Your stance on gay marriage

[Baharun]

It affects humanity.

Only that segment that likes to whine about things that doesn't involve them.

How the hell does it not involve me? Gay marriage is the most stupidest invention after Hitler.

[Ceannairceach]

Only that segment that likes to whine about things that doesn't involve them.

How the hell does it not involve me? Gay marriage is the most stupidest invention after Hitler.

...And the trolling begins...

It is no more an invention than heterosexual marriage, and certainly no worse.

[Bergrisiheim]

It should be allowed. I mean, come on, it doesn't affect you, so why not?

It affects humanity.

Hmph. Explain please. Whom I have intercourse with, sure, may "damn me to hell" (if that is your belief), yet it does not damn you. So, why not live, let live, and let the actual God be the judge in the matter.

[The Halbetan Union]

Well... He IS right.

How so?

Every bit of progress anywhere in the world is a shining beacon of hope to people suffering in those places of the world where their very existence is grounds for execution, ridicule, or "reeducation". Progress has a remarkable ability to bring itself into existence in other places, and change here in the US could be the inspiration needed to begin change elsewhere. Never doubt that every bit of good goes a long way.

[Baharun]

How the hell does it not involve me? Gay marriage is the most stupidest invention after Hitler.

...And the trolling begins...

It is no more an invention than heterosexual marriage, and certainly no worse.

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of. And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty, and Seccond because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

[The Halbetan Union]

How the hell does it not involve me? Gay marriage is the most stupidest invention after Hitler.

...And the trolling begins...

It is no more an invention than heterosexual marriage, and certainly no worse.

I was not aware that Hitler was invented.

[Ceannairceach]

...And the trolling begins...

It is no more an invention than heterosexual marriage, and certainly no worse.

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of. And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty, and Second because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

1) Nero, Emperor of Rome, is believed to have married two men. Before the rise of Christianity, gay relationships weren't that big of a deal.
2) It is only "abnormal" because the heterosexual marriages are the norm. Otherwise, it is completely and utterly an average relationship. It is certainly no more dirty than your average monogamous relationship.
3) Homosexuals can reproduce.

[The Halbetan Union]

2)It is certainly no more dirty than your average monogamous relationship.

I like to think it is.

[Baharun]

Ah you think that the first marriage was gay? When marriage was (according to history) invented gay marriage was untinkable of. And of course it is worse than heterosxual marriage! Why? First, because it's abnormal and dirty, and Second because it cannot give the society any use (no babies!)

1) Nero, Emperor of Rome, is believed to have married two men. Before the rise of Christianity, gay relationships weren't that big of a deal.
2) It is only "abnormal" because the heterosexual marriages are the norm. Otherwise, it is completely and utterly an average relationship. It is certainly no more dirty than your average monogamous relationship.
3) Homosexuals can reproduce.

1) You really believe Nero was the first person married?! HAHAHA
2) What you say is denying the truth
3) Not amongst eachother

[Ceannairceach]

1) Nero, Emperor of Rome, is believed to have married two men. Before the rise of Christianity, gay relationships weren't that big of a deal.
2) It is only "abnormal" because the heterosexual marriages are the norm. Otherwise, it is completely and utterly an average relationship. It is certainly no more dirty than your average monogamous relationship.
3) Homosexuals can reproduce.

1) You really believe Nero was the first person married?! HAHAHA
2) What you say is denying the truth
3) Not amongst eachother

1) No, but it is an example of how in pre-Christian times, sexuality didn't matter when it came to relationships.
2) Speak for yourself.
3) Two female mice have produced a child; We aren't that far off for humans.

[Baharun]

1) You really believe Nero was the first person married?! HAHAHA
2) What you say is denying the truth
3) Not amongst eachother

1) No, but it is an example of how in pre-Christian times, sexuality didn't matter when it came to relationships.
2) Speak for yourself.
3) Two female mice have produced a child; We aren't that far off for humans.

1) It's not, Nero was an EMPEROR! So powerfull emperors could do wat they wanted, so he had burned down Rome
2) There's no need for different thougths, how can a normal human even imagine that homosexualism is normal?
3) Have ever two gay HUMANS done this? No? So that makes any arguing here useless.

[Ceannairceach]

1) No, but it is an example of how in pre-Christian times, sexuality didn't matter when it came to relationships.
2) Speak for yourself.
3) Two female mice have produced a child; We aren't that far off for humans.

1) It's not, Nero was an EMPEROR! So powerfull emperors could do wat they wanted, so he had burned down Rome
2) There's no need for different thougths, how can a normal human even imagine that homosexualism is normal?
3) Have ever two gay HUMANS done this? No? So that makes any arguing here useless.

1) Fine. In the Kingdom of the Kongo(centered around the modern Congo River) had men who, in the absence of a motherly figure, would dress as women and, for all intensive purposes, act as women, even to the point of marrying men.
2) Because homosexuals are normal human beings deserving of the same rights and privileges.
3) Fine once more: A lesbian woman can be artificially inseminated, and a homosexual man can use a surrogate. And, unless you discount willingly childless couples, couples who adopt, couples where one or both of the partners are infertile, etc., this argument about children does not stand.

[Enadail]

1) It's not, Nero was an EMPEROR! So powerfull emperors could do wat they wanted, so he had burned down Rome

Homosexual acts in ancient Rome/Greece are well recorded and known. Ancient warriors were encouraged to find a partner in their regiments so they would be fighting for themselves and someone they loved.

2) There's no need for different thougths, how can a normal human even imagine that homosexualism is normal?

Is this like how can someone imagine lip rings are normal? Or how about how can anyone imagine marrying someone twice their age? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean others can't. Or that its somehow "not normal".

3) Have ever two gay HUMANS done this? No? So that makes any arguing here useless.

So children should be a requirement for marriage? Better let infertile couples or old people know you don't approve of their marriage.

[Shaoyuan]

Why is this topic still going on? Seriously.

[Enadail]

Why is this topic still going on? Seriously.

Because some people are still illogical and bigoted?

[The Halbetan Union]

Why is this topic still going on? Seriously.

No fun allowed?

[Make up your own mind]

Why is this topic still going on? Seriously.

It's the happening place.

[Samuraikoku]

Only that segment that likes to whine about things that doesn't involve them.

How the hell does it not involve me? Gay marriage is the most stupidest invention after Hitler.

Another troll. Has he been reported yet? Or shall I do the job?

[Samuraikoku]

Why is this topic still going on? Seriously.

What need is there for you to ask?

[Dusk_Kittens]

In what way?

To repeal DOMA activists will either need a majority in congress that support repeal (as well as a majority of the population so that congresspersons don't shy away from making the right choice), or be challenged in court. A law like DOMA will be appealed all the way to the supreme court. Do you see where I'm going with this?

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in three separate cases by federal judges:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113703&p=5709587#p5709587

So far, nobody has bothered to go all the way to the Supreme Court with it, but when they do, it will be ruled unconstitutional there as well. If it isn't, then we may need to consider fertilizing the roots of the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants (which is its natural manure).

Can we please drop the DOMA bullshit now?

The ceremony is called a "wedding." The actual union is "marriage," and yes, it IS religious for some people (whether you like it or not) -- including some people who have absolutely NO objection to same-sex marriage. Stop trying to push a secular view of marriage onto everyone; it's not necessary for a LEGAL justification for same-sex marriage.

Irrelevant.

The fact that marriage is not religious is happy coincidence, not a required building-block.

You appear to have once again failed to read my whole post (because I myself said that the question of whether or not it is religious is irrelevant), or you're simply behaving in a fundamentalist fashion (asserting that marriage is not religious is a "fact," when in fact it is no such thing).

Seriously, attempting to enforce your own opinion (yes, that's right, NOT FACT) that marriage is (or should be) "not religious" is fucking bogus and is NOT helping the cause of same-sex marriage; it simply alienates those who might be OTHERWISE willing to listen to your arguments.

[Dusk_Kittens]

1) It's not, Nero was an EMPEROR! So powerfull emperors could do wat they wanted, so he had burned down Rome
2) There's no need for different thougths, how can a normal human even imagine that homosexualism is normal?
3) Have ever two gay HUMANS done this? No? So that makes any arguing here useless.

1) Fine. In the Kingdom of the Kongo(centered around the modern Congo River) had men who, in the absence of a motherly figure, would dress as women and, for all intensive purposes, act as women, even to the point of marrying men.
2) Because homosexuals are normal human beings deserving of the same rights and privileges.
3) Fine once more: A lesbian woman can be artificially inseminated, and a homosexual man can use a surrogate. And, unless you discount willingly childless couples, couples who adopt, couples where one or both of the partners are infertile, etc., this argument about children does not stand.

*sigh* The claim that Nero burnt Rome is more than a little dubious. I suggest you check up on that.

Also, since when is being gay a religion or philosophy? It isn't. As such, it's not an "-ism." The correct word is "homosexuality," which refers to a state of being, rather than an ideology.

Again, the expression is "for all intents and purposes."

Finally, if reproduction were the sole justification of marriage, the sterile would not be allowed to marry. Furthermore, the planet is already overpopulated. Does anyone seriously think that increasing the population further is in any way laudatory?

[Distruzio]

Furthermore, the planet is already overpopulated. Does anyone seriously think that increasing the population further is in any way laudatory?

Here we disagree, DK. The world is not overpopulated. I favor further growth.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Furthermore, the planet is already overpopulated. Does anyone seriously think that increasing the population further is in any way laudatory?

Here we disagree, DK. The world is not overpopulated. I favor further growth.

The current population is not sustainable with the extant resources of the planet, which is why we are using up not only non-renewable resources, but even those which, if managed properly in the context of a sustainable population, would be renewable.

Perhaps the powers that be have an interest in keeping you thinking we can expand forever, implying that the Earth's resources are limitless. Perhaps the capitalistic economic system that rules Earth does not want to let you know the truth about our crashing population and that we will reach zero population growth very shortly.

The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits. This awareness is not what the capitalistic economic system powers that be want you to know. It would be bad for their business.

Our crashing population is both good and bad. It is good because these numbers show the indisputable evidence of the collapse that has been under way now for the past 13 years. This is the ultimate wake up call for Homo Sapiens. If there were ever a sign to take a long hard look at what we as a species are doing to all of the life sustaining ecosystems on Earth, this is it.

On the other hand this is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases. ...

Sustainability Of Soil Energy:

The rise in Grain Yield per hectare is slowing in all major grain-producing regions. Since 1984, grain output per person has fallen on average by .6 percent per year. In 1998, the per capita grain output further declined to 695 pounds, this is an 8 percent decline from the peak in 1984 when the per capita grain output was 755 pounds. The slower growth in world grain harvest is due to the lack of new land and slower growth in irrigation and fertilizer use. Irrigated area per person, after expanding by 30 percent from 1950 until 1978, has declined by 4 percent. Since then the growth in the irrigated area has fallen behind that of population. With biotechnology neither providing nor promising any dramatic breakthrough in raising yields, there is little hope for restoring growth in food output.

Sustainability Of Fisheries Energy:

The worldwide Fish Catch peaked in 1989 at 100 million metric tons. Since 1989, the seafood catch per person has fallen by 2 percent per year. Marine biologists at the Food and Agriculture Organization report that all 17 of the major oceanic fisheries are being fished at or beyond capacity. Nine are in a state of collapse.

Fresh Water Limits:

Since the amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant, as population grows, the supply of fresh water per person declines. As a result, the amount of water available per person is expected to decline by 74 percent between 1950 and 2050. Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages today. By 2025, the number is expected to grow to 2.8 billion people. Of these, at least 1 billion people will be living in countries facing absolute water scarcity. Most overpopulated, fast-urbanizing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa have to survive on largely polluted rivers and wells. Water is a major carrier of disease bearing germs. As many as 2.3 billion people in the world today suffer from diseases linked to water, such as dysentery, cholera and typhoid. Less than 1 percent of the Earth's water is fit and available for human consumption. ...

Source

There are so many people on this planet that counting them up, exactly, is impossible. However, experts believe there are more than 6.8 billion people in the world today. ... In terms of net gain (births minus deaths), we are adding over 200,000 people to this planet every day, or 140 EVERY MINUTE. That equates to 70 million more people every year, about the same as the combined population of California, Texas, and New York. Although we have made encouraging progress in slowing the growth rate, any rate of growth is unsustainable in the long term, so we must stabilize population soon for the good of future generations. ... 6.8 billion people may well be too many already. Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American).

Source

See also:
http://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/population_problem.pdf

[Distruzio]

Here we disagree, DK. The world is not overpopulated. I favor further growth.

The current population is not sustainable with the extant resources of the planet, which is why we are using up not only non-renewable resources, but even those which, if managed properly in the context of a sustainable population, would be renewable.

Perhaps the powers that be have an interest in keeping you thinking we can expand forever, implying that the Earth's resources are limitless. Perhaps the capitalistic economic system that rules Earth does not want to let you know the truth about our crashing population and that we will reach zero population growth very shortly.

The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits. This awareness is not what the capitalistic economic system powers that be want you to know. It would be bad for their business.

Our crashing population is both good and bad. It is good because these numbers show the indisputable evidence of the collapse that has been under way now for the past 13 years. This is the ultimate wake up call for Homo Sapiens. If there were ever a sign to take a long hard look at what we as a species are doing to all of the life sustaining ecosystems on Earth, this is it.

On the other hand this is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases. ...

Sustainability Of Soil Energy:

The rise in Grain Yield per hectare is slowing in all major grain-producing regions. Since 1984, grain output per person has fallen on average by .6 percent per year. In 1998, the per capita grain output further declined to 695 pounds, this is an 8 percent decline from the peak in 1984 when the per capita grain output was 755 pounds. The slower growth in world grain harvest is due to the lack of new land and slower growth in irrigation and fertilizer use. Irrigated area per person, after expanding by 30 percent from 1950 until 1978, has declined by 4 percent. Since then the growth in the irrigated area has fallen behind that of population. With biotechnology neither providing nor promising any dramatic breakthrough in raising yields, there is little hope for restoring growth in food output.

Sustainability Of Fisheries Energy:

The worldwide Fish Catch peaked in 1989 at 100 million metric tons. Since 1989, the seafood catch per person has fallen by 2 percent per year. Marine biologists at the Food and Agriculture Organization report that all 17 of the major oceanic fisheries are being fished at or beyond capacity. Nine are in a state of collapse.

Fresh Water Limits:

Since the amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant, as population grows, the supply of fresh water per person declines. As a result, the amount of water available per person is expected to decline by 74 percent between 1950 and 2050. Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages today. By 2025, the number is expected to grow to 2.8 billion people. Of these, at least 1 billion people will be living in countries facing absolute water scarcity. Most overpopulated, fast-urbanizing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa have to survive on largely polluted rivers and wells. Water is a major carrier of disease bearing germs. As many as 2.3 billion people in the world today suffer from diseases linked to water, such as dysentery, cholera and typhoid. Less than 1 percent of the Earth's water is fit and available for human consumption. ...

Source

There are so many people on this planet that counting them up, exactly, is impossible. However, experts believe there are more than 6.8 billion people in the world today. ... In terms of net gain (births minus deaths), we are adding over 200,000 people to this planet every day, or 140 EVERY MINUTE. That equates to 70 million more people every year, about the same as the combined population of California, Texas, and New York. Although we have made encouraging progress in slowing the growth rate, any rate of growth is unsustainable in the long term, so we must stabilize population soon for the good of future generations. ... 6.8 billion people may well be too many already. Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American).

Source

See also:
http://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/population_problem.pdf

Hmm... well that's all very interesting and everything, and I do mean it DK, but as a free marketer, I see no issues with overpopulation. Standing Room Only is a chapter (22)in Julien Simons book, The Ultimate Resource handles your concerns most articulately.

...population growth is neither constant nor inexorable; it is not smoothly geometric, as Malthus thought it to be. Population grows at various rates under various conditions. Sometimes population size shrinks for centuries due to poor political and health conditions. That is, economic, cultural, and political events, and not just catastrophe, control population size. But recently conditions have improved dramatically and population has added another growth spurt - joyous news for humanity.

Simon addresses the demographics, the population density, the stock of resources etc etc. Have a gander. I don't know if you're a free market guy so, if you reject the unhampered market, then this source will likely serve you no purpose. I thought I'd post it anyway, just in case you were curious.

[The Alma Mater]

The current population is not sustainable with the extant resources of the planet, which is why we are using up not only non-renewable resources, but even those which, if managed properly in the context of a sustainable population, would be renewable.


Source


Source

See also:
http://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/population_problem.pdf

Hmm... well that's all very interesting and everything, and I do mean it DK, but as a free marketer, I see no issues with overpopulation. Standing Room Only is a chapter (22)in Julien Simons book, The Ultimate Resource handles your concerns most articulately.

...population growth is neither constant nor inexorable; it is not smoothly geometric, as Malthus thought it to be. Population grows at various rates under various conditions. Sometimes population size shrinks for centuries due to poor political and health conditions. That is, economic, cultural, and political events, and not just catastrophe, control population size. But recently conditions have improved dramatically and population has added another growth spurt - joyous news for humanity.

Simon addresses the demographics, the population density, the stock of resources etc etc. Have a gander. I don't know if you're a free market guy so, if you reject the unhampered market, then this source will likely serve you no purpose. I thought I'd post it anyway, just in case you were curious.

So, you FAVOUR gay marriage then ? After all, contrary to what one might expect at first glance, research has indicated that populations of animals in which about 10% is homosexual are more succesfull (as a population) at reproducing So if you want more babies, get more gays !

Of course, if 90% of the population would be gay instead of 10% that might but a little damper on the enthousiasm humans have to breed - but then again, if 90% were gay I doubt the outcome of a vote on this issue would be "no, gays can not marry"