Hey GCG - thanks for introducing me to a brand new experience: agreeing with you 100% !
Rigil
Or he is asking you how you would implement it?
If I am coming across as sensitive sorry. Sometimes not everybody on forums are sincere.You are I'm afraid. [b]St0nes[/b] responded to you with a comment about a book he has read and you took the premise for the book as him commenting negatively on your post.
It was ultimately a good natured humorous post but I suppose if I took it seriously it would be something like an advertising campaign. I know it is non-objectivist but I was not really being serious and *you all know it*You took two posts written in responses to you in a way it wasn't obviously intended. It may be you.
jesus. why is everyone taking this so literal. really?
i do like the idea of gays being green. i think, in fact, i might design a logo around thatā¦
How about a rainbow-striped banner done only in shades of green? 
Rigil
I didnāt take supermanās original post as literal at all. Why he even used 0:) <ā this.
I just donāt think either st0nes or boogieM took him literally either or were necessarily negative toward him or his post.
i do like the idea of gays being green. i think, in fact, i might design a logo around that....green gays?
there we go:
lol
Lovvit!
Ok, I was been sensitive. I am very sorry.
And that did not hurt too much saying that.
@GCG Lovely banner. I also like it. Thank you. 
It never hurts as must as some people think, to admit we were wrong or made a mistake. Iām still here after all 
You mean old Telly accepted you apologies? >:D >:D
I just don't think either st0nes or boogieM took him literally either or were necessarily negative toward him or his post.
I didnāt think he literally meant ālets do itā, no. And Iām not trying to slate you superman. Itās ironic to me that you talk about being misunderstood on a forum, as an effect of misunderstanding us.
I am skeptical and do question stuff as a first reaction though, because it seems that he believes this is a good idea, even though we already know the results of trying to change peopleās sexual orientation, subtly or otherwise.
@BoogieMonster, I am answering you now since I find this post entertaining. Even a bit of disagreement can be entertaining if you donāt take it too far and it becomes a fight. I donāt want a fight.
1.) I am not talking about changing anybodyās sexuality.
2.) Sexuality is a result of ānature and nurtureā which is the best science today can tell us about sexuality.
3.) Kingsleyās Scale (a bit controversial) of sexuality on a sliding scale, I think has some truth to it. As I understand it most people fall mostly in the middle i.e. bisexuality.
4.) I think most straight identified people will realize their capacity for being bisexual if they allowed themselves to experiment.
5.) There will always still be a lot of people that are 100% gay or 100% straight. I would not want to force anything on anybody.
So I am saying if people were more open to the idea they might discover they are bisexual and can have a homosexual relationship. But as you say this is dangerous territory and perhaps not a good idea.
OH, OH! MRS KENT PLEASE COME HAVE A GANDER AT THIS! 8) 8)
Cannot sleep so I will add some more to my post.
I would like to introduce you to the rabbit hole of contradictory information.
Been reading the olā Wikipedia. Here is the article: Sexual orientation - Wikipedia
Here are two some interesting quotes:
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".[35] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[36] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[37] A community may change over time.[38]
My question to the APA is now is sexuality fixed or fluid? Are they perhaps both? Very confusing isnāt it.
Here is another and perhaps more truthful. More down at the bottom.
The American Psychiatric Association stated:[60] No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.
This is the truth as I see it we would need to get more data before we can make a non contradictory theory about sexuality. Of course today people like contradictions.
Not sure if he did - they were sincerely meant however.
I am what would be considered bisexual. but itās a shitty label that i hate, because for some people it translates as an excuse to be promiscious. but i digress.
growing up in a staunch afrikaans household, gay was not even something that existed. i had a gay aunt who lived with her partner of many years. there was never any open hostility towards her (that i can remember), and her partner attended family gatherings and the like. and yet being gay was belittled, degraded, etc.
i had not the foggiest was gay was. one of my best mates was as gay as the day is long, i had no clue. my high-school crush turned out to be supergay. i was clueless.
my first lesbian encounter was with my ex landlady. uncomfortable at best.
then i met my first girlfriend. and i pursued her. i had no idea what i was feeling, or what it meant, but i was besotted. i was engaged at the time, so i left him for her. and within months, i was out and proud. (in sasolburg no less).
when we broke up, i ended up dating an indian man. i had random flings with women inbetween. but have had my long-term relationships with men.
point of the story, sexuality is fluid. if you let yourself not be constrained by peer pressure. or society.
i grew up straight, because itās all i knew.
when a strong, butch woman came along, i explored that. i had never thought to put a label on myself. i hate having to explain to people what i āamā. i neither prefer the male or female form. a gorgeous man can be a doos. a hot girl can be a bitch. so i tend to like geeks. of either gender. procreation tackle nonwithstanding.
both gay and straight society boxes you in. pressurizes you to be one or the either. both communties are relatively tolerant of the other, but seemingly, the thought of being fluid between the two sides, are allmost deemed a cop-out. you are a draadsitter. a lot of gay women wil not touch a ābisexualā woman. i cannot vouch for gay men.
straight men love the idea of having their missus with another woman, but would shit bricks if she wanted to see him with another man. present forum company included.
i think that male/female is relative. to upbringing, hormone levels, DNA transfer at conception, whatever. there is no hard-and-fast rules.
many, many shades of gray.
sexuality changes as the individual matures, get wizer. plenty straight, married men, pick up boys for a blowjob on a friday night, their wives oblivious. is he gay? maybe. but he had to conform, so he does.
and just leaves acres of pain.
Insofar as it is even possible to classify these things, your description reminds me of a condition called pansexuality.
I genuinely like the term. If I had to be anything but straight, I would have fancied being pansexual. It sounds kinda sophisticated and at the same time mysteriously dangerous. The sort of orientation one might expect from art collecting mafiosi.
Rigil
Indeed: all over the world, the single greatest factor in reducing population growth has been urbanization and the attendant higher standard of living that goes with it (as well as education and empowerment of women). Rather ironically, the people who can most afford larger families are the least likely to have them, and vice versa.
You neednāt teach people a thing about the dangers of overpopulation. They wonāt listen anyway. You need to get them into cities where they have a chance of a career and a high income and a middle class or at least lower middle class living standard. Then most of them automatically have fewer children and you end up with the European and Japanese situation where the population is actually shrinking.
You then need to keep the ecological footprint of those cities as small as possible by high-intensity, industrial-style modern farming.
Thus, once again rather ironically, the greenest policies to follow are precisely the policies that organizations like Greenpeace have been fighting tooth and nail over the past few decades.
Thereās actually an understandable reason for this. Besides the education aspect, for people living in poverty, it makes sense to have more children because this improves the chances that (1) the family can fend for itself, (2) the family line will persist, and (3) the parents will be well looked after in their old age. It is, in effect, feudalism in a microcosm: The more serfs you have, the better your social station. For the modern middle and upper classes, there is much greater certainty about each of those points.
ā¦ which is another instance illustrating the necessity of a sceptical approach, especially in cases where a minority claims āspecial knowledgeā that is emotionally held and zealously defended when challenged.
'Luthon64