Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#26 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 2:17 AM
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"
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#27 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 2:41 AM
Perhaps we should be more Dutch and fallow Stalin's example and simple massacre 100 Million westerners.
Alchemist
#28 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 7:08 AM
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
Scholar
#29 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 7:32 AM
Quote:
If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy.


They say this as if polygamy is a bad thing!
Scholar
#30 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 9:55 PM
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 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 10:03 PM
Quote:
If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy.
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.
Retired
retired moderator
#32 Old 3rd Jul 2010 at 10:06 PM
One gay is like two normal people.

I thought that was common knowledge.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Mad Poster
#33 Old 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.
Instructor
#34 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 12:30 AM
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!)
Scholar
#35 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 2:10 AM
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"
Field Researcher
#36 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 3:28 AM
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.
Alchemist
#37 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 6:29 AM
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
Test Subject
#38 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 8:21 AM Last edited by NatSoteris : 4th Jul 2010 at 8:06 PM.
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"
Retired
retired moderator
#39 Old 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.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Mad Poster
#40 Old 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?
Scholar
#41 Old 4th Jul 2010 at 7:17 PM
To clarify fakepeeps' comment, the population of the world is about 6.7 billion.
Alchemist
#42 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 2:27 AM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 5th Jul 2010 at 2:55 AM.
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
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#43 Old 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.

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.
Alchemist
#44 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 7:52 AM
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
Mad Poster
#45 Old 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...
Scholar
#46 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 7:48 PM
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"
Top Secret Researcher
Original Poster
#47 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 7:57 PM
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,
Scholar
#48 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 8:58 PM
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.
Scholar
#49 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 11:10 PM
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"
Scholar
#50 Old 5th Jul 2010 at 11:38 PM
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.
 
Page 2 of 17
Back to top