Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[Sunstone]

I agree, Sunstone. It's bad enough that the gays have initiated the War on Christmas, but now they want to force the true patriots to their knees.

Disgusting.

It's heartbreaking, TVOR, but the gays want to marry Rudolf. Rudolf! :rudolph: TVOR, nothing is sacred to them!

 

[Autodidact]

If you allow gay marriage, you will put the multi-million dollar gay bashing industry out of work in the middle of a recession. Please! This holiday season, think of the bigots. :tree:

On the other hand, think of the boost to the economy from the fabulous gay weddings! Florists alone could revive Southern California.

 

[Green Gaia]

On the other hand, think of the boost to the economy from the fabulous gay weddings! Florists alone could revive Southern California.

Wouldn't that be great? Wanna save the economy and jobs? Support gay marriage!! :rainbow1:

 

[Zembo]

There are a few non-religious responses to share about the concerns of a homosexual movement that desires to gain greater influence and "normality" in a world that propagates itself through hetero-sexuality. Though, it is clear through the statements already made on this thread – the homosexual response will be dismissive.

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence. Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do. Although, I do agree that the fertility rate seems like a weak argument – this is still a practical reality. Most European and Western populations will slowly die and collapse over the next 20 years – it seems unlikely to arouse any concern so long as there are 6 billion people still on the earth.

Adoption is a way to give a “feel good” contribution to a world that the homosexual population does not contribute to. Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical. The great underlying hypocrisy of the homosexual world is that they are all products of a heterosexual world that they end up turning their backs on and then acting like they are the victims. There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them. Oh, please don’t say we can inseminate ourselves – that is stealing from the heterosexual population. The homosexual population would not thrive if there was desperate need to repopulate after harsh conditions and there was a need for raising up populations to man factories or farm the land. The luxury of I interconnected economies and populations allows the homosexuals to contribute to culture but not to the fertility rate of population – if they are pure homosexuals – not bi-sexuals.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There are a few non-religious responses to share about the concerns of a homosexual movement that desires to gain greater influence and "normality" in a world that propagates itself through hetero-sexuality. Though, it is clear through the statements already made on this thread – the homosexual response will be dismissive.

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence. Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do. Although, I do agree that the fertility rate seems like a weak argument – this is still a practical reality. Most European and Western populations will slowly die and collapse over the next 20 years – it seems unlikely to arouse any concern so long as there are 6 billion people still on the earth.

Adoption is a way to give a “feel good” contribution to a world that the homosexual population does not contribute to. Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical. The great underlying hypocrisy of the homosexual world is that they are all products of a heterosexual world that they end up turning their backs on and then acting like they are the victims. There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them. Oh, please don’t say we can inseminate ourselves – that is stealing from the heterosexual population. The homosexual population would not thrive if there was desperate need to repopulate after harsh conditions and there was a need for raising up populations to man factories or farm the land. The luxury of I interconnected economies and populations allows the homosexuals to contribute to culture but not to the fertility rate of population – if they are pure homosexuals – not bi-sexuals.

Ah! Those heterosexuals! Working hard and sacrificing their sperm and egg for our well-being!

 

[darkendless]

Ah! Those heterosexuals! Working hard and sacrificing their sperm and egg for our well-being!

Unfortunately at the rate we're sacrificing our sperm and eggs we're bringing about our own downfall. Maybe God should bring down a revelation supporting Queers and Condoms before we starve to death :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence. Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do.

Virtually the same thing can be said about specialization and the division of labour, which is generally considered to be a good, beneficial thing. Only hunter-gatherers could be considered to be self-sufficient. Lawyers, zoologists, computer programmers and people in a whole host of other professions live off the benefits of others. I'm not sure how this fact has any bearing on the morality of the law, zoology or computer programming; why should it have a bearing on the morality of homosexuality?

 

[Autodidact]

There are a few non-religious responses to share about the concerns of a homosexual movement that desires to gain greater influence and "normality" in a world that propagates itself through hetero-sexuality. Though, it is clear through the statements already made on this thread – the homosexual response will be dismissive.

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence. Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do. Although, I do agree that the fertility rate seems like a weak argument – this is still a practical reality. Most European and Western populations will slowly die and collapse over the next 20 years – it seems unlikely to arouse any concern so long as there are 6 billion people still on the earth.

Adoption is a way to give a “feel good” contribution to a world that the homosexual population does not contribute to. Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical. The great underlying hypocrisy of the homosexual world is that they are all products of a heterosexual world that they end up turning their backs on and then acting like they are the victims. There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them. Oh, please don’t say we can inseminate ourselves – that is stealing from the heterosexual population. The homosexual population would not thrive if there was desperate need to repopulate after harsh conditions and there was a need for raising up populations to man factories or farm the land. The luxury of I interconnected economies and populations allows the homosexuals to contribute to culture but not to the fertility rate of population – if they are pure homosexuals – not bi-sexuals.

Thank you, this was hilarious. I needed a laugh. This is one of the funnier posts I've ever read here at RF.

 

[Autodidact]

Starfish: You should be ashamed of yourself. This kind of irresponsible slander really makes me angry. I hate when people spread falsehoods about me and mine. The reason you have no cites to support your assertion is that it is false. I will be happy to present the actual meta-analysis of the actual "legitimate" research that demonstrates the facts of the matter, which is that children of gay couples do at least as well as children of straight couples. Then I will ask you to stop spreading these falsehoods around the internet. Once you've seen that you're mistaken, and reviewed the evidence, if you continue to spread misinformation, it's no longer just negligent--it's dishonest. I think lying is immoral--what do you think?

 

[DallasApple]

Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical.

How is it hypocritcal when one of the purposes for sex is to pro-create?.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Oh, please don’t say we can inseminate ourselves – that is stealing from the heterosexual population.

Why does it need to be stealing from heteros?..Cant all the gay men donate sperm to all the lesbians?

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

Well apparently Dallas's frubal button is not working this morning, but that was just so cute it deserves a frubal.

 

[DallasApple]

Well apparently Dallas's frubal button is not working this morning, but that was just so cute it deserves a frubal.

:rainbow:

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There are a few non-religious responses to share about the concerns of a homosexual movement that desires to gain greater influence and "normality" in a world that propagates itself through hetero-sexuality. Though, it is clear through the statements already made on this thread – the homosexual response will be dismissive.

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence. Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do. Although, I do agree that the fertility rate seems like a weak argument – this is still a practical reality. Most European and Western populations will slowly die and collapse over the next 20 years – it seems unlikely to arouse any concern so long as there are 6 billion people still on the earth.

Adoption is a way to give a “feel good” contribution to a world that the homosexual population does not contribute to. Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical. The great underlying hypocrisy of the homosexual world is that they are all products of a heterosexual world that they end up turning their backs on and then acting like they are the victims. There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them. Oh, please don’t say we can inseminate ourselves – that is stealing from the heterosexual population. The homosexual population would not thrive if there was desperate need to repopulate after harsh conditions and there was a need for raising up populations to man factories or farm the land. The luxury of I interconnected economies and populations allows the homosexuals to contribute to culture but not to the fertility rate of population – if they are pure homosexuals – not bi-sexuals.

I am prevented from rebutting this post on a point by point basis, due to the complete lack of salient points to address.

Statements such as "There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them" are so completely bereft of content as to render themselves unworthy of the effort it would take to generate a response.

Undoubtedly a new low mark for the anti-gay argument.

 

[tomspug]

I don't think there is a legitimate non-religious reason against gay marriage anymore.

Having clearly understood both sides of the argument. It seems to me FAR more culturally destructive for homosexuals to not be granted gay-marriage rights. I'm hoping that this movement will cause the church to rely much less on the government to justify themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why does it need to be stealing from heteros?..Cant all the gay men donate sperm to all the lesbians?

Good point.

Also, I'm having trouble figuring out how it would be "stealing" for someone to legally receive sperm from a clinic after it is legally given or sold by the donor to the clinic with no restrictions placed on how the clinic is allowed to use it.

 

[DallasApple]

Also, I'm having trouble figuring out how it would be "stealing" for someone to legally receive sperm from a clinic after it is legally given or sold by the donor to the clinic with no restrictions placed on how the clinic is allowed to use it.

I dont know either...Even if hetero men were the only ones with viable sperm I could stretch and see the argument..(i.e you cant pro-create without using a hetero)...

I think his nasty point was..since you have gay sex..you need "heteros" to have your babies..Which is false..Thats not even considering being a lesbian doesnt mean you dont have healthy viable eggs...after all..it does take both..

But my point was..If the gay community wanted to...they could just donate to each other if they wanted to....they dont need hetero sperm..or hetero eggs..They arent infertile..

Edited...Also..this view its heteros that produce the children..(gay or other wise)..How does he know? For all he knows his daddy is a closet gay and his mother is a lesbian..

You just never know..

Love

Dallas

 

[lilithu]

Practically, homosexuality (and heterosexual non-productive relationships for recreation only) exists as a larger population segment only when there is plenty of wealth and surplus in the general population to support their self-centered sexual existence.

NO, the rate of homosexuality is constant throughout. The only difference is whether or not people can openly express themselves in public. Are you for some reason under the impression that president Ahmadinejad was right when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran? (even as the country continues to execute people for being something that supposedly does not exist in the country :areyoucra).

Those who do not propagate live off of the benefits of those who do.

Really? I am straight and have not "propogated." And here I thought that I was contributing to society by working and volunteering and loving my friends and family and having my tax dollars go to support the education of children that are not mine. I had no idea that I was just "living off of" people who had kids. :areyoucra

I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards the education of others btw. I just resent your inane statements about me not pulling my weight.

Not to mention your ignorant assumption that BGLT folks do not reproduce.

Most European and Western populations will slowly die and collapse over the next 20 years – it seems unlikely to arouse any concern so long as there are 6 billion people still on the earth.

Add to the list the ignorant assumption that only European and Western populations have BGLT folks. Do you really think that only whites are ever gay??! :areyoucra

Adoption is a way to give a “feel good” contribution to a world that the homosexual population does not contribute to.

What the heck?? Adoption IS a great contribution to our society, and I encourage both homosexuals and heterosexuals to do it if they have the financial, temporal, and emotional resources to do so.

Sure a homosexual can go out and become heterosexual for one night and propagate – but isn’t that a bit hypocritical.

First off, they are not "becoming heterosexual" for one night, even if they are engaged in heterosexual sex. If you had sex with someone of the same gender, are you "becoming homosexual" during that time?? No. You would still be a heterosexual who for whatever reason is engaging in homosexual behavior. Sexual orientation is not about the act of sex. Do you have no sense of your own sexual identity aside from the act of sex??!

The great underlying hypocrisy of the homosexual world is that they are all products of a heterosexual world that they end up turning their backs on and then acting like they are the victims. There would be no homosexual population without the heterosexuals producing them.

Bull. As already stated, homosexuals do reproduce. And here's a shocker for you, homosexuals even produce heterosexuals. Some heterosexuals are the "product" of a "homosexual world."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know either...Even if hetero men were the only ones with viable sperm I could stretch and see the argument..(i.e you cant pro-create without using a hetero)...

I think his nasty point was..since you have gay sex..you need "heteros" to have your babies..Which is false..Thats not even considering being a lesbian doesnt mean you dont have healthy viable eggs...after all..it does take both..

Even if it was true that homosexual couples are dependent on heterosexuals to have kids, which it isn't, the word "stealing" implies that the donated sperm is used without the consent of the owner.

But my point was..If the gay community wanted to...they could just donate to each other if they wanted to....they dont need hetero sperm..or hetero eggs..They arent infertile..

And my point was that if I as a heterosexual man were to voluntarily donate sperm to a sperm bank, which then sells it to a clinic that implants it in a lesbian woman, no stealing has occurred at all.

...unless he's trying to imply that my sperm isn't mine to do with as I please. Zembo, do you think that I as a straight man don't have the right to choose to donate sperm to a lesbian couple?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think Zembo thought much about anything before posting that incoherent jumble. However, lilithu reminds me that one of my children is grown and heterosexual, so where does that leave us? I'm confused now.