I have taken courses in both, its been a long time now. Yes if we choose not to breed or cant breed tribes or races can die off. That's why we trade and when we trade freely populations increase. We are arguing not over our physical natures but the importance morally of our physical ability to do so. Under capitalism huge advancements in fertility and increased birth rates are of great value to a society. Including gay couples conceiving and having
children.I do agree valuing having a family in the first place is important and should be encouraged but not at the ignoring of other values including capitalism and its benefits to increasing a country 's population and overall wealth. The US is now over 300 million people. We are a relatively young nation.

Population decreases are due to increase of the Malthusian trap point, or decrease in personal freedom levels. Population increases happen when people prosper, although population increases in poor nations lead to more people suffering or starving.
I don 't really see that sexuality preference would impact more than the two other reasons. Yes, the species must survive but giving special or moral status to those who choose to procreate seems off. It is natural for humans to have sex. They'll have it! You can 't catch homosexuality and it is not a threat to the species. Natural rights and liberties are afforded to every individual so as long as we don't t support societies that force you to not have children they'll happen and more orphaned children or poorly treated children will survive.

Okay! Go back to vagina!

merkin

ugh...now it will never go away!

I don't think he's a paid "spokesperson" for A&E...he's on his own "reality" show... that is funded and airs on A&E... he said nothing bad about A&E, if he had this would be a different conversation. If he had deflected the question so he didn't have to answer it honestly it would have actually been disingenuous and tarnished HIS image, which IS the show... doubled edged sword...with one side being principled and the other playing to compromise. He did the right thing by answering the question honestly. Regardless if A&E finds cause to give him the ax or not. (Stop saying 'vagina' so much!)

My apologies, I forgot to address one of your statements - quote; That a man or woman can impregnate/get pregnant as the highest value is ridiculous.

OK, here we go and prepare to be further astonished my friend;

As a society decides that procreation is no longer important, it will cease to be a viable part of humanity. Further, it be lead onto treks that place that society into servitude to societies which do not encourage such foolishness.

You may say that I am less then informed because all the great minds agree that homosexuality is just another way to live in peace. Sound vaguely familiar???

Here is what I know. Before their demise as a great culture, Egypt, Greece, Rome and a few lesser powers each embraced homosexuality, transvestites, and all kinds of perversion I won't speak of. When the "huns" were at the gate, none of these once great military powers were able to muster enough soldier to defend themselves. Why? Because each had seen a marked decrease in the population of the nation.

These are historical facts. The data about the decrease in population is in history books before they were rewritten to be politically correct.

You may still contend that a society that feel procreation is not as important as I see it is a better path. I'll just ask, "Where are the inhabitants of Rhode Island Colony?" or the "tribe of stone carves on Easter Island?"

The real history books are stuffed with societies that did not survive. The number of citizens they can field in a war is ALWAYS why they are gone, far too often the reason was a turn to practices that reduced the population.

Sorry, history is often not kind, particularly to those who ignore it's lessons.

I only had a fifteen minute window to edit and so you're out of luck. ;)

we do not know about the contract details, I am just saying it is standard in the Industry. and I'm not siding with A&E business practices, only saying they have a right to request that their stars conduct themselves within certain parameters while employed by the company. Phil can be himself and refuse to answer pointed, controversial questions. Also, I don't really care about what Phil says or doesn't say- I just think there should be consistent arguments. As a business owner you would not want a paid spokesperson for your business saying anything that would have the potential for driving away business or reflect on your business in a way that waa unacceptable to you as this unique business. We have argued for that all week in here until this story. Now many are arguing that A&E not have the right to limit a paid spokesperson in public. It is only logical that a contract includes such. It's probably just a set up anyway-and I do understand the chilling effect the media has on citizens expressing their "not-pc_ opinions. I don't like it one bit and wish the argument focused on that and not on making A&E the bad guy here. Unless they have a larger agenda as well. If the other guys had said their opinion first about not understanding why men would pick "vagina" over the other and were censored by A&E I wonder if Sarah Palin, for example, would be as vociferous in support of their public statement?

They were rich before the show. "They have made more than enough".... I dislike that statement very much.

For some reason "Si" didn't compute. :)

I'm actually not a fan of the show although I appreciate their life stand and the effectiveness as businessmen.

LOL thanks Eud!

Have we seen the contract? We don't know WHAT he agreed to. He's said in other interview that's he's made phone calls to them about their editing practices (putting in bleeps to imply cuss words were being used when there weren't) and told them to stop it...and they did...so maybe the contract isn't what we're assuming it is. Phil's not green behind the ears and I can't see him signing anything that says he can't be him.

First, I am speaking of the general sociological drives of the species, not specific cases. In the case of infertile couples, historically the couple dissolved because the reason they joined to each other was to bear prodigy. In a small culture, such as a tribal group, the ability to reproduce is essential. Any grouping that does not result in reproduction can lead to the death of the group. Surly that is obvious.

The drive to reproduce is one of the most powerful in all creatures. There are reasons. It is also why we are social beings.

I'm very certain that you are a kind and caring person, as I feel I am. I would never deny a infertile couple to adopt just as I will welcome a couple (or single parent) that cannot take care of a child or who refuses to care properly for their child to surrender their child. I also would, as I have done in the past, step up to welcome that child into my home and family as my own son or daughter. That is a social obligation in my mind. These children that are lost in the welfare system are a shame on our society. Those parents who place their children into the meat grinder like that need to be publicly flogged - but again these are not the big picture norm of hetro society.

All that said I stand on each statement I made and conclusion I drew. Study some anthropology and sociology (not what passes for the subject today - that is just liberal programming).

Then that would be YOUR principles, which would be great if that's how they said it....but saying a 'network' has an opinion is goofy to me. It also rings of "one man is trying to buck our big huge company..ha ha ha fool... he should know better." Individuals have rights, groups (or networks) don't. But, sure, they have the right to fire at will...so why don't they then? Instead they suspend him...slap him on the hand cuz him's a bad bad boy! I'm getting curiouser and curiouser about this contract.

Don't ask me why I know this.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/5559199512...

while I agree with some of what you said I must disagree with your pair bonding theory. Let me blow a hole in it off the top. Under your theory a hetero couple who cannot conceive can only "mimic" an ideal family if they were to choose adoption.
What about birth parents who give up their right to raise their child? are they a perfect model? This idea that gay couples only wish to "mimic" parenthood is illogical. Human beings are social. Not in every culture, but most live in family units. A strong family should be defined in terms of certain values and morals-not their ability to procreate. That is the least of any discernible value I can think of. That a man or woman can impregnate/get pregnant as the highest value is ridiculous. That this biological function ability is the highest value to a nation - I'm speechless, star!

did you see that two other A&E stars responded to the controversy? The gay couple are on storage wars. They didn't feel Phil should be fired and that he was a good guy. They just disagreed with him about vaginas being better than "man ass." then they said even more explicit stuff. looks like inter-network ratings war efforts off and running. now Phil has a good employment law case if he chooses

What the heck is a Si Tea Canister?????

He is entitled to his good opinion however he signed a contract that limits where and how under terms of employment mutually agreed to.

Yeah that's correct. But A&E isn't out to change the way people think, they just want their money. So they pander to the populace using their best judgment of what the populace wants, whether it's wrong or right.

Oh and he didn't say anything bad against A&E...if he had done that, such as your facebook example explained, then yeah, that's a different thing... but that's not what he did. And we don't know his contract of employment... I would like to think he wouldn't have signed up for muzzle wearing.

Because they don't have to name names. If I own the network I can decide on the principles that my network operates on. If you demand the name of who owns the company or which owner made which decision they have every right to tell you to mind your own business and you have every right to boycott them for whatever reason you want. But no one is immoral in this scenario.