- Site Map >
- Community >
- Non-Sims Discussion >
- The Debate Room >
- Common Arguments Against Gays and Same-Sex Marriage…and How to Counter Them
- Site Map >
- Community >
- Non-Sims Discussion >
- The Debate Room >
- Common Arguments Against Gays and Same-Sex Marriage…and How to Counter Them
#26
3rd Jul 2010 at 2:17 AM
Posts: 1,401
Thanks: 5225 in 25 Posts
USA fundie christianity shows once again its not much less extreme than muslims trying to get the shiara in the law.
"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Advertisement
#27
3rd Jul 2010 at 2:41 AM
Posts: 99
Perhaps we should be more Dutch and fallow Stalin's example and simple massacre 100 Million westerners.
#28
3rd Jul 2010 at 7:08 AM
Posts: 2,875
Quote: Originally posted by TBot411
Perhaps we should be more Dutch and fallow Stalin's example and simple massacre 100 Million westerners. |
only if that 100 million consisted of those who made such stupid/disproportionate comments.
"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
#29
3rd Jul 2010 at 7:32 AM
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy. |
They say this as if polygamy is a bad thing!
#30
3rd Jul 2010 at 9:55 PM
Posts: 1,337
Thanks: 449 in 11 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by Amtram
Well, if you let the Bible be the defining standard for marriage, what's to stop men from marrying hundreds of women and keeping others as concubines? |
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. Therefore, a man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.
Guess we need to throw all those rape cases out of court and hold weddings instead.
Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Mad Poster
#31
3rd Jul 2010 at 10:03 PM
Quote:
If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy. |
#32
3rd Jul 2010 at 10:06 PM
One gay is like two normal people.
I thought that was common knowledge.
I thought that was common knowledge.
#33
3rd Jul 2010 at 10:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
One gay is like two normal people. |
Then why isn't it okay for four gay people to have a group marriage? Oh... polygamy's bad, too. Darn it.
#34
4th Jul 2010 at 12:30 AM
Posts: 599
Thanks: 7 in 1 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
What?! Why would it mean opening the door for polygamy? How have they even linked the two?! And agreed with Doddibot, what's wrong with polygamy? Good grief, they are literally pulling cons out of thin air. |
I think the "reasoning" is that if we redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then what will come next? Marriage to sheep?
I believe polygamy to be one of the most stable ways to create a family--as long as it is not exclusively polygyny, as some religions have promoted--because of the expanded possibilities for support and nurture. (But I don't think the western world is ready to embrace it quite yet!)
#35
4th Jul 2010 at 2:10 AM
Posts: 1,401
Thanks: 5225 in 25 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by grumpy_otter
I think the "reasoning" is that if we redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then what will come next? Marriage to sheep? I believe polygamy to be one of the most stable ways to create a family--as long as it is not exclusively polygyny, as some religions have promoted--because of the expanded possibilities for support and nurture. (But I don't think the western world is ready to embrace it quite yet!) |
Thats the "scare tactic" christian reasoning. Just like.. if we legalize people keeping cats as pets.. what will be next.. people keeping crocodiles???
"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
#36
4th Jul 2010 at 3:28 AM
Posts: 310
Thanks: 136 in 8 Posts
Oh, and the whole "marriage is for procreation" hoo-ha is quite the joke, also. If homosexuals can't marry because they can't procreate, then anyone who can't or doesn't want to procreate should also not be allowed to marry. After menopause, all women will have to divorce. Infertile? Marriage is null and void. Don't want to have kids? No ceremony for you! Bah.
#37
4th Jul 2010 at 6:29 AM
Posts: 2,875
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
What?! Why would it mean opening the door for polygamy? How have they even linked the two?! And agreed with Doddibot, what's wrong with polygamy? Good grief, they are literally pulling cons out of thin air. |
" evel knievel couldn't have made that leap! " - bill engvall.
i guess the same way you could raise someone to be gay/straight? LOL
and as far as procreation goes, there is roughly 3.8 billion people on the planet. i dont think we'll go extinct if we just stick with what we've got for a while.
"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
#38
4th Jul 2010 at 8:21 AM
Last edited by NatSoteris : 4th Jul 2010 at 8:06 PM.
Posts: 51
Thanks: 851 in 4 Posts
I personally hate the whole it's unnatural bit.
There are many cases of animals being able to have a sexual preference, and some are gay.
You can't get any more natural then that.
Besides straight men should be happy about knowing a gay man, that's one less guy who will hit on his wife.
>D
But Homophobia is everywhere. I almost got suspended from school for wearing a shirt that said "I know what Girls like"
There are many cases of animals being able to have a sexual preference, and some are gay.
You can't get any more natural then that.
Besides straight men should be happy about knowing a gay man, that's one less guy who will hit on his wife.
>D
But Homophobia is everywhere. I almost got suspended from school for wearing a shirt that said "I know what Girls like"
#39
4th Jul 2010 at 6:15 PM
Appeals to Nature aren't valid anyway. You don't need to use an appeal to nature in return to justify things. Just ask: Is homosexuality harmful?
No.
Then it doesn't matter if it's "natural" or it's not, whatever the hell that word even means.
No.
Then it doesn't matter if it's "natural" or it's not, whatever the hell that word even means.
#40
4th Jul 2010 at 7:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
and as far as procreation goes, there is roughly 3.8 billion people on the planet. |
What planet are you living on?
#41
4th Jul 2010 at 7:17 PM
Posts: 1,263
Thanks: 1255 in 4 Posts
To clarify fakepeeps' comment, the population of the world is about 6.7 billion.
#42
5th Jul 2010 at 2:27 AM
Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 5th Jul 2010 at 2:55 AM.
Posts: 2,875
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
To clarify fakepeeps' comment, the population of the world is about 6.7 billion. |
wikipedia lies to me, then. T_T
in any case: it was just to sound impressive. all i know for sure is that there are a LOT of us, enough so that if we didnt pop out children at every chance available, we wouldnt die out. we dont NEED every single baby that could exist, to exist.
and the attitude that every child is precious is preposterous.
if every child were truly regarded as precious, blood wouldnt matter as much as it does to most. adoption agencies would have much less children to care for. crappy parents wouldnt be nearly as popular as they are now.
far as im concerned, if gay marriage meant more adoption and less baby popping, it just adds to the list of why i endorse it.
and to answer:
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
What planet are you living on? |
one with outdated statistic sources, apparently.
"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
#43
5th Jul 2010 at 5:41 AM
Last edited by jhd1189 : 5th Jul 2010 at 6:07 AM.
Hmm... I noticed that several of you brought up polygamy in the context of this debate. Rather than continuing that here, I think it might be an appropriate topic for its own debate, if anyone would like to start a new thread.
I feel that I must defend Wikipedia's honor: "Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with almost 3.8 billion people." I think you may have just glanced at the wrong sentence. And anyway, you could always just tell people you wrote that post during the early 1970s... it would be accurate then.
There's always money in the banana stand.
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
wikipedia lies to me, then. T_T |
I feel that I must defend Wikipedia's honor: "Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with almost 3.8 billion people." I think you may have just glanced at the wrong sentence. And anyway, you could always just tell people you wrote that post during the early 1970s... it would be accurate then.
There's always money in the banana stand.
#44
5th Jul 2010 at 7:52 AM
Posts: 2,875
Quote: Originally posted by jhd1189
I feel that I must defend Wikipedia's honor: "Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with almost 3.8 billion people." I think you may have just glanced at the wrong sentence. And anyway, you could always just tell people you wrote that post during the early 1970s... it would be accurate then. |
entirely likely, my eyes have trouble focusing on the screen after long typing sessions.
though either way, 6.7bil or 3.8bil is an assload of human bodies, and i think we could stand to set the limit around there. =P
"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
#45
5th Jul 2010 at 6:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
though either way, 6.7bil or 3.8bil is an assload of human bodies, and i think we could stand to set the limit around there. =P |
Agreed. I can't imagine the population getting any bigger, especially since people are tending to move toward the cities. It's already too crowded in most of them!
Unfortunately, I think the statistics are predicting that we'll hit 9 billion or so before we peak. So we're definitely in no danger of going extinct. Unless living squished like sardines leads to the spread of some massive plague that wipes out most of humanity...
#46
5th Jul 2010 at 7:48 PM
Posts: 1,401
Thanks: 5225 in 25 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
Agreed. I can't imagine the population getting any bigger, especially since people are tending to move toward the cities. It's already too crowded in most of them! Unfortunately, I think the statistics are predicting that we'll hit 9 billion or so before we peak. So we're definitely in no danger of going extinct. Unless living squished like sardines leads to the spread of some massive plague that wipes out most of humanity... |
Living as sardines aint bad. In some countries people have been doing it for years. Now what will happen to THOSE countries when the population keep sgrowing is another question.
"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
#47
5th Jul 2010 at 7:57 PM
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 2046 in 5 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
Living as sardines aint bad. In some countries people have been doing it for years. Now what will happen to THOSE countries when the population keep sgrowing is another question. |
I hope you were joking with that statement,
#48
5th Jul 2010 at 8:58 PM
Posts: 1,263
Thanks: 1255 in 4 Posts
Most people find it extremely stressful to live in high population density areas. The people that usually migrate to cities are those looking for lucrative jobs and those looking for better access to social programs. For the most part, these people need to live there to get what they want. The rest of us prefer the suburbs or the country. At least, that's the way it is in the US.
#49
5th Jul 2010 at 11:10 PM
Posts: 1,401
Thanks: 5225 in 25 Posts
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Most people find it extremely stressful to live in high population density areas. The people that usually migrate to cities are those looking for lucrative jobs and those looking for better access to social programs. For the most part, these people need to live there to get what they want. The rest of us prefer the suburbs or the country. At least, that's the way it is in the US. |
Holland doesnt have "suburbs" like the USA has. Suburbs are the USA fix for the fact cities have become a mess. We dont need suburbs unless our cities become a mess too.
Social care is for everyone, city or small town. USA homeless shelters and food kitchens for the loads of people without chances are USA doom scenarios. Lets hope we never get those here.
"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
#50
5th Jul 2010 at 11:38 PM
Posts: 1,102
Population growth is probably a topic for another thread, but I just want to say the problem isn't the lack of space. It's the lack of resources (or, more precisely, the inability of the environment to sustainably absorb our waste).
Anyway, back on topic, how about the argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't even be recognised by the state, let alone regulated by it. And if religions refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, that's up to them.
Anyway, back on topic, how about the argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't even be recognised by the state, let alone regulated by it. And if religions refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, that's up to them.
Who Posted
|