What do you think of same-sex church wedding ceremonies?

[The Misotheist Reich]

If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

[Rocopurr]

If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.

AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.

[Liriena]

In what country do homosexuals make up 55% of the population?

Massachusetts? Seriously, though, a number of countries have legalized same-sex marriage. None of them have a majority population that is gay.

Not even Brazil, and you know how sexual those Brazucas are.

[Dyakovo]

If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

Again, human sexuality is far too complex to be controlled by one gene.

[Vazdania]

If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

Homosexuality isn't linked to a gene....

[The Misotheist Reich]

If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.

AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

[Liriena]

1.) If homosexualism is a gene.
2.) You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene.
3.) How would we know if the gene is spread evenly.
4.) Bound your family tree wont provide any answers.
5.) This gene is something to be feared.
6.) Because homosexualism has been on the rise.
7.) The anwers for why that is happening?
8.) How do we know who is containated with the gene.
9.) How do we know if our children have it?
10.) If it does exist of course.
11.) It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.

1.) It's not "a gene". It's also called "homosexuality", not "homosexualism".
2.) At least you have a (very) basic grasp of genetics.
3.) We do have tons of geneticists in the world, you know?
4.) Umm...coherent writing, please?
5.) "This gene" doesn't exist.
6.) No. People are more open about it nowadays, but the number of homosexuals itself has not really increased. Heck, homosexual intercourse was a lot more common two thousand years ago.
7.) Social acceptance.
8.) Holy uninformed bullshit, Catman!
9.) I'm not even going to try.
10.) It doesn't...and there goes your entire (parroted) "argument".
11.) Global population is rising at an increasingly fast pace. I don't see what's so scary about slowing it down, taking into account how limited our resources are.

Now, would you kinly stop jerking us around like one of those homophobic Youtube spammers and actually respond to our counter-arguments, instead of repeating the same irrelevant lies over and over? It's exhaustingly boring.

[Genivaria]

Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.

AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need to very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

Entirely irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.

AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

[Rocopurr]

Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.

AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

Why does it have to be 'natural' childbirth?

[Anachronous Rex]

Did you read my post? Homosexuals can reproduce.

And all the places where same-sex marriage is legal haven't had the rate of homosexuals go up too high.

Really? Two men can reproduce? Two women can reproduce? I am talking about natural childbearing. Not adoptions, or surrogates. I am taliking real child birth.

My sister will be delighted to know she didn't undergo real child birth.

I wonder what all that morphine was for...?

[The Misotheist Reich]

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

[Genivaria]

Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

Why does it have to be 'natural' childbirth?

Frankly I'd rather be born behind glass then in an icky womb covered in blood.

[Anachronous Rex]

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

Yes. Given recent advances in science. You only need a womb.

Probably not even that soon.

[Rocopurr]

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

What? I am lost... You aren't even trying, are you?

[Liriena]

But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child.

So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?

I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.

Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.

Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.

[Liriena]

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

If they wanted to? They could be.

But sex is awesome, and many couples love traditional pregnancies, so it's unlikely "people" in general will become asexual.

[Dyakovo]

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

No.

[Genivaria]

Really, so people are asexual now?

If they wanted to? They could be.

But sex is awesome, and many couples love traditional pregnancies, so it's unlikely "people" in general will become asexual.

Have 1 child, get tubes tied, then have sex every night.
Except the crying interrupting us, oh god the crying.

[Vazdania]

Actually, you only need one reproductive organ to reproduce.

Really, so people are asexual now?

GGGUUUUUUIIIIIILLLLLLLTTTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqOBBhRpnxE

[The Misotheist Reich]

But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child.

So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?

I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.

So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.

Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.

Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.

Homosexuals do not deserve children. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. They need to beg the straight for their children. Why must they have children any way? Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.

[Grave_n_idle]

Same Sex Marrige should be illegal. I my self am not a christian, but I think that two members of same sex getting married is not right.

I think putting tired Teutonic imagery and world war two colour schemes on flags is not right. I wouldn't make it illegal, though.

Guess I'm just taking the moral highground.

[Vazdania]

So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?


So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.

Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.

Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.

Homosexuals do not deserve children. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. They need to beg the straight for their children. Why must they have children any way? Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.

FUK DAT SHIT. BETTER those without a home go to a homosexual couple then stay under state control. It saves the state money, and it helps the child develop in a home.

[Genivaria]

So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?


So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.

Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.

Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.

Homosexuals do not deserve children. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. They need to beg the straight for their children. Why must they have children any way? Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.

Then instead of banning having children for homosexuals here's a radical idea: STOP BEING BIGOTS TO PEOPLE.

[Grave_n_idle]

Legalizing same-sex marriage causes you to have 55% become gay?

No you missed my point. If you a nation 200 million people. 55% are homosexual. That means gay marridge is most likely legal in that place. Thus leading to a lack of heterosexual partners, leading to population loss.

Homosexuals can still have children. They are 'gay', not sterile.