population growth rate slowing.

[rwh11385]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/10/history.society

Plato wrote that same-sex lovers were more blessed than ordinary mortals.

The secret of Greek homosexuality has only ever been a secret to those who neglected to inquire. The Greeks themselves were hardly coy about it. Their descendants under the Roman empire were amazed to read what their ancestors had written centuries earlier, drooling in public over the thighs of boys, or putting words into the mouth of Achilles in a tragic drama, as he remembered the "kisses thick and fast" he had enjoyed with his beloved Patroclus. The Romans certainly noticed what they called the "Greek custom", which they blamed on too much exercising with not enough clothes on. Christians mocked a people who worshipped gods who kidnapped handsome boys like Ganymede, or who, like Dionysus, promised a man his body in exchange for information about how to get into the underworld. Nor was it forgotten in the Middle Ages, when Greek Ganymede became a codeword for sodomitical vice.

Just because it was socially repressed doesn't mean it didn't exist for a long, long time. And the world was hardly overpopulated during the time of the Trojans. Trojan condoms have more to do with change in birth rates than your theory of nature creating or increasing homosexuality to control population.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Never did I say it didn't exist, but it has never been as widely socially acceptable as it is in relation to world population than it is presently.

[cale]

The ocean is pretty big, you cast your line far enough and you'll eventually catch something...but it's not necessarily worth eating.

I don't think acceptance has had a big impact on it. I'm willing to wager a large portion of those who didn't come out as gay before simply remained single, so the would have had a negative impact on birth rates already. Yes homosexuality will have an adverse affect on growth, but it would be relatively minor when you compare it to birth rates which are already in decline. It's not making or breaking anything, so no reason to single it out.

[rwh11385]

Never did I say it didn't exist, but it has never been as widely socially acceptable as it is in relation to world population than it is presently.

So you believe it is more socially acceptable now than it was in Greece?

And you are aware that people get murdered for being gay in Africa, right? Kinda brings down the world average acceptance rate.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/29/gay_africans_flee_persecution/

The ocean is pretty big, you cast your line far enough and you'll eventually catch something...but it's not necessarily worth eating.

I don't think acceptance has had a big impact on it. I'm willing to wager a large portion of those who didn't come out as gay before simply remained single, so the would have had a negative impact on birth rates already. Yes homosexuality will have an adverse affect on growth, but it would be relatively minor when you compare it to birth rates which are already in decline. It's not making or breaking anything, so no reason to single it out.

I think he cast out in the dark.


It is also a negative impact on birth rates of people becoming educated, spending more years in school, being serious about their professional career, women's right and tearing down glass ceilings, and not making more more babies than you can feed... but let's try to attack one possible influence because it's disliked by a portion of the population and they're upset that others are accepting of it now.

[Farbin Kaiber]

The population of Ancient Greece at it's peak was estimated to be 10-13 million.

If every person in Greece accepted/approved homosexuality at the peak of Greece, in relation to the United States today, where the acceptance rate is >50% of the present US population, that was calculated to be 308 million at the 2010 Census, so yes, it is obviously more accepted now, in the US alone than it was in Greece.


You are not the only one that can use numbers to prove your position.

EDIT: Graphs and data, I know you like them...

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

[rwh11385]

The population of Ancient Greece at it's peak was estimated to be 10-13 million.

If every person in Greece accepted/approved homosexuality at the peak of Greece, in relation to the United States today, where the acceptance rate is >50% of the present US population, that was calculated to be 308 million at the 2010 Census, so yes, it is obviously more accepted now, in the US alone than it was in Greece.


You are not the only one that can use numbers to prove your position.

Who in their right mind defines acceptance by population and not by % of total?

Is it friendlier to be in a population of 10 million which 50% accept something or or 100 million with 6% accepting of it? By your "logic" the population with only 6% accepting of it would be more accepting than the former.

Using numbers in an illogical manner just hoping that throwing them around will help doesn't prove your position, just that you are ridiculous.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I highly think that there is no way 100% of the peak total of Greek population "accepted" homosexuality. I was giving you a "best case" scenario.

I also shared a link that shows 50% of the population of the US, as of 2010, the same time the US Census found the population to be approximately 308,000,000 people.

Unfortunately, I am without a Time Machine to poll the ancient Greeks, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and calculated from a 100% acceptance rate of the maximum estimated population, because, I also cannot find accurate Census records of the population from the 400BC.

[rwh11385]

I highly think that there is no way 100% of the peak total of Greek population "accepted" homosexuality. I was giving you a "best case" scenario.

I also shared a link that shows 50% of the population of the US, as of 2010, the same time the US Census found the population to be approximately 308,000,000 people.

Unfortunately, I am without a Time Machine to poll the ancient Greeks, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and calculated from a 100% acceptance rate of the maximum estimated population, because, I also cannot find accurate Census records of the population from the 400BC.

And you are still missing the point, like taking wild shots and missing the broad side of your barn. You can't compare numbers like you are attempting to.

What was the population of left-handed people in ancient Greece? It's going to be a smaller number than today's simply because of the growth in world population. But does that mean that nature influenced genetics of humans to make more lefties? No. That's just stupid because you are ignoring that you need, percentage of total not absolute total, to have any meaningful discussion.

You are only looking at the nominator and must factor in the denominator.

[Farbin Kaiber]

LOL. I can just visualize Heeter angry, red faced, beating upon the keys of his keyboard. I bet he has had to get up and walk around the room at least three times because of this thread.

[rwh11385]

LOL. I can just visualize Heeter angry, red faced, beating upon the keys of his keyboard. I bet he has had to get up and walk around the room at least three times because of this thread.

Nah, as much as your stupidity is annoying... I'm more focused on the dismal performance of my fantasy team. But congrats on thinking your illogical posts had any value.

Trolls be trolling.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Eh. Gay kisses at ya either way schnookums.

[cale]

Pretty much every study dealing with statistics of a group of people is done so via percentage of that population so as to make the comparisons of differing groups possible, reliable and unbiased. I don't think he's pulling any hair out, but simply perplexed at how you are blatantly twisting all rules of statistics in your favor.

[z31maniac]

I didn't read any replies...........so while as far as the earth is concerned I think it's a very good idea (part of the reason the wife and I have decided against kids, although we have tossed around the idea of adopting).

Economically, it's going to be very rough for all of the Western countries.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Pretty much every study dealing with statistics of a group of people is done so via percentage of that population so as to make the comparisons of differing groups possible, reliable and unbiased. I don't think he's pulling any hair out, but simply perplexed at how you are blatantly twisting all rules of statistics in your favor.

I gave a % of the US population, as you state would be correct. I also gave a best case scenario % of the Ancient Greek population. As far as I can tell, I twisted the rules of statistics in HIS favor. I'm not seeing the issue here, maybe you could dumb it down so a simpleton could understand?

[rwh11385]

I gave a % of the US population, as you state would be correct. I also gave a best case scenario % of the Ancient Greek population. As far as I can tell, I twisted the rules of statistics in HIS favor. I'm not seeing the issue here, maybe you could dumb it down so a simpleton could understand?

In your case, you gave a 100% scenario for Ancient Greece and tried then to argue that 100% was less than 50%...

I don't know if cale is a miracle worker.