capulate89

What was the point of your comment? To be smug? You just posted the equivalent of "hueh hueh and water is wet amirite?"

Let's have real discussions here.

If YouTube were suddenly banning all LGBT content so as to protect children or some such thing, wouldn't we call that censorship? It's a ludicrous idea that censorship must always come from a government.

And what's wrong with that argument? Democracy and voting aren't unquestionable goods. Just look at what became of most of the non-democratic countries that the US decided to "liberate" via forcing them to adopt democracy over the years.

Doubtful. Cultural practices are subject to the same selection dynamics that genes are. A cultural group that doesn't create its own children will eventually die out unless they have some other group producing new members for them at a very high and stable rate. See shakers for instance. Dead. Gone.

Contrast that with homosexuals, who haven't until recently been having children en masse. But where there is a certain percentage of the population born with a tendency to be gay. So they can always count on having new members.

Unlike being gay, people aren't born with "Amazing Grace" so ... it's a bad strategy that will be weeded out over time. Just like with the Shakers.

This isn't to say that some highly fecund cultural group, like Mormons, can't get away with adopting children here and there. But if they start going too far with it their numbers will start to dwindle.

Imagine that there is a neurotype that loves the idea of adopting (I have actually known people like this). So they adopt children in lieu of having quite so many of their own. Or they have none of their own at all. Nature, our harsh mistress, will weed people like this out of the gene pool very quickly.