Gay Marriage and Abortion = Human Extinction....

Vote Early Vote Often its the democratic way!!!!

Remember this when you cast your vote Nov 2nd...;0)

Hog

Yeah hog...we have such a population shortage going on.

billyjackson has a point there hog 🙂

I don't know about the extinction bit, lesbians here in the Bay Area have taken them to popping them out like bunnies.

Send this to the Chinese Government. They are always looking at ways to keep their population growth down.

Wow hog. And to think my political views were parallel to yours. I guess I only agree with you 90% of the time now...

LOL Cexshun,

I posted this mearly as a discussion topic... to take away from the political spinning that has been going on the threads for some time now....

kind of a different debate topic? didn't work as I see...

not like the other forum I posted it to...I think C-Bid folks are burned out on discussions??

747 Views / 96 Replies

Hog

I think the problem is that you chose 2 topics that are extremely controversial. Personally, I refuse to even be in the room when abortion is being discussed. Both sides are completely adamant about it and will never change. It always turns into a personal insult battle. I used to protest outside of abortion clinics. Then, when I was in a situation not so long ago, I was literally moments away from confirming an appointement at the clinic. The phrase "walk a mile in there shoes" is so cliche that it holds no meaning any longer. But I know what it means now.

As far as gay marriage, I say why the hell not. Human extintion? That's funny. You're saying that if the 2 gays guys didn't get married, then they would have impregnated women. That's not only absurd, but I find it quite comical! Now gay adoption, I'm on the fense on that topic until I can do proper research. Gay marriage? Go for it! Seems that the government gets to choose separation of church and state only when it fits them. But on issues like these, morality and religion are all of a sudden a valid arguement.

Vote Badnarik 2004.

very well spoken cexshun...

although I do disagree with the "go for it" abstenance of your discussion... If everyone in america just felt "go for it" as a way to make things simpiler then where would America be today?? there are many negative and just reasons to the above topic... all of which are seamingly forced onto the American way of life with the freedoms and liberty's we all share.. taking away something? or not allowing it to begin with?

these issue's are both sad in the sense that it cannot be a topic discussed with good recorse rather then look at the later part of this forum as feelings of being attacked for making the statement on how one feels on the issue... I do agree with you on that point.. it is sad...

Hog

I posted a link on here to a Red vs Blue PSA parody of Internet vs Real World. There's a section in there:

Debating Politics (Real World):
"That's just the way I feel about it."
"Well, I disagree but I respect your opinion."

Debating Politics (Internet):
"I hate you! I wish you'd all die!"
"I wish you'd get raped! TWICE! Then we'll see how you feel on the topic!"
"I voted for Nader! I hate everyone!"

Ok, I can't stay quiet any longer. cexshun, I have to disagree with your assessment of gay marriage. I oppose the idea of protecting gay unions. Why? Well, as far as I can tell, the government recognizes marriages as a way to protect the union between a man and a woman. Now, that's pretty specific, so let's back up some. I actually believe the government intends to protect the family unit -- being man, woman, and any potential children. This is the family unit as intended by nature and biology. The protection of this unit was -- and still is -- necessary to help perpetuate the strength of the community. It also helps define roles to keep the society functioning in a healthy manner. Sure, there deviations from "normal" social behavior. They're to be expected, and they're simply inevitable. The question is, "Why protect that behavior?" Why protect the union between two people of same gender? How does society as a whole benefit from this? It doesn't. It allows the meaning of marriage to be deteriorated. How would you respond to a man to marry his sister? How about a man marrying his brother? It gets worse. Imagine a man wanting to marry his father. It's disturbing and unrealistic to even consider, isn't it? Now tell me where you draw the line. After that, tell me why you draw the line there. Personal feelings? Religious motivations? My opinion is based on an attempt to view the situation logically. My logic may be flawed (in fact, it probably is), but it's at least an attempt. We have to ask why marriage exists. We then have to make sure that it applies to the situation at hand. To me, marriage doesn't exist to show that you really, really like someone.


Sorry. I was trying to stay out of this, but I couldn't.

No need to apologize lofty1. We have different beliefs, and I can respect that. The problem is that you are, from my viewpoint, founding your beliefs on "normal" society behavior. Also, biology dictates this fact, yes?

My view of this is that if that is true, then a man/woman would be able to marry multiple partners. Our natural instinct is to reproduce with as many people as we can. It's natural to have multiple mates. It does little good for society to pigeon-hole one into a monogomous relationship. So, by your arguements, marriage should be expanded to allow multiple partners and equal benefits for them all. You see, I can argue that it's unhealthy to force humans monogamous relationships when instinct tells us polygamy is the natural order.

Another issue I have is that the family unit is man, woman, kids. I know several marriages where no children exist. By your arguement, this marriage is against the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, we should ban childless marriages. In fact, try telling a childless couple that they are not a family.

What are people so afraid of gay marriage for? They all give arguements similar to yours, but few can be specific. Could you please be a little more specific on how allowing same-sex marriages would disrupt our social unit as a community and be the end of the family unit as we know it?

Do you fear a man marrying his daughter? How about his son? Pretty disurbing, huh? How do you feel about those relationships?

It is illegal for a man to marry his daughter because of genetic and health reasons. Gentics shows that incestial babies develop severe genetic disfunctions. Marriages of this type put severe risks to the health of offspring. This is why it's illegal. And a man cannot marry his son due to sexual equality. You cannot say it's legal for a woman to do something, but say it's illegal for a man to do it.

well, what if they are "fixed" so that they cannot have children. there is no threat of genetically defective offspring. so, now what's the problem with it?

Now you're infringing on someones rights by telling them that they cannot legally have children! That's quite unconstitutional.

My biggest fear with allowing gay marriage is where does it lead to? You indicated, cexshun, that a reason a man can not marry his daughter is for health reasons of incestual babies. That makes sense. But what if a man wants to marry his brother (or two sisters want to be married)? Does that become ok because they are to males who want to be married under the gay marriage law? They won't have any babies because a male can't impregnate a male and a female can't impregnate a female.

If the marriage of two males is allowed then will the next step be the marriage of a male and two females? What if two married couples wanted to get married so the four are a family?

The biggest fear I think with allowing gay marriage is what kind of flood gate is it going to open.

Of course I don't buy the "government allows only man/woman marriages in order to protect the union between a man and woman argument". If that is so why did the government make it so easy to get a divorce?

Interesting. I wonder what would happen if people thought "If we allow women to vote, what kind of flood gates are we opening? Where will it stop?"

These are people, just like you and I, who happen to love a person of the same sex! They are not a sub-human counter-culture.

And I did address why fathers cannot marry sons, sister-sister, etc. It is against the constitution to make a law based solely on the gender of a person. Therefore we cannot say "A father cannot marry his daughter, but he may marry his son." In fact, the only reason same sex marriages is not legal is because the founding fathers didn't add "sexuality" after the phrase "creed, religion, race, gender"

THE LAST THING WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IS HUMAN EXTINCTION, THERES TOO MANY DAMN PEOPLE!
after kerry is elected we will never have to argue about these junk issues anymore. kerry will send these religious fanatics who are camping out in the white house back to wherever they came from and we can get back to real issues, not and arguing about when life is conceived or if gays can be said to be married. MARK MY WORDS, IF BUSH WINS, WE'RE LOOKING AT CONDOMS BEING MADE ILLEGAL AND STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVING TO SUBMIT AN OFFICIAL MARRIAGE REQUEST FORM TO BE APPROVED BY THE GOVT BEFORE THAY CAN BE MARRIED. MEANWHILE, THE CHINESE WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS PREEMINENT IN THE WORLD BY THE END OF HIS 2ND TERM AND IRAQ WILL LOOK LIKE BIGGER VERSION OF LEBANON 20 YEARS AGO.

cexshun: Now you're infringing on someones rights by telling them that they cannot legally have children! That's quite unconstitutional.


No, I'm not implying that they would be forced to perform the procedure. I'm asking if they decided to be "fixed." Would it be ok then? Actually, you've brought up an interesting point. Brother and sister are not allowed to have children by law -- at least I think so. Is that law unconstitutional? I don't think so. I think it's considered a health threat to the unborn child. I'm not real sure about that, though. Anyway, assume the operation previously described was voluntary. Now is it ok for brother and sister to marry?