Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
Possibly. I've just been thinking about it and the gay couples I know all own dogs as well, not that it indicates anything in particular, but I wonder if people really do use dogs as a substitute for children?
I'm going to ask them. It may lead to a slap on the face or not being invited around to the next barbecue, but it'd be interesting to find out all the same.
But you're assuming that all heterosexual couples have children which is not the case. I know many couples who have chosen not to have children, although they seem to substitute children with dogs which I find rather strange.
That's why I applied the average number of children per familial household. Given that some couples have 5 children, some have 1, and some have none, etc.
You've not met my cats! Beware any bird or small mammal that enters my garden, they kill first and ask questions later!
That's why I applied the average number of children per familial household. Given that some couples have 5 children, some have 1, and some have none, etc.
China resolved the problem by the one child rule although I don't agree with it as I believe if you pay the government, you can buy the rights to have more than one child. The rich are given the rights to more children, whilst the poor must accept that if their first child dies (or if their first child is a girl) they can not have more.
The one-child policy was a terrible and cruel decision on the part of the Chinese government, it meant that a lot of families that wanted male children (to carry on the family name and support the parents during their old age) would basically just abandon their daughters to die in a hospital or in a street somewhere, not to mention that it means that there's now a massive male-female imbalance in some parts of China - I think it's as bad as 1 female to every 8 guys in some places.
So please explain why you felt the need for comparison? What was it supposed to achieve?
to show that your opinion about some philias is as logical as some peoples opinion about gays.
Is this it? Is this the only way you can accept gays and lesbians? By telling yourself they have an exploitable benefit for our society?
definitely not. but if you see a comment that sais "if we were all gays we would die" you can bring such an argument to counter it.
Not really.
really? its the main topic right now.
Do atheists now have their own religion then?
nope. but i do know that the more religios jews/muslims usually have many children. those were examples and im not sure why your looking specifically at those 2. and adding those people who arent from those cultures who usually have more children just increases the statement
Also as far as I know, the family who is "so happy to be blessed by god with twenty offsprings" is christian :P
i gave jews/muslims as exmaples i personally know. and this is why i also said "other religions in which having many children is great".
True. However cats make still better company
i like cats better too :3
And nada for the lettuce. Eating too much lettuce fills you up, leading you to eat less of other foods, leaving you to die of malnutrition. Models have in the past.
true didnt think about it. just helps my statement that there shouldnt be too much of anything.
ok. so let me get this straight, you guys in ONE PAGE went fro mgiving a insane reason t osupport gays to giving a decent reason to to talking about religion and cats.....?
that aside im gunna weigh in its 100% natural.Deal with it.
I'm actually surprised that this thread is still here. Anyway, my question is, why don't people just get over themselves? People we're gay and we're here to stay! And by we I mean the homosexual community. Seriously, I know that people will always have their own views and I will never try to change what you believe, but why not try to live with us in peace? You can pretend that, at least me, we're not gay. Just getting along better than we are is all that matters right now. Then once you do get to know us then maybe you can accept that there are gay people in the world?
Just to bring something different to the table, yesterday I got into a debate with my dad about homosexual marriage. He says that if homosexuals marry, it should have a different term for the sake of clarity. His argument was that if someone asked whether or not he was married, he didn't want there to be any possible confusion on whether it was to a man or a woman. Jokingly (I hope, I'm not sure) he said it should be called garriage, but he does bring up an interesting point. Having a different term for something different for the sake of clarity makes sense to me.
Is it really all that different just because the couple is of the same gender?
In terms of what genders are married it is. I mean, we call people male/female, even though we're all humans. We differentiate between species of animals. Would you not consider a blue circle different from a green circle, even though both are circles?
There's a difference, but it's superficial. I see no harm in having a different term for something that is different. Just because something is different however does not make it wrong.
For example, on some paperwork there's always the basic information you fill in, your name, gender, age, occupation, marriage status, etc. Would it not be more straightforward if we had another term for homosexual marriage to fill in, just like how there's the male/female option, it would just be marriage/*yet to be termed.* It would certainly make things more clear and avoid accidentally insulting someone because of ambiguity.
I think three terms would be a good idea. One for marriage, which is a general term to describe all married couples, one for a man and women marriage, and one with a same-sex marriage. That way it's more like two categories of one thing. Sort of like how you have siblings, but then there are two types of siblings, brother and sisters. Neither of the two types is unequal to the other, it's just a more specific term that provides more details.
I think three terms would be a good idea. One for marriage, which is a general term to describe all married couples, one for a man and women marriage, and one with a same-sex marriage. That way it's more like two categories of one thing. Sort of like how you have siblings, but then there are two types of siblings, brother and sisters. Neither of the two types is unequal to the other, it's just a more specific term that provides more details.
That would be better probably. It just makes sense. Neither would be better than the other, they would just be different terms for different things.
as a christian I try to avoid homosexuality
That's nice.
It is just nasty,
That is your opinion. I don't like peas or lasagna, does that make them wrong?
I couldn't believe that some countries allow it.
Why? Why should it be disallowed?
I think it should be illegal
Again, why?
i would really be uncomfortable with a naked guy
Well, I suppose all public bathrooms and showers are out of the question then?
Just to bring something different to the table, yesterday I got into a debate with my dad about homosexual marriage. He says that if homosexuals marry, it should have a different term for the sake of clarity. His argument was that if someone asked whether or not he was married, he didn't want there to be any possible confusion on whether it was to a man or a woman. Jokingly (I hope, I'm not sure) he said it should be called garriage, but he does bring up an interesting point. Having a different term for something different for the sake of clarity makes sense to me.
well... this is a really confusing one. (this is all my logic so do correct me if im wrong). i guess there are 2 ways of looking at a married couple. a religios way and a national (not sure if right word) way. about religios, cant say anything about that since there are so many different cultures and religions. if the mariage is meant to be done by people of the different gender its not a question of should they be able to, its a question of can they? its like a non-jewish person having a bar-mitzvah.
i dont think that most gays even want to be seen as married in the religion way (looking at religions that are against homosexuals) but just want to be seen as sharing their life together and want to be known for that status. so even though there are 2 ways to look at mariage it still has the same general name.
so maybe start using terms like (insert religion)-mariage and national-mariage or something like that. but they should definitely get the right to be known as a couple.
