Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban

[markolas]

Originally Posted by snowman

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

[amber]

Originally Posted by markolas

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

I was actually wondering if this person mistook the title of this thread for the opposite of what it really is.
Hey, Snowman - she wants suggestions for arguing against a gay marriage ban.
But even if she didn't, the whole procreation thing is a....singularly ineffective argument given the current population of the world coupled with the imminent or already occuring scarcity of resources.

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by snowman

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board. And that says a lot.

What does gay marriage have to do with the reproductive ability of heterosexuals?

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

I dont blame you for being hot under the collar, but remember this: You are who you are, dont let someone that makes ignorant statements about people like us change that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

I about fell off my chair when I first heard this! For one brief, fleeting moment, I actually thought to myself "Maybe there is a god afterall..."

Based on his past record, though, I'm not holding my breath that this trend will continue.

Me too - well, at least "we" got THAT vote - maybe he will continue in that trend, but I am not holding my breath, though I think his past record is relatively not that bad and it could a whole lot worse. But, time will tell.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

I'm starting to understand how DrummerDeanna felt.

Well, it is not a personal thing to you or anyone. I am just citing to facts. And, please do not misunderstand me like I think Deanna and others did. I think religion is a great thing that does great things. I just think the powers to be in almost all organized religion use that true and real great thing as a tool to gain power and then misuse it. Certainly, the Catholic Church has done that with the ped. tragedy. I mean they knew these people were hurting kids and just shuffled them off to another Parish when caught. Then, when called out for that, they equated peds. with gay people because they knew a very significant number of people think all gay people are peds., which no data supports and they knew that. Does that mean all of the Catholic Church is a 100% bad organization? Of course not. I personally think the Church is a wonderful but very flawed and archaic organization as the facts indicate almost all organized religions are. So, what I do is take the good and leave the bad and also try to change the bad in whatever small way I can. But and again, this is not a personal attack on anyone's private religious beliefs unless those beliefs are along the lines of the Church did nothing wrong in the ped. scandals, which I then only point out is factually incorrect. I also think religion is a highly emotional topic for people because their lives are so emotionally involved in organized religion in one way or another and they see that belief crushed by stunts like this. I mean it is a little hard not to call Jerry Fallwell and his ilk prikcs because they are so full of hate and that pulpit hatred hurts people.

I hope that made sense and again, I am just noting facts.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

When was this? Must've been in his first day on the job.

It was his first vote, I think.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, it is not a personal thing to you or anyone. I am just citing to facts. And, please do not misunderstand me like I think Deanna and others did. I think religion is a great thing that does great things. I just think the powers to be in almost all organized religion use that true and real great thing as a tool to gain power and then misuse it. Certainly, the Catholic Church has done that with the ped. tragedy. I mean they knew these people were hurting kids and just shuffled them off to another Parish when caught. Then, when called out for that, they equated peds. with gay people because they knew a very significant number of people think all gay people are peds., which no data supports and they knew that. Does that mean all of the Catholic Church is a 100% bad organization? Of course not. I personally think the Church is a wonderful but very flawed and archaic organization as the facts indicate almost all organized religions are. So, what I do is take the good and leave the bad and also try to change the bad in whatever small way I can. But and again, this is not a personal attack on anyone's private religious beliefs unless those beliefs are along the lines of the Church did nothing wrong in the ped. scandals, which I then only point out is factually incorrect. I also think religion is a highly emotional topic for people because their lives are so emotionally involved in organized religion in one way or another and they see that belief crushed by stunts like this. I mean it is a little hard not to call Jerry Fallwell and his ilk prikcs because they are so full of hate and that pulpit hatred hurts people.

I hope that made sense and again, I am just noting facts.

I get it. I've never been offended by what you've said.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

. . . Curtis and Paula do that every day, too, but they haven't been nominated for sainthood . . . .

I believe they get paid for it (which I am not complaining about as they BOTH owe me cocktails ) - I think the point with MT is most think the vast majority of her good work greatly outweighed any accounting BS like this, which I agree should not have been done.

But, others do not think that way.

Finally, the definition of a "saint" is a person who does extraordinary good work within their faith, which she clearly was and did

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by snowman

Biologically speaking - one of the primary purposes for any species (plant or animal) to exist on this earth, is to pro-create- pass on it's off spring so the species will survive. If the ability to pro-create is hindered or stopped, the species becomes endangered or extinct.

So biologically speaking - if gay marriage were sanctioned as a viable, recognized, mainstream institution, then in theory, the human species could become endangered or extinct due to the simple fact that gay marriages do not allow the human species to pro-create/pass on offspring.

So, why let hetero people who cannot biologically have children marry? Also, marriage has nothing to do with conception from a biological point of view.

Food for thought

[snowman]

Originally Posted by markolas

So you think that if gay marriage was legalized, everyone would turn gay? I have no idea why I'm even responding to such stupidity as this.

From the beginning of time...if gay marriages were the norm...we wouldn't be here, skippy

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by snowman

From the beginning of time...if gay marriages were the norm...we wouldn't be here, skippy

The conclusion from your argument is flawed because not everyone is gay, which it presumes.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The conclusion from your argument is flawed because not everyone is gay, which it presumes.

That's too bad. The more the merrier I say!

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I believe they get paid for it (which I am not complaining about as they BOTH owe me cocktails ) - I think the point with MT is most think the vast majority of her good work greatly outweighed any accounting BS like this, which I agree should not have been done.

But, others do not think that way.

Finally, the definition of a "saint" is a person who does extraordinary good work within their faith, which she clearly was and did

Yes, you are right, she is technically a Saint. I know that.

I guess for me, if that bad stuff is true it would tend to outweigh the good things she did. Plus, in my view, birth control would have helped the poor and sick a lot more, and she was against birth control. Yes, I realize some countries don't take kindly to notions of birth control anyway - but still, MT actively worked against birth control, and I think that is the opposite of helping the poor and sick in third world countries.
It takes a great amount of personal sacrifice, will, strength, and compassion to do what she did, and I admire those qualities.
I would wish that she did not help others at least partially, if not wholly, (which is what I suspect) in service to her religious beliefs.

[snowman]

My intensions in responding to this thread were to look at this controversial issue in an evolutionary sense- not to bash gays.