Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Guest]

I think the only way you could change someones mind about homosexuality being a sin or not is by refering back to the Bible and pointing out the passages there. The only passage which is really worthwhile citing as biblical proof that it "condemns" homosexuality is Pauls writings. Yet Pauls credibility really isn't much to boast about what with his contradictions of earlier wirtings from the Old Testament and even more ambiguity about the author of 'his' work. As well as clear sexism in his writings. But of course picking and choosing still continues because I doubt any Christian still follows what Paul wrote regarding that issue.

 

 

 

Oh, and I'd also like to point out the relationship between David and Jonathan. Unclear as to whether it was sexual, but most think it was a loving and close relationship. Perhaps suggesting that (if sex didn't come into it) homosexual relationships were fine.

 

 

 

@ 1st Bold: Have you forgotten the Go forth and Multiply, plus the numerous passages in the New and Old Testament on restrain from sexual immorality.

 

 

 

@ Underline: If you were a Christian who knew the scriptures and the word, you'd know that there are many contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament. That's because as Christians after Jesus died on the cross for us we moved into a New Covenant (the New Testament) and therefore live under that now, not the Old Covenant (Testament). Unless you were Jewish of course and therefore living under the Old Covenant still. :wink:

 

 

 

@ 2nd Bold: Its actually still the majority of Christians who follow all of Paul's doctrine. Just because there's the mainstream of society accepting homosexuality and a vocal minority in the church doesn't mean its a majority of Christians, and far from the "near none" you were alluding too.

[warri0r45]

Eelspremiers, I refer you to a previous post:

 

 

 

If sexual orientation is so beyond our control, as it seems to be, how can it be wrong? How can you justify saying homosexuality is wrong when attempts to change this sexual orientation seem dismal and riddled with difficulty at best? How can a quality which is essentially part of my nature and hence created by god be wrong?

 

 

 

Ok well since your asking for my personal opinion then I'll give it to you. Science doesn't come into it here. I'll also come from the point of view thats "its a fact they are born gay" instead of making that "lifestyle choice" during puberty years as you requested.

 

 

 

How can it be wrong in my eyes you may ask? Well from a Christians perspective we were told to go forth and multiply and as we know homosexuality can't do this, so its against that for starters. I also believe its an unnatural act, and there's many (notice I didn't say all) perverted people who do such acts. Simple.

 

 

 

I'm not going to answer your last 2 questions when my argument stands that its a lifestyle choice, and therefore it can't be argued upon. I don't believe its created by God, and I believe that God didn't create them like that. So I'm not going to flatter you that much.

 

 

 

By the way from what I saw of those sites and read (apologies if you can prove me wrong), they weren't credible and even could be seen as biased. You don't like it when on the religious threads Christians post their sources of Christians sites (despite having factual sources on them) but rather sites with a more scientific connotation on the evidence. SO in this case do you have any scientific sources whereby they can conclusively prove that its biological and that a lifestyle choice has nothing to do with their homosexuality? :|

 

 

 

Eelspremiers, if you think science dosen't come into it why should I think you'll be any more receptive if I do provide sources to your liking? In what way are the sources I provided biased? Biased towards what? What reason do they have to be biased? Anyone not a Christian can see that your sources, which claim a multitude of falsities on an issue such as evolution alone, are biased to reject anything that dosen't accept thier infalliable word.

 

 

 

Next up, as for it being wrong because it does not produce offspring, is being infertile wrong, too? But of course, that is not a choice and therefore not wrong and homosexuality is a choice and therefore wrong, right? You're whole argument hinges on homosexuality being a choice. Tomorrow, I'll do as you demand and investigate the biased nature and credentials of the sources I provided which all claim that homosexuality or indeed any sexual mindset is anything but a concious choice.

 

 

 

Next on the agenda, your claim of it not being a natural act. Perhaps you skimmed over the many people in this thread alluding to the fact of homosexual behaviour being observed in other animal species. If thier word is not enough for you, I'll work on coming up with a source for you being sure to watch out for bias.

 

 

 

If you still believe it's a lifestyle choice, perhaps we should go to the next logical step of the argument to finish off for now -

 

 

 

1) Why would someone who is biologically programmed to be attracted to women choose to be attracted to another man?

 

2) Why would someone make a concious descision to be gay if doing so would make them shunned by society, especially by those in religious circles? On that final interesting note, why would a man such as Ted Haggard (I suggest a google if you don't know him), who is fully aware of the consequences of homosexual behaviour in his faith, perform homosexual acts with a male prostitute? Why would a man of his stature go against that programmed sexual drive god so elegantly and purposefully placed in his brain? Or is it not at all possible that the poor bloke, now shunned by his own faith because of his actions, had biological homosexual tendancies?

 

 

 

On the bias issue, perhaps you could first explain how an organisation such as the American Psychological Association is biased.

 

 

 

One of the quotes I presented:

 

 

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

 

 

 

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

 

 

 

 

 

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

 

 

 

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

 

 

 

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

 

 

came directly from thier website.

 

 

 

The only point I'm conveying here at the moment is that sexual orientation is far from a choice.

 

 

 

Your feedback welcomed.

[Guest]

The only point I'm conveying here at the moment is that sexual orientation is far from a choice.

 

 

 

Didn't Insane explain that well enough? That being on top of what I've said previously.

 

 

 

We all have a freedom of choice, we all get tempted, (in fact I've even heard from credible sources that male teenagers all have at least one gay thought throughout the puberty years, if not more). Its how we act on these thoughts which determine our actions. Once you let those emotions and decisions run your life its incredibly hard to turn back, just like how you've discussed about people trying to turn away from their gay tendencies. Its quite like any other person who's murdered, stolen, or had sexual immoral thoughts. Or even on the contrary someone who's made a decision not to lie, to love and not to hate and to do good to others, it becomes part of your life once you've chosen to make those decisions and turning back is hardly an option, whether it be good or bad.

 

 

 

Choosing to be Gay can be associated with any other choice people decide to make in their lives, whether good or bad. Once you make that decision and constantly live by that choice it becomes your life and the way in which you live, and I don't need to quote sources for an intelligent person such as yourself Warrior to hopefully agree with this, assuming that Gay's aren't all born Gay (you can now flatter me and take it as the truth for this given time). :P

[Ginger_Warrior]

So a personal opinion can't be valid unless I provide factual sources, yet in your first quote you say that nobody can prove an opinion to be right. Good One Einstein! Trust me, Good contradiction! I'm starting to wonder if even you know what you're talking about.

 

You're really picking a wrong fight with me if you can't tell the difference between a right opinion (which for the matter can't actually exist), and a valid opinion.

 

 

 

Firstly the bolded text. You state that my religious perspective on issues isn't valid unless I've got my own sources. What do you want God's homepage? His Blog?

 

Again, double standards. Religious faith isn't a justification for an opinion. Like BlueLancer, I would hope you can formulate an opinion for yourself instead of having a book tell you how to live your life. If you have an opinion, I expect for you to able to put some substance behind your argument. I can tell you for one that if you tried arguing in an exam on religious grounds only, you'd get half marks straight away for a lack of a strong argument.

 

 

 

If you want us to provide validity to our scientific arguement, then I expect you to do the same.

 

 

 

As stated, morals and beliefs - have NOTHING to do with Science and neither should someone have to prove that their beliefs are correct. ITS NOT POSSIBLE!

 

I'm not saying it's possible... again go away and learn the difference between a valid and a (hypothetically) "correct" opinion. And if morals have nothing to do with science, why are there protests over test-tube babies? Vivisection? Why is it all GMC-registered doctors have to undergo ethical training before they can practise? You make it sound like science cares nothing about morals or ethics - you couldn't be further from the truth. Just another mindlessly narrow-minded comment by you.

[GrimHams]

After thinking about this a bit i've found a quotation that describes my view on the matter.

 

 

 

I do not give a fig what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own rooms. However I do not consider a young boy of 16 who has been plied drinks to be a consenting adult and believe the age of consent should be raised to 21 when young men will have, by then, discovered their sexuality. Neither do I approve of teaching homosexuality to children in the hope that they will grow up thinking it normal. It is not. So in my opinion homosexuals should practice the art of Don't ask and Don't tell which is also the BNP policy.

[warri0r45]

The only point I'm conveying here at the moment is that sexual orientation is far from a choice.

 

 

 

Didn't Insane explain that well enough? That being on top of what I've said previously.

 

 

 

We all have a freedom of choice, we all get tempted, (in fact I've even heard from credible sources that male teenagers all have at least one gay thought throughout the puberty years, if not more). Its how we act on these thoughts which determine our actions. Once you let those emotions and decisions run your life its incredibly hard to turn back, just like how you've discussed about people trying to turn away from their gay tendencies. Its quite like any other person who's murdered, stolen, or had sexual immoral thoughts. Or even on the contrary someone who's made a decision not to lie, to love and not to hate and to do good to others, it becomes part of your life once you've chosen to make those decisions and turning back is hardly an option, whether it be good or bad.

 

 

 

Choosing to be Gay can be associated with any other choice people decide to make in their lives, whether good or bad. Once you make that decision and constantly live by that choice it becomes your life and the way in which you live, and I don't need to quote sources for an intelligent person such as yourself Warrior to hopefully agree with this, assuming that Gay's aren't all born Gay (you can now flatter me and take it as the truth for this given time). :P

 

 

 

Insane was describing that acting on homosexual urges is a choice, which I don't deny. I was arguing that the urges themselves are biologically programmed and not a choice, citing direct quotes from the American Psychological Association.

 

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

I would have thought that this is a clear statement from a knowlegable and esteemed body on the matter. Contrary to this, you continue to prefer to see homosexuality as somehow chosen and now that it's just a state of mind people choose and get into then can't change because it becomes part of one's life.

 

 

 

This then brings me back to these two questions, if you choose to believe it is a choice as you describe -

 

 

 

1) Why would someone who is biologically programmed to be attracted to women choose to be attracted to another man?

 

2) Why would someone make a concious descision to be gay if doing so would make them shunned by society, especially by those in religious circles? On that final interesting note, why would a man such as Ted Haggard (I suggest a google if you don't know him), who is fully aware of the consequences of homosexual behaviour in his faith, perform homosexual acts with a male prostitute? Why would a man of his stature go against that programmed sexual drive god so elegantly and purposefully placed in his brain? Or is it not at all possible that the poor bloke, now shunned by his own faith because of his actions, had biological homosexual tendancies?

 

 

 

As for your claim that boys going through puberty have gay thoughts, I would like to see your credible source. Could it not be possible that they do have gay thoughts but thier underlying sexual orientation isn't going to change? It's possible for me to think gay thoughts but I'm still very much a straight male. Perhaps your source has something on the malleability of gays, which is more the issue at hand here. Unless, of course, you hold to your position that sexual orientation is chosen and then it just becomes part of the person over time and familiarity, in which case thier lack of ability to be malleable would indirectly stem from thier choice and in which case I'd need a source for that claim as it's in contradiction with what I've brought to the table.

 

 

 

This idea then brings me back to this quote:

 

 

A number of techniques have been used to try to suppress homosexual feelings and/or create heterosexual feelings in gays and lesbians: 1

 

 

 

Lesbians had their breasts amputated.

 

Lesbians had their perfectly healthy uteri removed.

 

Male gays were given aversion therapy; e.g. clients were shown pictures of naked men and simultaneously shocked with electricity.

 

 

 

Other "treatments" included:

 

 

 

brain surgery in the form of frontal lobotomies.

 

castration.

 

counseling and psychotherapy.

 

drug therapy: e.g. animal-organ extracts, cocaine, estrogen, testosterone.

 

positive therapy: e.g. men were asked to masturbate and then were shown pictures of women just before orgasm.

 

prayer and spiritual counseling.

 

therapy by tedium: men were shown homoerotic pictures until they became totally bored.

 

During the Nazi regime in Germany, Himmler attempted to "cure" gays by requiring them to visit the camp brothel at Flossenburg. "Ten Ravensbruck women provided the services with little success. The women [were later]...shipped to Auschwitz" for execution.

 

During the recent apartheid regime in South Africa, gays and lesbians were considered deviants. They were sent to a special ward of a military hospital to be "rehabilitated." This involved electric shock treatments and chemical castration. Those who could not be "cured" were given sex-change operations. A number of "patients" died.

 

 

 

The success rate of these therapies in actually changing clients' sexual orientation appears to have been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. The success rate at changing clients' sexual behavior is much greater. Some of these techniques can persuade homosexuals to be celibate -- perhaps only for a short interval -- either through terror, guilt, or persuasion that God considers same-sex behavior to be an abomination. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But therapies do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings -- one's sexual orientation -- in the vast majority of people. 4

 

 

Are these people just stubborn or have they forgotten those biological factors that do contribute to one's sexual orientation? Let me use the analogy of riding a bike when it comes to sexuality. Once you learn how it all works, or in the case of puberty when it becomes apparent to you what you're attracted to, you never forget it. Straight guys, even those married and commited to thier partner, will always have a concious reaction to a drop-dead gorgeous hot babe, even if they do not intend to act on those urges. Just say, for instance, that a straight guy did become gay through choice as you describe and then was faced with some of these more extreme conversion techniques. How has thier underlying biological urge changed? Surely it can not just have been forgotten or swept under the rug? This quote attests to the dismal failure at attempting to change one's sexual orientation. How did they forget to ride the bike, so to speak? Or is it not possible that they just happened to start out on a pink bike with a completely different underlying orientation and not on a blue one which was then swapped for a pink via choice?

 

 

 

Aside from that, If what you were alluding to is that there is an environmental factor to sexual orientation, fair enough, I'm not disagreeing at all, but how would I choose what environment I'm raised in, for example? Can you see that this would make someone a homosexual by virtue of an uncontrolled set of predicaments rather than a set of councious actions on behalf of the homosexual?

 

 

 

Alot of things for you to adress so please don't hesitate to take the time to let it all absorb and respond point by point. I'd like you to pick my argument apart and show me where I'm going wrong here because it seems I've not been able to get through yet.

[Satenza]

 

@ 1st Bold: Have you forgotten the Go forth and Multiply, plus the numerous passages in the New and Old Testament on restrain from sexual immorality.

 

 

 

I find it funny religion always tries to seperate humans from animals and any evolutionary past, yet you beleive the bottom line of religion is to "go forth and multiply" above love, compassion and all else. Infact i was talking to a Christian yesterday who quoted this "ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åit is better to spill your seed in the belly of a who-re, than to spill it on the ground". Which just shows me how ironic, disgusting and slightly pathetic that view is. Note I also said something like "the ones worth mentioning" because most verses against homosexuality are under doubt as to translations ect.

 

 

 

@ Underline: If you were a Christian who knew the scriptures and the word, you'd know that there are many contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament. That's because as Christians after Jesus died on the cross for us we moved into a New Covenant (the New Testament) and therefore live under that now, not the Old Covenant (Testament). Unless you were Jewish of course and therefore living under the Old Covenant still. :wink:

 

 

 

I know this and I am not Christian I thought it would be worth pointing out since Paul said it, not Jesus.

 

 

 

@ 2nd Bold: Its actually still the majority of Christians who follow all of Paul's doctrine. Just because there's the mainstream of society accepting homosexuality and a vocal minority in the church doesn't mean its a majority of Christians, and far from the "near none" you were alluding too.

 

 

 

So they do not let women speak in church?

[BlueLancer]

Neither do I approve of teaching homosexuality to children in the hope that they will grow up thinking it normal. It is not. So in my opinion homosexuals should practice the art of Don't ask and Don't tell which is also the BNP policy.

 

 

 

I wouldn't explicitly *teach* my kid about homosexuality, but if he asked, why wouldn't I answer him? Do you seriously think you can keep kids and teenagers from knowing things in the 21st century?

 

 

 

I would love for my kids to have kids too, but you know what? If they turned out to be gay, I wouldn't care as long as they're personally happy. Kids aren't my personal "trophy stands". I'm their parent which means I'll ensure their happiness and well being even on my own expense.

 

 

 

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

[GrimHams]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

[assassin_696]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

 

 

 

So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

[guss]

Sex, gender, and choice, should be decided by others, I belive we are all a little bit bi.

[martinisback]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

 

 

 

So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

 

 

 

Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, Iceland, etc, have tons more space. So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

[heartless619]

against it...

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

I would like to pose a question to all Canadians, Spaniards, Belgians, South Africans, or Dutch that post on this forum. After your country legalized Gay Marriage, do you feel the fabric of your society has been torn at the seams? The very core infiltrated with evil? Do you feel your country will fall like the Roman Empire, due to legalizing Gay Marriage?

 

 

 

Answer honestly.

 

 

 

*Edit*

 

 

 

This is not what I believe, it's what homophobic Americans believe will happen to America say Gay Marriage is legalized.

[Sumpta]

I would like to pose a question to all Canadians, Spaniards, Belgians, South Africans, or Dutch that post on this forum. After your country legalized Gay Marriage, do you feel the fabric of your society has been torn at the seams? The very core infiltrated with evil? Do you feel your country will fall like the Roman Empire, due to legalizing Gay Marriage?

 

 

 

Answer honestly.

 

 

 

Belgian here, can't say I notice any difference at all. It's the immigrants who get blamed for everything that goes wrong here anyway. It's very much not done (not to mention extremely unhip) to diss gay people and I haven't actually met anyone who makes an issue about gay marriage. Everybody seems to be very tolerant. Mind you, with some people this tolerance is just a thin layer of varnish, but for the most part, gay people are accepted into society. The country hasn't fallen apart, our streets don't burn with hellish fire...

[Necromagus]

Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, Iceland, etc, have tons more space. So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

You need more than just open space to have room for human life. These people also need to be fed and clothed, and that takes resources. If all it took was space, Africa wouldn't be in the situation it was in now. The earth is reaching a breaking point when it comes to natural solutions. If we keep breeding, we are going to have to sacrifice a lot of our luxury just to keep the earth alive. Frankly, I'm glad that some people have the common sense not to put another kid on this earth.

[snarlin]

I would like to pose a question to all Canadians, Spaniards, Belgians, South Africans, or Dutch that post on this forum. After your country legalized Gay Marriage, do you feel the fabric of your society has been torn at the seams? The very core infiltrated with evil? Do you feel your country will fall like the Roman Empire, due to legalizing Gay Marriage?

 

 

 

Answer honestly.

 

 

 

dutch here..and what the heck ?..no,can't say it made me feel like that,it hasn't changed anything apart from gay people having the same rights as others,and making them happy while doing so..i'm all for it.

[Rebdragon]

1) Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. 2) Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " 3) well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, 4) Iceland, etc, have tons more space. 5) So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. 6) I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

 

I don't even know where to start responding to that. I'll just use warri0r's method I suppose:

 

 

 

1) So homosexuality is wrong because we havn't covered every inch of the globe yet? It's hard enough already providing food for everyone dude.

 

 

 

2) Um, Tundra? Lack of farming land? If you're going to disregard living conditions and capability to compensate for population growth, then you mineaswell just say we have a near infinite amount of land to be used by digging into the crust of the earth and building lightless caves for people.

 

 

 

Besides, the problem isn't land, it's food; there is no dearth of available land on this planet. Well, unless you're planning to move to Japan :-w .

 

 

 

3) So your justification for sending people to tundras is that global warming is going to make all of the world hot :lol: ? As I have already stated, you're not helping your argument by recommending that people live in difficult living conditions, when that isn't even necessary. Argue food, not land.

 

 

 

4) Iceland? Err... not exactly abundant with land martin :lol: . Again, your land arguments are fairly unnecessary.

 

 

 

5) It already is a problem, especially in third world countries where most of the population increases are occuring. There's just barely enough food to supply everyone on the planet with proper nutrition (that is, there's enough, but there isn't the capability to transport it), and overpopulating won't help us at all.

 

 

 

6) So you'd be fine with every family having 10 kids, including the families that can sustain them? That's just... well, that's asking for worldwide famine within the century, at the very least.

[warri0r45]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

 

 

 

So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

 

 

 

Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, Iceland, etc, have tons more space. So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

 

 

 

Please, count Australia out of your brave new world. Not enough water. More people = Australia dies in the bum.

 

 

 

Oh and overpopulation is a sustainability issue, not simply an issue of there not being enough room. A key aspect in sustainability would be having water, for example. Did you know you can fit the entire worlds population in 80km squared? I've gotta say I'd much prefer we make the world a better, more stable and sustainable place before potentially screwing it up even more by opening the flood gates to 'go forth and multiply.'

[guss]

Who says it has to be "gay merrage" what about Cival Union, which i still think there could be a better benefits in it, like visiting your partner in the hospital, I just cant stand people who think Gays just PoPed out of the air this sentury, and the only good thing they have done is help not over populate, because they have been around sence the begaining of time, and is in most of our historys, especialy romans, greeks, and manny others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People should have the right to understand their own body!

[martinisback]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

 

 

 

So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

 

 

 

Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, Iceland, etc, have tons more space. So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

 

 

 

Please, count Australia out of your brave new world. Not enough water. More people = Australia dies in the bum.

 

 

 

Oh and overpopulation is a sustainability issue, not simply an issue of there not being enough room. A key aspect in sustainability would be having water, for example. Did you know you can fit the entire worlds population in 80km squared? I've gotta say I'd much prefer we make the world a better, more stable and sustainable place before potentially screwing it up even more by opening the flood gates to 'go forth and multiply.'

 

 

 

well, as a Canadian you know Australia better then me! But Russia, Northern Canada, Iceland, etc still stands as "empty" places, as well as many other countries.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

Who says it has to be "gay merrage" what about Cival Union

 

 

 

I thought history taught us, "Seperate but equal, is not equal".

[Ginger_Warrior]

Who says it has to be "gay merrage" what about Cival Union

 

 

 

I thought history taught us, "Seperate but equal, is not equal".

 

You can hardly compare a ruling the US Supreme Court in the (I think) BROWN case to the treatment of homosexuals in the modern day world. Both are forms of prejudism, but no-one has ever enslaved someone based on their sexuality. The issue with blacks in America was completely different.

[Lenin64]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

Not true. Some homosexuals, ashamed of their homosexuality, attempt to live a normal life, get married to a woman, and have children. This is, i believe, a very small minority, but some do.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.