be repressed or expanded based upon a variety of factors – hormones, environment, negative experiences with the opposite gender, etc. It’s not a pure nature vs. nurture argument.

            1. I would actually agree with this assessment, as it still leaves the choice of a heterosexual lifestyle or a homosexual lifestyle up to the individual. It is also pretty widely supported by examples throughout the animal kingdom. I would imagine a lot of the religious right would not be in favor of this theory, however, deeming it to be “unnatural.”

              1. Oh those homosexuals and their lifestyle!

          3. There are plenty of genetically-driven disorders that tend to select against reproduction (e.g., short life span or various disorders), but that continue to show up.

            Maybe it’s a recessive gene carried by the female.

            Did you read the article I linked? It suggests just that.

        3. There does not seem to be any “gay gene” in the normal sense; the latest twin study (the Canadian one) pretty well dispelled the notion.

          The evidence may still support that theory that being gay is epigenetic. That is, it transfers more like adult-onset diabetes than the color of your skin.

          So, like diabetes, a gene is a necessary condition, but not sufficient one. Certain environmental factors have to be involved before the disease actually afflicts you.

          This is actually a much simpler explanation, though it does mean that homosexuality can (theoretically) be prevented, which opens another whole can of worms.

    2. Honestly, there are two things that keep me from totally accepting that homosexuality is genetic. That’s the first, and the second is the prevalence of homosexuality in prisons and other all-male populations.

      That being said, I don’t really give a shit if people are straight or gay so I haven’t given the question that much thought… I’m guessing my questions look pretty stupid to evolutionary biologists.

      1. I seriously doubt prison sodomy is due to homosexual desires, any more than masturbation is due to sexual attraction to hands. Some guys will just fuck anything available that can be made to feel like a vagina.

        1. Sugarfree makes me feel like a vagina sometimes.

          1. But it’s a fancy vagina, right?

        2. This. Prison sex (I’d imagine) is about power, not about sexual attraction.

          1. That too. But there is also voluntary homosexual activity among heterosexuals with no other options, that’s simply about getting off.

      2. CMS, the homosexuality in prison (and on pirate ships, etc) is only situational, ie men are pigs and will **** anything, particularly if their preferred choices are unavailable (kind of like the beer goggles effect). Most prisoners, etc, revert to heterosexuality once released. Also, prison sex is as much about power as anything.

        1. I realize that gay sex in prison is different from identifying as a homosexual. My point was more that it suggests a behavioral element to homosexual practice that could still be present in those who are self-identified homosexuals, though the more I think about it I’d probably agree that it’s probably irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality.

        2. Most prisoners, etc, revert to heterosexuality once released.

          Unless they’re robbing a convenience store with a male clerk, that is.

    3. Some research suggests that homosexuality (at least in males) is genetically linked with higher fecundity in females. A little arithmetic can show you how increased reproductive success of female relatives can more than offset the adaptive disadvantage of being homosexual. Homosexuals are also more free to help care for related children, thus further increasing their genetic success. Eh, it’s a theory.

      1. Evolution created rich gay uncles?!?!

      2. Interesting. I always figured the most logical answer (to me, at least) would be that, so long as heterosexuality is viewed as the norm, you’ll always have some latent homosexuals marrying and reproducing as part of self-denial. Ironically, if that were the case (which I’m sure it’s not since, again, I know very little on the subject) then the acceptance of gay relationships could actually lead to decrease in the overall gay population.

        1. Natural selection sometimes works in counter-intuitive ways. If you sacrifice your life to save two siblings or three first cousins you’re actually better off than by saving yourself and sacrificing those others in terms of getting your genes passed on. See Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene

      3. reproductive success of female relatives can more than offset the adaptive disadvantage of being homosexual. Homosexuals are also more free to help care for related children, thus further increasing their genetic success. Eh, it’s a theory.

        And it’s certainly one I can accept. For the record, I never believed (and still generally don’t) that homosexuality is genetic. But regardless, I had never seen the question even approached in regards to how the gene would survive a group which don’t (on paper, at least) procreate. For years I never even saw the question asked in scientific circles. When I found the article above, I was impressed to know that at least someone is looking at that question from a scientific perspective. Whether or not they provide adequate answers is, of course, another issue.

    4. Three theories, as described by Richard Dawkins:
      – Gay Uncle
      – Sneaky Fucker
      – New environments cause old genes to cause new behaviors

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

    5. FWIW, my bet is that being gay is almost certainly imprinting, either sexual or genomic. We know humans have reverse sexual imprinting, the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years makes sexual attraction low.

      My best evidence is negative, strong evidence for genetic markers for homosexuality have not been found.

      Evolution makes use of whatever tools are lying around.

      1. Evolution makes use of whatever tools are lying around.

        Tee-hee!

  22. These days, one thing is becoming crystal clear.

    Heterosexuals be f’ing CRAZY.

  23. every child born to the rich deprives children elsewhere of the means of survival

    Bullshit. Tax-dollar expenditures on rich (or middle class) kids is generally lower than the expenditures for poor kids because the don’t need Head Start, School Lunches, AFDC, etc. The “rich” kid is more likely to grow up to be person who pays more taxes than he receives in government service.

    Ultimately, for the prosperous to go child-free is the ultimate going Galt.

    1. I don’t know if I would call it going Galt. I may be wrong on this, as I’ve never actually read Rand, but my understanding of going Galt is when folks who are disproportionately contributing to society stop contributing such that free-riders are screwed? In this situation, you would actually BECOME a free-rider, which is an entirely different thing.

      1. Going Galt was to drop out altogether. Galt left society entirely — somehow.

      2. What I meant was that as the poor continue to breed at or above replacement rate, and the “rich” breed at an increasingly lower rate which is already below replacement, that the pool of tax dollars will shrink, which will ultimately kill the welfare state when there is nobody to pay for it.

        I’m assuming the same definition of “rich” as does Dagny below at 1:09.

        1. Going Idiocracy?

      3. They wouldn’t be free-riders in that they would continue to fund the choices of other people to reproduce. In an evolutionary since, rich people not reproducing are only “cheating” themselves.

        The only real danger to the breeding poor would be general childlessness among the rich bring them around to libertarian “pay for your own choices” attitudes.

        And if people really worried about the child of the poor financially supporting the rich in their dotage, means testing is a far better fix.

    2. I read this as grouping all of us carbon gluttons in the West as their definition of “the rich.” What with our meat-eating and car-driving and other sins against Gaia.

      1. …why have you yet to commit suicide, Dagny?

  24. Neo-Malthusian conspiracy? Or just the inverse of the anti-gay marriage lobby’s main argument? You and Ockham go figure it out.

  25. …the heterosexual lifestyle, in which every sexual encounter involves recklessly pointing a loaded gun of sperm at a willing and waiting target.

    I don’t know. That sounds pretty gay to me.

  26. This is old news from the last century. Population control propaganda is so pervasive and accepted now that most people aren’t even aware that they practice it, nor is it cited in discussions and debates.

    For example, teenagers used to get married. Men used to marry women ten to twenty years younger than themselves. Abortion used to be illegal.

    The efforts at social engineering through population control have resulted in widespread illegitimacy. Those breeders need to get to work and start providing kids to fill those jobs that are going to immigrants.

    When a social engineering plan fails though, liberals don’t give up, they just add another control loop or tune up the gain.

  27. Why is it that all of these damn nags about population don’t set a proper example and publicly off themselves? You want less population? Start with yourself you stupid pseudo-intellectual hypocrites!

  28. in which every sexual encounter involves recklessly pointing a loaded gun of sperm at a willing and waiting target

    Sort of a dumb premise given the widespread availability and use of birth control.

    Here I thought selfish, career-driven women such as myself, having consequence-free sex and delaying or avoiding childbirth altogether were the ones destroying society. Which is it?

    1. YIKES!!!! HAWWT!!!! Dagny, I now have an excellent mental picture of you. libertarina women are hawt as a function of being libertarian…sweet.

      1. “libertarina.” Is that one of those non-discriminatory intentional misspellings like “womyn”?

        1. nice new word for hot libertarian womanhood…libertinas or libertarinas

        2. Libertarina could be the name of a cocktail. Any mixologists out there?

          1. Cuba Libertinas: Rum and Co-Cola.

    2. Purple prose?

      I moved toward her with my loaded gun of sperm as her willing and waiting target quivered in anticipation.

      Society can’t be proven to exist.

  29. So you have to breed or be gay? Holy false dichotomy.

    As usual, no love for the masturbators.

    1. If you are masturbating to improve the economy, then you are a good consumer and will receive positive feedback.

    2. Amen. (typed with one hand.)

      1. If you’re a programmer, don’t ever break your collarbone. Six weeks of “Wow! Where did you learn to type so fast one handed?” snark gets old.

        1. You must do some pretty extreme programming to be breaking bones.

          (Yeah, I know, didn’t happen on the job. Just go along with it and imagine yourself as a sort of Indiana Jones crossed with Linus Torvalds.)

          1. XP, the other guy was looking over my shoulder so hard it broke!

    3. So you have to breed or be a masturbator? Unholy false dichotomy.

    4. Well, except for self-love.

      1. Self-love? I always hate-bate.

        1. what’s wrong with masturbation? It’s sex with someone I love!

          1. Don’t knock my hobbies!

          2. On the downside, if it goes badly, you only have yourself to blame.

            1. On the downside, if it goes badly, you only have yourself to blame.

              Nah, I blame bad keyboard ergonomics.

        2. In all truth SF-I don’t see how you could do it any other way.

  30. This is such fucking bullshit…like we don’t place moral superiority on being a parent in this society, when meanwhile it’s something any fucking idiot can do, and a perfect way to get on the welfare system.

    1. We place moral superiority on being a i>parent because it’s a damned hard, vitally necessary task–one that is not the same as providing sperm to and egg or being an incubator. Parent denotes more than the biological act of reproduction.

      Someone who spits out kids to get welfare is not a parent.

  31. like we don’t place moral superiority on being a parent in this society

    Clearly you’re not a parent, otherwise you would understand just how superior they are. Just like how we can’t understand anything about raising kids since we don’t have any. It’s not like we used to be kids or anything, and so might have some insight into the process. Nope, none at all. Oh, and it doesn’t matter how many younger siblings you helped take care of. ONLY producing your own offspring grants the powers of omniscience that is required for parenting (sorry people who adopt, you’ll just never be a good parent.)

  32. Fuck the environment – I don’t have kids because they’re noisy, hyper and dirty.

    1. I don’t have kids because I actually have things I want to do with my time.

      1. I didn’t have children so as to not pass on my crap DNA. Although, my wife not turning into some kid’s mom had its measure of effect as well.

        1. Interestingly, that’s one of the only reasons I can come up with to have kids. But it’s not good enough for me to go through the lifetime of bullshit that follows.

          1. Interestingly, that’s one of the only reasons I can come up with to have kids.

            I assume you were referring to passing on DNA. Can women donate eggs like men donate sperm, or is it limited to surrogate situations?

            At least you know you’d be out there, and that whoever is raising your genetic progeny is probably less burdened that the average parent (assuming you weren’t a hellion as a child, and that behavior is hereditary).

      2. Well, that too!

      3. So do I, but the things I do tend to result in kids.

    2. It’s comments like this that make me wonder why some people try to pressure childless folks into having kids. I have three kids, all currently under the age of five, and there are plenty of times where I ask myself what the hell I’m doing–and I WANTED to have kids. I have no desire to tell someone who doesn’t want kids to have them.

      On a side note, I would note the irony that many people who claim they don’t want kids because they’re noisy, dirty, etc. often have like five or six dogs and/or cats.

      1. I only have one dog and one cat, both of whom can stay at home with minimal care while I’m on vacation. Oh, and they will quietly watch hours of TV with me without moving a muscle.

        1. Trade you your dog and cat for my two dogs (who seem to wait until the moment my wife and I get the kids to bed and sit down to watch one of the three shows we actually watch on a regular basis to start playing and barking loudly).

          Actually, on second thought, you can keep the cat.

          1. Notice how I didn’t address your point about pets being dirty 😉

            1. Eventually, kids learn to clean up their own excretions.

        2. There is little sadder than people who substitute pets for kids. Sorry.

          If you avoid kids because you don’t want to deal with the hassle of caring for another living being (which I can understand), why the heck are you caring for animals, whose piss and poop you’re going to have to clean up for their entire lives, and who won’t be there to support you in your old age?

      2. 1 dog, and behaviorally she’s a lot like a child, very demanding of attention. But I can ignore her, whereas I would get sent to jail if I did that with a human child.

        She’s a pretty clean pup though. I have no idea how she avoids stepping in any mud when it rains, but I never have to wipe her feet like my previous dogs. They would actively seek out dirt and try to bring as much as possible back into the house (possibly for enjoyment later, i dunno.)

        So: only 1 dog, and it’s quiet, clean, and only demands lots of attention. Just like kids? Close, but no cigar. Definitely not close enough to be ironic.

      3. If I ever get sick and tired of the cats being noisy or dirty I can have them killed.

        1. You can do the same thing with kids. There are consequences, but…

        2. You can do the same thing with kids. There are consequences, but…

      4. It’s comments like this that make me wonder why some people try to pressure childless folks into having kids.

        I have done it…but mostly only because the poeple i did it to were left wing statists and deserved it.

        If it isn’t you parents pressuring you my reason is probably the number one reason of all.

        statist – “We need more Taxes”

        me – “You should have kids”

      5. The only animals I have in my place are about 6 Chinese stinkbugs stuck in the ceiling lamp that I haven’t emptied out yet. They don’t demand much attention anymore, though it was kind of cool to watch them struggling to climb up the bowl, almost making it to the edge before sliding back down onto the pile of their dead friends and starting over again.

  33. Enjoy being smug about not being breeders now. They’re going to perfect the test tube baby thing one of these days.

    1. Then we can create the perfect Society with a Utopian economy!

  34. I have never been happier in my life since I became a breeder.

    1. I find unproductive breeding to be truly delightful.

      1. you mean anal? meh. I trust the birth control.

        1. I think he means he’s sterile.

  35. Also, why has no one posted this, or any of their other songs yet?

    1. I think kids these days are using different drugs than we used to back in the 70’s. Why aren’t pot and LSD good enough for them any more?

      Do any of you breeders know what your kids are doing?

      1. Probably inhalants, since they’re legal to purchase.

        Can’t have them smoking any devil weed!

        1. Nope. Us old fuckers sure are a buncha greedy bastages, wantin it all for ourselves 😉

          1. I grew up on the Gulf Coast where you used to be able to buy commercial grade Mexican for $15 an once or $150 a pound, and people these days have the nerve to complain about a real estate bubble!

            There is one young feller whose music I like though, ATB

        2. Whoa, CoCo was looking pretty heavyset there. He must have lost all the weight when he got that awesome beard he has now.

          1. I think that was 2002 or so.

      1. Thanks, 0x90, it’s been frickin’ freezing.

        1. I hear you. My plan is to stay inside until sometime around April.

          1. I’d like to do the same too, but I need to get out there before spring really gets underway to prepare my garden beds.

      2. She looks like the type of girl I used to seduce at keggers in the 80’s. Some things never change I guess.

  36. Can we please get an Idiocracy reference? This thread demands one.

    1. Spermdo, it’s got what cervices crave. It’s got electrolytes.

  37. O’Neill notes that he had encountered this sentiment before in Anthony Burgess’ dystopian novel, The Wanting Seed, in which the state harshly discriminates against heterosexual breeders and promotes homosexuality in a future overpopulated Britain.

    So in this dystopian future, birth control doesn’t exist?

    1. It exists, but you expect the state to trust it’s delicate plans to a bunch of women who might forget to take their pill?

      1. (and cmon, the logistics of mandatory contraceptive injections would just be too expensive.)

    2. Yeah, the whole concept is as idiotic as saying the government discriminated against anyone who wasn’t “interested” in sheep and would try to convert people towards sheep love so they couldn’t procreate.

      I can totally understand gays being peeved about such a “dystopia” being suggested in a day where there was an actual dystopia trying to convert them all into “breeders” and criminalize/discriminate against them. Then again, Burgess may have been intentionally turning the scales to make a point about this very fact. Need to RTFB.

      1. Then again, Burgess may have been intentionally turning the scales to make a point about this very fact.

        Maybe. When I read that, I was thinking along the lines of, “Things that Fox News would say are going to happen if the Democrats win the next election,” rather than a work of intentional irony.

    3. Burgess, like his hero Aldous Huxley and like George Orwell, was making a socialist’s critique of socialism.

      1. Uh, no. Burgess lampooned the socialist state in “Clockwork Orange.” He was a Catholic apologist, unlike Huxley who was a fervent Atheist.

        1. In Ninety-Nine Novels Aldous Huxley gets three mentions, more than anyone else, you are serving up a cold dash of red herring.

  38. “Still, it should be noted that the neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) have been agitating for totalitarian measures such as licensing reproduction for decades without any success in the West.”

    Conservatives who bemoan Roe v. Wade for finding a constitutional right of privacy in reproductive decisions that government cannot invade would do well to take note: This is one reason why loons like Ehrlich have no success imposing their views on the rest of us.

    1. ^This

    2. Not only is that false dichotomy wider than the Pacific Ocean, but it also ignores all the post-Roe court orders forbidding people from having children.

  39. Both O’Neill’s argument and Bailey’s apparent support of it annoyed me, so I blogged about it: The ecological morality of breeding…or not

  40. But isn’t it fiscally irresponsible to not have children? Who will pay off the national debt and fund the retiree lifestyle of the boomers?

    1. The printing presses will pay off the national debt. As to the retiring baby boomers, well, I guess they’ll just have to work until they can’t anymore, just like the vast majority of people throughout the history of the world.

  41. My award for ecological moral superiority hypocrisy goes to the “green” homeowners highlighted on HGTV for tearing down a perfectly functional, small, 30-year-old home and replacing it with a new “green” home three times the size, built with reclaimed materials trucked in from three states away.

  42. Exactly, CE– the problem isn’t that there’s no such thing as morality when it comes to ecology, but that people have such bizarre ideas about what makes them ecologically moral. Just because someone’s hypocritical about their morality doesn’t mean that morality doesn’t apply.

    If your choices potentially cause harm, they’re in the moral/political domain. Period. That’s why people who insist that they don’t have anything to do with politics drive me nuts– they DO affect politics, every second of every day, but they refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for it.

    1. Survival and reproduction are in fact most definitely amoral. That’s why a mother lion will eat a four year old girl alive while she screams in fear and pain and drag the corpse back to feed her cubs.

      Society doesn’t exist, but if it did, then I’d say goddamn society.

      1. Last I checked, we’re not lions.

        1. Then why did the Germans bomb London? And we in turn firebombed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and so forth?

          We’re busy slaughtering terrorists now because they threaten the nation’s survival, and the terrorists are killing our civilians every chance they get.

          1. I don’t remember firebombing Dresden, and none of the Germans I know bombed London.

            Just because people have acted immorally in the past (or the present) does not give us license to do so now. It is a detestable version of collectivism that you proffer here.

            1. The point is that people will act ruthlessly, especially when their cause is just, moral and right.

              For example; get an abortion, it’s good for the economy and will help your career, or bomb an abortion clinic, those people are murdering babies.

        2. Does this mean I can’t eat the four-year-old kid I was planning to have for dinner?

          Crap…

          1. You can as long as you observe the Koran

  43. why DON’T we have a Homosex Institute?

  44. Sorry, I don’t know the holy fuck you’re talking about.

    The point was that humans have the capacity to consider the harm their actions may cause to others, and we have an obligation to do so when making any decisions unless the only alternative is death. And it very rarely is.

    1. My point is that although our actions should be guided and informed by compassion, we can’t count on people or Nature to act with compassion.

      And when people’s reproductive instincts or survival instincts kick in, watch out!

      1. I forgot to add, people are at their most dangerous when they are performing some action they have been taught is moral, like jihad or serving the economy or some such.

      2. There is, and should be, no compassion in the rice of libertarianism; it only has room for fair dealing. You can choose to garnish the rice with compassion in the areas libertarianism does not speak to.

        1. I have diabetes, so no rice for me, only vegetables, meat, beans, and some occasional fruit.

        2. Some people live their lives guided by reason and compassion and let those forces guide their politics.

          1. Anyone whose life is guided by pure reason curls up on the floor and dies of thirst.

            1. Ignoratio elenchi.

              1. Uh, no. If my statement is true, then there is no one whose life is guided by reason.

                1. All Tulpas are liars.

                  Now Tulpa, what would another Tulpa say is the life guided by pure reason.

                2. I never said anything about a life guided by pure reason.

                  (All this is to ignore an unsupported statement anyway, but that’s for another time.)

      3. Yeah….thanks, I’m well aware that people and other animals have all sorts of reasons to tear each other apart, and they will do so. Morality is about the “should,” not the “is.”

  45. …or any other gays that may be posting here:

    Why, if “faggot” can be a hate-speech term, should “breeder” not be considered hate speech as well?

    1. Straight people don’t have a history of being oppressed because of their sexuality. I see it more as a neutral term, but if it hurts your feelings, I will honor your wishes and not use it in mixed company.

      1. Straights have been flogged or stoned to death or beheaded for fornication and adultery by moral, righteous, deeply religious people.

        Have you never heard of Saudi Arabia?

        1. You fucking Christians need to learn some religious tolerance.

        2. We demand an apology for your baseless slander of our religious beliefs, Van.

          If you don’t, we’ll either sue you… or you’ll die. Your choice.

      2. …situational ethics applied to what SHOULD be a universal constant – that it is wrong to belittle people of ANY race, creed, or sexuality?

        Seems to me, you’re excusing one kind of hate speech just to get back at everyone who makes fun of gays. Not very consistent there, Mister So-Called Liberal.

        BTW, I only used one term for each, so don’t be disingenuous along with your penchant for “if it hurts your feelings”-style platitudes.

        Either it’s wrong for ALL, or it’s wrong for NONE. Pick one, Tony.

        1. It’s okay for us to call for the deaths of white people, because of all that slavery decades ago.

          But don’t you DARE call us names.

        2. You’re right. You should call people what they prefer to be called in their company and not something else. Grievance mathematics don’t really factor in.

        3. How about this–

          People should reaquaint themselves with the idea that insults are supposed to hurt feelings. That’s what they’re for. Thus ‘nigger’, or ‘faggot’ or ‘dago’, ‘cracker’ or ‘breeder’, when used, should not be subject to the notion that it is wrong to belittle people of ANY race, creed, or sexuality. These words exist solely for the purpose of belittling people of ANY race, creed, or sexuality and are exempt.

      3. …according to this:

        “Straight people don’t have a history of being oppressed because of their sexuality”

        …would it be a hate crime if a gang of gay men beat up a straight man based on his sexual preference?

  46. Thanks to the depletion of resources and the effects of climate change, every child born to the rich deprives children elsewhere of the means of survival.

    So anti-market types have found yet another way to argue that economic exchanges are inherently zero-sum. I wonder what they’ll come up with in another 20 or 30 years? Should be good.

  47. “Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.”

    –Robert Heinlein

    1. Except for bees, ants, flocks of birds, herds of mammals, and schools of fish. Many animals cluster. It makes them less vulnerable to predators.

    2. Heinlein also mentioned the government sponsorship of homosexuality in “I Will Fear no Evil”

  48. Yeah. Family housing is so unaffordable in densely populated New Jersey that I just gave up on women and started dating men.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.