Pope calls gay marriage evil

[greay]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

[TreyDay]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

[Zealous zerotype]

OMG GAY PEOPLE? BUTT SEX? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!!!!!
I mean seriously so what they want to be gay, let them. Sure as hell are not bothering me.

[Smiles]

I don't see how this can be an equality type of issue in the USA. The laws seem to indicate that no man can marry another man and no woman can marry another woman. So if two straight guys want to marry or two gay men do, they are both denied that. Where is the lack of equality in that.

[Roofus]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

You could make the same counter-evolution argument about lots of things. Used to be if you had bad eyesght, you couldn't hunt and couldn't eat. Now you just get a pair of glasses.

[greay]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

I won't make any claims as to what the cause is, because none of the evidence for any theories I've heard has been very convincing. So, sure. We'll call it a chemical imbalance. It doesn't really matter. What's important is that no one chooses it. That much I can assure you.

And another thing, science doesn't say anything is "wrong", in the sense you're using the word. Having babies, not having babies, killing a "less fit" animal, or someone tripping down the stairs & breaking their neck -- all of those things are part of evolution, and none of them are "wrong".

There's no scientific obligation for organisms to have as many babies as they can, in order to achieve some evolutionary goal. Evolution simply describes what happens to species over time. Whether or not homosexuality has any genetic basis, it too is part of the process.

[|darc|]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

I see now. While we're at it, lets ban fatty foods. It harms people and makes them die, its counter-evolutionary. We'll start with fried chicken. All you have to do is stop liking fried chicken; its a choice.

[TreyDay]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

I won't make any claims as to what the cause is, because none of the evidence for any theories I've heard has been very convincing. So, sure. We'll call it a chemical imbalance. It doesn't really matter. What's important is that no one chooses it. That much I can assure you.

And another thing, science doesn't say anything is "wrong", in the sense you're using the word. Having babies, not having babies, killing a "less fit" animal, or someone tripping down the stairs & breaking their neck -- all of those things are part of evolution, and none of them are "wrong".

There's no scientific obligation for organisms to have as many babies as they can, in order to achieve some evolutionary goal. Evolution simply describes what happens to species over time. Whether or not homosexuality has any genetic basis, it too is part of the process.

You got to read carefully. I said religion says it's wrong. I said science said it was counter-evolutionary. And evolution is basically survival. Not so much survival of you or any one organism, more like your specie. If you do not reproduce, then you are not ensuring the survival of your specie.

[TreyDay]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

I see now. While we're at it, lets ban fatty foods. It harms people and makes them die, its counter-evolutionary. We'll start with fried chicken. All you have to do is stop liking fried chicken; its a choice.

Not quite. Fried food is okay as long as you exercise. There's no way around not being able to reproduce.

OMG GAY PEOPLE? BUTT SEX? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!!!!!
I mean seriously so what they want to be gay, let them. Sure as hell are not bothering me.

I will allow them to be gay if they want. But they shouldn't get married. For the same reason you can't have multiple spouses or marry animals. It's just not in our culture. If they don't like it, then they can mooove out.

[farrell2k]

farrell, there are a couple of things where you seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying, and if I understand some of the others here, you misunderstand them as well. Also, you don't seem to get where I'm stressing the importance of rights.

First of all, if you are an unmarried heterosexual male, and you want to marry an unmarried heterosexual female, there is nothing the state is going to do to stop you. It's not a privilege as driving a motor vehicle is, to use an easy example.

Just stop. You've really got to move past this rights nonsense. It's not a right. It is a privilege, just as obtaining a drivers license is. Your state can deny you a marriage license for a variety of reasons.

You can explain to everyone 1,000 times how you view it as a right, but your somewhat ignorant view does not change reality.

I see now. While we're at it, lets ban fatty foods. It harms people and makes them die, its counter-evolutionary. We'll start with fried chicken. All you have to do is stop liking fried chicken; its a choice.

I used to love milk, but now the thought of it makes me sick. People can stop liking anything, just as people do every single day. That includes sex as well.

[greay]

You got to read carefully. I said religion says it's wrong. I said science said it was counter-evolutionary. And evolution is basically survival. Not so much survival of you or any one organism, more like your specie. If you do not reproduce, then you are not ensuring the survival of your specie.

Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

Seems to me you said here that science also says it's wrong. But okay, you meant counter-evolutionary.

Science doesn't say any such thing. People who misunderstand evolution and want to anthropomorphize it, and ascribe it some sort of purpose say that.

Who says reproduction is the only way to ensure the survival of the species? A gay (or infertile for some other reason) doctor can help ensure the survival of the species. Two gay parents who adopt children are helping ensure the survival of the species.

Humans are communal creatures. There's a lot more to the survival of the species than just banging & popping out new littluns. Even those people who don't contribute directly like in my examples above, may help in some way -- maybe they help raise the quality of life in their communities, maybe they help economically.

...

I suppose science also tells us that the evolution of worker ants in ant colonies is counter-evolutionary?

And religion tells us that gay penguins go to hell?

[Lartrak]

You aren't changing it, you're just slightly altering it to ensure equality.

Well, gay marriage isn't a modern invention. It's been around for quite a while. Just not since the ascent of Christianity in the Roman empire.

Religion says it's wrong

More like Christianity says it's wrong. There are plenty of religions that don't.

If you're gay, you can't reproduce.

Why not?

[TreyDay]

Science doesn't say any such thing. People who misunderstand evolution and want to anthropomorphize it, and ascribe it some sort of purpose say that.

How am I trying to give human characteristics to evolution?

And the only way your specie is going to survive is reproduce. If everyone was a gay doctor, mankind would end right there. But if everyone was a straight doctor, then we could still reproduce.

Penguins don't go to hell cuz they don't have a soul. And worker ants can reproduce.

[Ex-Cyber]

Humans are communal creatures.

*waits for Stormwatch to pop in and quote Rand in rebuttal*

[Skater_dusto]

Holy, you kids are too pc.

Rather than go into surmountable depth about something that's just idiotic, legalize and recognize "gay marriage". As far as the pope goes, he should just die already. The decrepit dink rides around in military grade limo's, and lets people take his word for gods. He seems like bad news and it's sad that people have so much blind faith in what he says, and any religions for that matter.

But seriously, is it really that much of an issue that these people want the same treatment as others? If I were gay I know for a fact that I wouldn't have to have a stupid legal union, I'd want to get married just like everyone else. A part of it could be due to stubborness, but I'm a firm beleive that segregation of any kind should be abolished.
Division only makes people get crazy and pissed off, then people form super elitist groups like PETA and womans rights bullcrap. Do we really need a bunch of overzealous gay people rubbing their personal business in our lives? I think not! I don't care to see gay men in parades kissing eachother and mashing their goatees, nor do I care for a bunch of ugly lesbians screaming about gay rights. It's because of arrogant asses that we, people who just live and let live, have to suffer. F
rankly, it pisses me off that as someone who couldn't care either way has to get dragged into these useless debates.

And as I say in almost any heated debate on these forums, chilllll outtttt! Every time something remotely controversial arises here you guys jump on it like candy. After one or two contradicting posts from n forum member are posted you can damn well presume that hilarity's about to ensue.

[Skater_dusto]

Gay people choose to be gay.

No, no they don't.

Yes they do. And if they don't, then it's a chemical imbalance because it's anti-religion to be that way and anti-science. Religion says it's wrong and science says that it's counter-evolutionary to not reproduce. If you're gay, you can't reproduce. Therefore, whether you believe in a religion or science, it's wrong.

I'm not trying to rip you out of context, but what exactly are you trying to get at? In your defense you claim to have made simple statements - What are you getting at? Were you going anywhere with them or what? I'll try my best not to flame you, but you're like the bible...

On the subject of choosing ones sexual preference you can't assume that some person just sits down one day with an instruction manual and weighs out the pros and cons of being homosexual. And if you hold it against someone, not assuming you do but anyone in general, then that's just asinine.

[Pyrosurfer]

Two gay parents who adopt children are helping ensure the survival of the species.

Your going to adopt children and influence a gay lifestyle on them to ensure survival of the species. WTF, thats just wrong .

[OneThirty8]

farrell, there are a couple of things where you seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying, and if I understand some of the others here, you misunderstand them as well. Also, you don't seem to get where I'm stressing the importance of rights.

First of all, if you are an unmarried heterosexual male, and you want to marry an unmarried heterosexual female, there is nothing the state is going to do to stop you. It's not a privilege as driving a motor vehicle is, to use an easy example.

Just stop. You've really got to move past this rights nonsense.

I'm a pretty stubborn person when I'm right. I am right, by the way.

It's not a right. It is a privilege, just as obtaining a drivers license is. Your state can deny you a marriage license for a variety of reasons.

OK, then aside from being a same-sex couple, or a couple in which one or both of you is already married to somebody else, give me a few reasons why you'd be denied a license. I know that in my state they don't require a blood test, and I've honestly tried to think of any reason why a heteosexual union wouldn't be allowed. The only thing I could come up with is the one I already mentioned - one or both people applying for the license is married.

You can explain to everyone 1,000 times how you view it as a right, but your somewhat ignorant view does not change reality.

I've said this before, and I suppose I'll have to say it again: You and I see the world differently. That much is painfully obvious. Just because I refuse to accept your one-dimentional image of the world in which nothing should ever change does not make me ignorant, nor am I trying to change reality. All I am trying to change is your unwillingness to see another point of view. I am fully aware of how things are with regard to this issue, but I am also fully aware that we live in an ever-changing world. Things cannot stay the same forever.

Also, you completely ignored the next paragraph in my post. I said that whether or not marriage itself is a right or a privilege (which is something you and I will apparently never agree on), my main argument is sound because every human being does have an absolute right to equal treatment under the law. So, even if marriage is a privilege as you assert, the rights of same-sex couples are being infringed upon because they are being denied something (you call it a privilege, I say otherwise) that heterosexual couples are granted almost without question. Unless you can refute this point with something sound, I'm going to have to declare myself the winner of this argument.

[FETUS]

gay marriage is wrong, acting upon homosexual feelings is wrong. Everybody has the same rights in this country, to marry anyone suitable of the oposite sex. Homosexuality is either a choice or a mental disease depending on the case, and shouldn't be treated any different. You can either share my opinion and be right, or you can keep yours.

[greay]

Science doesn't say any such thing. People who misunderstand evolution and want to anthropomorphize it, and ascribe it some sort of purpose say that.

How am I trying to give human characteristics to evolution?

And the only way your specie is going to survive is reproduce. If everyone was a gay doctor, mankind would end right there. But if everyone was a straight doctor, then we could still reproduce.

Penguins don't go to hell cuz they don't have a soul. And worker ants can reproduce.

Giving it the human characteristic of a purpose. As I said before, evolution merely describes what happens to species over time -- there's no such thing as "counter-evolutionary".

I'm not sure what you're getting at in your response to my comment about the doctor. So what? You completely ignored my point and make some asinine comment about "if everyone was a gay doctor" that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Some worker ants can lay eggs, this is true. In most colonies, however, the queen gives off pheremones that renders all of them infertile.

Thus, most worker ants will never produce offspring. Ants have evolved in such a way where the vast majority of ants in a colony will not produce offpspring -- this would not have happened if this was "counter-evolutionary".

Your going to adopt children and influence a gay lifestyle on them to ensure survival of the species. WTF, thats just wrong .

Who's gonna influence what now? What are you talking about?