Ok, for a moment let's consider that arguement valid. If everyone in the next generation were gay, would it be wrong? You could make the arguement that because we couldn't breed our species would die, which is a bad thing. The answer is still no, however, for the same reason that if everyone in the next generation was born female it wouldn't make it wrong to be a woman. The idea that homosexuality hurts the population is a foolish one, because by not having children and adopting you are not only helping thousands of orphans but you are reducing the amount of births on the planet, which frees up more room for feeding the hungry and those that need it.
Over time one thing could lead to another and there could be any amount of homosexuals. You wouldn't have children in the first place if it got to an extreme amount. And I guess you could say that it would help with lots of the hunger problems in the world, but if you think of the idea of a world with an extreme amount of homosexuals and little next to no children, this could be a problem. Food wouldn't be a matter anymore. There wouldn't be any children to reproduce for the next children, AND if they're homosexual then there would be even a smaller amount of children being made. Sure it would take a long long while, but time is only one factor. Homosexuality can't be a plus in this world. That's why I'm against it.
An extreme amount of homosexuals won't emerge. It is statistically impossible. If there were by some odd twist of fate homosexuals would die out while the remaining few straight people would breed and the population would stabilize with less than 1% of the population being gay but that WON'T happen in the first place. There will never be a statistically significant amount of homosexuals in the world (in describing it in terms of gene flow).
sources? It's not very convincing. There's a small chance, in my opinion. As I said, homosexuality can't be a plus in this world. That's why I'm against it.
Give me your source that if we allow gay marriage, somehow genetic mutations causing homosexuality will increase. I'm using logic, not a source. Let's assume for a moment that 99% of the population goes gay, does that make it wrong or "negative?" No. If the population was 99% female does that make it wrong to be female or "negative?" Homosexuality is a POSITIVE thing in this world: Adoption, world hunger (extreme extrapolation), the defense of human rights (liberty and all that jazz). It is an enormously positive thing in this world. Just as being straight is a positive thing in this world.
Until you don't have to swear on the Bible in courtrooms then I don't see society allowing same sex marriages. I fully support same sex marriages because I believe in this little thing called freedom.
source well you seemed so confident, that's why I was asking. I'm basing my idea off of homosexuality all together. Not just gay marriage. I'm not saying a mutation, just that time will take over and these things happen. Here's a quote: Females seem to produce more of a homosexual gene than males which shows that if there are more lesbians in the world, then this idea could very much happen. And altogether there is that gene. That gene can be passed on. BUT it's not as good as straight people. These people can reproduce, adopt, or can just stop reproducing all together. With straight people we have more of a choice. We don't have as much of a choice with homosexuals.
Breeding isn't exactly a good thing all the time. Gays can reproduce, they still have sperm or eggs; not to mention they can give away their sperm or egg.
ER1C0, everything you have said has been utter bullshit to say the least. You're basing your opinions on what? That homosexuality is going to spread like a virus over the world and destroy human kind as we know it? What the ****? That sounds like an insane plot of a zombie movie. Firstly, our current population is around the 6.8Billion mark. Back in the 1940s it was around the 3-4Billion mark. From the 1940s to now gay's have become more accepted and allowed in our society, meaning that more gays have accepted who they are and been more free about it. So theoretically we have more openly gay men/women being what they are over time. If your theory about more gays = less people is correct, why has the population more than doubled? You're argument in this instance is so incredibly flawed. Next you say that more straight people in the world is more helpful to the population than more gays. So you're saying that the fact that we struggled with world hunger, we're loosing resources at an incredibly fast rate and we only have enough resources each year to sustain less than half the population of the world, that we should bring more people into it? Our current population is pushing the earth to it's limits, with lack of energy for our people, lack of drinkable water [at least for us Australians and so many 3rd world countries] and lack of food that we should still be making more people? There are millions of orphanages overflowing with children that have no were to go. With more gay people we have some kind of way to slow the population down to ease the strain on the earth, the toll we have on our environment. With less people there would be less war and poverty and murder and destruction. The increase of population is somewhat responsible for the lack of education to the children of this generation. Perhaps even this economic crisis would not have happened our at least not be as bad with a lower population. All of this and much much more, and all we ask for is marriage? Mostly for legal reasons, to receive the same freedoms you all do. You let your lack of knowledge block the way you think, you let a book tell you what is right while you sit in your comfy chair as people die in other areas of the world and all you think about is how homosexuality will ruin the world. I'm sorry but everything you have said has been so incredibly insulting I cannot fathom how you have come about your ideas. What you are being taught and the effect people around you are having on you. How you can think that a man marrying a man will destroy the world. You sir are an imbecile. You talk like you know what you are talking about, but really you do not know a thing. Biggots like you are the reason the world has it's problems, biggots like you are the reason people are not treated equally, biggots like you are the reason death and destruction happen. Maybe if you learn how to accept people for what they are instead of twisting what a single book, which has no scientific standing, no actuall proof of knowledge and no real meaning other than sexism, murder, incest and hatred. The world would be a better place without you, it certainly would not be a worse place if two men held hands. That's for ****ing sure.
With gays we don't have much of a choice. With straights we do. It may be a small reason, but that's why I'm against it. It's like what kind of jam you like. I like jelly instead of sugar free jelly. It may be small, but I like the sugar! It may not be a reason to be against it, but I have reason to believe that God is part of it also.
So because you like sugar gays are evil and can not marry, **** you are retarded. Seriously, you damn a whole section because you like choice? That's the most self centered thing I have heared in my life. We want the choice to marry but because you like the choices straight people have that gays don't that's why gays shouldn't exist?!?! That makes no ****ing sense. **** you and **** you're opinions. I want to be able to choose to adopt and marry but you don't want to let me because you do have the choice and I don't. Does that make any ****ing sense!!!?!?
You forgot about the end of my response. God had complete control over his choice in making one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. I think it should be this way, and no other. Who said I was against marriage. You may have assumed it. I think there should be another way for homosexuals to adopt and do everything a marriage allows. But I think a marriage is different, it is the unity of one man and one woman. This perfect unity as seen in God's eyes. I don't think much lower of homosexuals. I just think that it wouldn't be correct to allow them to marry.
**** who cares what he thinks anymore. He doesn't use logic, fact or known truth to apply to how he thinks. He uses fairy tales and myths to control the way he thinks. I'm sorry but the god debate is not here. Don't bring it here, we all know where it leads and this debate is not about pretend beings, it's simply about human rights. If you're for human rights, you should be for gay marriage. If you don't mind torture then sure, you're against it. If murderers, pedophiles and any of the like can get married and have kids without anyone caring then what makes us not allowed to.
who said God hates gays. I said it wasn't his perfect image and that I believe that marriage is the relationship between man and woman. So this is how it ends. "**** who cares what he thinks". It's a debate, it's not meant to be personal. Debates aren't mindless rantings against the opponent. Fairy tales and myths is now the new God. Okay, thanks for reconfirming that with me. Thanks alot! EDIT: It was wrong for me to have entered this debate thread. Some people can't handle it. You won't be seeing me around this section.
EXACTLY!! This IS a debate. And if you read the debate forum rules and the rules of a debate in general, you are not supposed to use opinions and emotion to say what you think. You are supposed to use reason and logic. Fact and truth. The bible does not come into this because there is no logic and fact and truth, that can be scientifically proven. Therefore everything you have said should NOT have been said because everything you've said has been said upon your own personal belief with no real facts actually stated. You even said yourself that what you are saying has not science [aprox.] to it. So that statement I made, "**** who cares what he thinks" is valid. My side of the argument has and always will be about the legalities of same sex marriage, the facts, the law, the truth. No where have I and will I bring into my personal beliefs upon religion and anything of the kind, unless, as you have done, I have been provoked to do so. So **** off with your bullshit, your incorrect bias opinion on the matter and come back when you actually have some factually evidence as to why it should not be allowed. Everything you've said about risk to population and anything like that has been invalid and unsourced. Except for that one link that really didn't prove your point at all. All it proved is that we are born the way we are, which really blames your god for us doesn't it?
You my friend have a god in science... So... anything he says has to have asource...and everything you present can be word from your mouth.... Gee this debate is fair! Now, I challange a Gay couple to come up with a term THEY agree on for there union because Marriage ...WHy can't it just be for man and woman? I will not treat any one different for there union. I have a few homosexual Friends and I even lay out a challenge like this. Whats the point, invading a church based union is why your really ticking Christians off. If you don't believe in the bible don't conform to its way. Bible story here... Story of the fig Tree. Matt 21:18-19 THere was a fig tree Had everything to look like it had fruit... leaves flowers w/e.... but When you came to the tree it had no fruit... So It was cursed. It was a look alike.... NOt the same as. So I'm not accusing Gay marriage of being wrong or right... I'll leave that to weigh in your heart, what I'm asking is it really needed to be marriage? I noticed the laws in the united states were written to describe marries not something else you would create....make it mean something more. But, I'm a Christian...thou there is many people married even today the Man-Female way...even there Marriage is wrong because they don't feel really united with the one they are with. I'll level with you Reynbow, if you can really prove that its going to be something really deep down changing inside of you. Nothing skin deep weekend dating, or flakey relastionships tons of people find themself in. I would actually like to see people loving each other **** sexually then misserable threw out there day looking for some one they can't find. As for Adam and Eve, man and woman Marrige I agree it should be about man and woman union but lets not forget what they married for there promise to be there for one and another. I know all I have aruged the case for god on this forum, The work continues here and in doing so means that the value of marrige between man and woman should be raised... So, Reynbow I think finding a different term as I said earlier is the point of post. Marrige is a up most love between a man and a woman....or It should be, us Hetero people are working on improving that.
Reading everything you've said... It seems like you're drunk. Are you trying to say that a Gay couple don't love eachother like straight couples. And we must prove ourselves like straight people do? Wait... Straight people prove themselves? Like Brittneys 55 hour marriage right? The one she had for fun. We have to prove ourselves MORE than straight people? I don't understand what you're trying to say. And I never said i wanted to invade the church and conform to it. It has nothing to do with church, I don't want to get married in a church that's for ****ing sure. I want the legal aspects. And marriage is the only thing. Civil union is nothing like marriage.
Even aside from questions of God's view, loving or not, upon same sex couples, I think the argument over the word marriage is pretty flawed and archaic. It's been a loooooong time (in practical terms anyway) since marriage=religious union of man and woman. It's passed into social terms, and (in principled terms, and not regarding personal grievances with same sex union), same sex union being called marriage is no different than a straight, secular marriage performed by the state. Basically, in terms of the religious arguments about same sex union, 'marriage' is just a word, nothing more. In fact, it's not even as if English was spoken at the time the idea was implemented in Christian terms, so it's no more relevant to the idea of Christian, straight union than any other word we could come up with to call same sex unions. The importance of the word marriage comes in today's society, calling it the same thing makes a point about it's nature. It's no worse, no less legitimate, and no less important (I'd even go so far as to say that it's no different) than straight marriage, and calling it the same thing makes this point to society. Coming up with some token new name for gay union would be demeaning and miss the point of the whole movement: to bring equality and recognition to same sex relationships in relation to straight ones (both in social terms, and the other aspects such as legal implications of marriage, since we all know that some token 'gay marriage' word would result in unequal legal connotations and rights). Oh and Reyn, considering your comments on the nature of argument and the debate forum (which are bang on), I think it's pretty hypocritical to go making 'drunk' comments. Counter the argument, not the person, and if someone is indeed drunk in a way which is affecting their argument, then that only makes said argument more prone to counter.