Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]

This has absolutely no bearing on public policy one bit and repeating this is frankly pointless. Not a single person is arguing that heterosexuality disappearing would be a bad thing. And heterosexuality disappearing is such a stupid premise to start from because it is in no danger of happening. Guess what my gay cousin cannot get married in the state he lives in. If he could, it wouldn’t keep me from having sex with my fiance. We will probably have a child or two and guess what? Whether or not gay people are married isn’t going to change that. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE FROM ANYTHING. Why do you think heteros need to keep homosexuals from doing anything? Ah, because it wouldn’t be a news story if homosexuality disappeared? That makes absolutely no sense.

Why you continue to keep driving home the pointless point about homosexuality disappearing is completely irrelevant to rational thought. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been here since the beginning of man and will be here at the end. We can acknowledge that or we can play silly little “imagine a world where no guys fuck girls” games.

382

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.

[/quote]

Wow, slow down Hitler. [/quote]

Hitler? I’m not pro-choice. I’m telling you what would naturally follow.
[/quote]

So you’re still playing long term hypothetical scenarios that have absolutely no point for making public policy in 2014?

Ok, I thought so. You really like to use your imagination in these debates. These scenarios are completely pointless and is why I pointed out the logically weak position of being anti-gay. It’s based on fairy tales and ridiculous imagine if this happened hypotheticals. Your paranoia keeps you from being rational in this debate and you desperately grasp for straws to figure out why so many people aren’t coming to the same conclusion as you anymore.

383

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.

[/quote]

Gene manipulation in humans is so far down the line that it shouldn’t even be in this conversation.

I’d even contend that most religions would be against gene manipulation, especially pre-birth.

384

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.

[/quote]

Gene manipulation in humans is so far down the line that it shouldn’t even be in this conversation.

I’d even contend that most religions would be against gene manipulation, especially pre-birth.[/quote]

If we get invaded by flying laser pigs from outer space it would be a disaster…

therefore we shouldn’t let gay people get married. Protect us from ourselves government…just in case the flying laser pigs invade!

385

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]

This has absolutely no bearing on public policy one bit and repeating this is frankly pointless. Not a single person is arguing that heterosexuality disappearing would be a bad thing. And heterosexuality disappearing is such a stupid premise to start from because it is in no danger of happening. Guess what my gay cousin cannot get married in the state he lives in. If he could, it wouldn’t keep me from having sex with my fiance. We will probably have a child or two and guess what? Whether or not gay people are married isn’t going to change that. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE FROM ANYTHING. Why do you think heteros need to keep homosexuals from doing anything? Ah, because it wouldn’t be a news story if homosexuality disappeared? That makes absolutely no sense.

Why you continue to keep driving home the pointless point about homosexuality disappearing is completely irrelevant to rational thought. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been here since the beginning of man and will be here at the end. We can acknowledge that or we can play silly little “imagine a world where no guys fuck girls” games. [/quote]

It’s not silly. It demonstrates who vastly unequal the two are.

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

Not so with homosexual state marriage. “Fairness” is the argument. It is pure emotion.

386

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

[/quote]

Actually what is currently vanishing in developed nations is discrimination based on who you have sex with. And this is becoming more and more common.

Developed nations have started to speak and are speaking more and they are coming to the exact opposite conclusion from you.

387

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.

[/quote]

Gene manipulation in humans is so far down the line that it shouldn’t even be in this conversation.

I’d even contend that most religions would be against gene manipulation, especially pre-birth.[/quote]

Well, a genetic theory was introduced.

Not necessarily, if a genetic therapy is actually used for legitimate medicinal purposes.

388

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]

This has absolutely no bearing on public policy one bit and repeating this is frankly pointless. Not a single person is arguing that heterosexuality disappearing would be a bad thing. And heterosexuality disappearing is such a stupid premise to start from because it is in no danger of happening. Guess what my gay cousin cannot get married in the state he lives in. If he could, it wouldn’t keep me from having sex with my fiance. We will probably have a child or two and guess what? Whether or not gay people are married isn’t going to change that. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE FROM ANYTHING. Why do you think heteros need to keep homosexuals from doing anything? Ah, because it wouldn’t be a news story if homosexuality disappeared? That makes absolutely no sense.

Why you continue to keep driving home the pointless point about homosexuality disappearing is completely irrelevant to rational thought. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been here since the beginning of man and will be here at the end. We can acknowledge that or we can play silly little “imagine a world where no guys fuck girls” games. [/quote]

It’s not silly. It demonstrates who vastly unequal the two are.

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

Not so with homosexual state marriage. “Fairness” is the argument. It is pure emotion.
[/quote]

Only one side is based on an old book and emotion in this debate. You do realize your arguments about better for the whole were used in slavery, racism, and indeed (again) Hitler. A “logical” case for differences when other people talk about fairness.

I wouldn’t want to be on the side you’re on, but no amount of reasoning or rational argument will get you to stop something you are going to believe for the rest of your life. And I think you (like many religious people who are opposed) are in great fear of what the rest of society is doing to your mentality. We are kicking that idea out of here.

389

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

[/quote]

Actually what is currently vanishing in developed nations is discrimination based on who you have sex with. And this is becoming more and more common.

Developed nations have started to speak and are speaking more and they are coming to the exact opposite conclusion from you. [/quote]

Sorry, but you can survey all you want. If parents get the option to choose to match orientation to reproductive organs, a potential future grand-parent will elect to up the chance of their child having their future grand-children.

390

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]

This has absolutely no bearing on public policy one bit and repeating this is frankly pointless. Not a single person is arguing that heterosexuality disappearing would be a bad thing. And heterosexuality disappearing is such a stupid premise to start from because it is in no danger of happening. Guess what my gay cousin cannot get married in the state he lives in. If he could, it wouldn’t keep me from having sex with my fiance. We will probably have a child or two and guess what? Whether or not gay people are married isn’t going to change that. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE FROM ANYTHING. Why do you think heteros need to keep homosexuals from doing anything? Ah, because it wouldn’t be a news story if homosexuality disappeared? That makes absolutely no sense.

Why you continue to keep driving home the pointless point about homosexuality disappearing is completely irrelevant to rational thought. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been here since the beginning of man and will be here at the end. We can acknowledge that or we can play silly little “imagine a world where no guys fuck girls” games. [/quote]

It’s not silly. It demonstrates who vastly unequal the two are.

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

Not so with homosexual state marriage. “Fairness” is the argument. It is pure emotion.
[/quote]

Only one side is based on an old book and emotion in this debate. You do realize your arguments about better for the whole were used in slavery, racism, and indeed (again) Hitler. A “logical” case for differences when other people talk about fairness.

I wouldn’t want to be on the side you’re on, but no amount of reasoning or rational argument will get you to stop something you are going to believe for the rest of your life. And I think you (like many religious people who are opposed) are in great fear of what the rest of society is doing to your mentality. We are kicking that idea out of here. [/quote]

Hitler and aliens. Sorry, you’re emotional. Frothing, even.

391

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

[/quote]

Can you show proof that encouraging heterosexual marriage cannot happen in a society where gay people (who represent a minority) have similar rights? Can you please explain why states who have passed gay marriage laws don’t have as many divorces?

Can you explain why I am getting married in June to a beautiful woman despite the fact that in some states gay people are getting married to people of the same sex?

392

[quote]H factor wrote:

If we get invaded by flying laser pigs from outer space it would be a disaster…

therefore we shouldn’t let gay people get married. Protect us from ourselves government…just in case the flying laser pigs invade! [/quote]

Emotional.

393

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]

This has absolutely no bearing on public policy one bit and repeating this is frankly pointless. Not a single person is arguing that heterosexuality disappearing would be a bad thing. And heterosexuality disappearing is such a stupid premise to start from because it is in no danger of happening. Guess what my gay cousin cannot get married in the state he lives in. If he could, it wouldn’t keep me from having sex with my fiance. We will probably have a child or two and guess what? Whether or not gay people are married isn’t going to change that. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE FROM ANYTHING. Why do you think heteros need to keep homosexuals from doing anything? Ah, because it wouldn’t be a news story if homosexuality disappeared? That makes absolutely no sense.

Why you continue to keep driving home the pointless point about homosexuality disappearing is completely irrelevant to rational thought. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been here since the beginning of man and will be here at the end. We can acknowledge that or we can play silly little “imagine a world where no guys fuck girls” games. [/quote]

It’s not silly. It demonstrates who vastly unequal the two are.

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

Not so with homosexual state marriage. “Fairness” is the argument. It is pure emotion.
[/quote]

Only one side is based on an old book and emotion in this debate. You do realize your arguments about better for the whole were used in slavery, racism, and indeed (again) Hitler. A “logical” case for differences when other people talk about fairness.

I wouldn’t want to be on the side you’re on, but no amount of reasoning or rational argument will get you to stop something you are going to believe for the rest of your life. And I think you (like many religious people who are opposed) are in great fear of what the rest of society is doing to your mentality. We are kicking that idea out of here. [/quote]

Hitler and aliens. Sorry, you’re emotional. Frothing, even.
[/quote]

Not really, but another thing you are missing out on this debate because your head won’t let you play with reason on this one my friend. I’m not frothing in the least bit. I’m not the one even remotely worked up about what other adults do. You are part of an entire (disappearing) side of people who is wrapped up with the notion of the ensuing panic and chaos of this.

The aliens and Hitler was too point out your lack of rational thinking with some of your “imagine a world” like your setting up a movie based on 2355. You need to think more about the rationality of what you are saying and less about what you want my emotions to be.

394

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It demonstrates that orderly or non-orderly heterosexuality as a massive impact, for better or worse on society and humanity as a whole. Hence why there is a logical case for attempting to encourage it (marriage). There is a logical case, period.

[/quote]

Can you show proof that encouraging heterosexual marriage cannot happen in a society where gay people (who represent a minority) have similar rights? Can you please explain why states who have passed gay marriage laws don’t have as many divorces?

Can you explain why I am getting married in June to a beautiful woman despite the fact that in some states gay people are getting married to people of the same sex? [/quote]

Can you explain why homosexual sex is so important to humanity that the state has the right to recognize it over every other imaginable consenting adult relationship/arrangement (outside of one other, whoop-dee doo) involving any imaginable number of people, lack or presence of sex, lack or presence of romantic relationship?

State recognition of homosexual marriage is unjustified emotionalism.

395

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

But it will never go away. It’s genetic.[/quote]

If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.

First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.

[/quote]

Gene manipulation in humans is so far down the line that it shouldn’t even be in this conversation.

I’d even contend that most religions would be against gene manipulation, especially pre-birth.[/quote]

Well, a genetic theory was introduced.

Not necessarily, if a genetic therapy is actually used for legitimate medicinal purposes.
[/quote]

I’ll borrow from the abortion debate on this one.

I’m assuming your stance on abortion is not to allow it. I’ll further assume it stems from the primary argument that the unborn child is a separate being which garners the same rights and privileges as someone who has been born.

Do those privileges and rights not expand outside of abortion?

396

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

If we get invaded by flying laser pigs from outer space it would be a disaster…

therefore we shouldn’t let gay people get married. Protect us from ourselves government…just in case the flying laser pigs invade! [/quote]

Emotional.
[/quote]

"First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.

Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.

I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time."

Actually that was intended to be a funny response to your funny response of opposing gay marriage right now based on something you think may happen in the future. The only emotion I had there was laughter at the above post.

397

[quote]H factor wrote:
Not really, but another thing you are missing out on this debate because your head won’t let you play with reason on this one my friend. I’m not frothing in the least bit. [/quote]

The Hitler comment is auto-froth.

No, it was an emotional outburst. It happens.

398

[quote]Sloth wrote:

State recognition of homosexual marriage is unjustified emotionalism.
[/quote]

Disagree. When the State gives you certain rights and privileges based on whether you are married, it is certainly justified.

If everyone was just treated equally at all times, then I would agree with you.

399

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

I’m assuming your stance on abortion is not to allow it. I’ll further assume it stems from the primary argument that the unborn child is a separate being which garners the same rights and privileges as someone who has been born.

Do those privileges and rights not expand outside of abortion?[/quote]

Not for medical treatment. I have internal bleeding and need surgery, but I am comatose, a guardian gives the go ahead. If I am unable to make the decision, a loved one can make it for me.

400

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

I’m assuming your stance on abortion is not to allow it. I’ll further assume it stems from the primary argument that the unborn child is a separate being which garners the same rights and privileges as someone who has been born.

Do those privileges and rights not expand outside of abortion?[/quote]

Not for medical treatment. I have internal bleeding and need surgery, but I am comatose, a guardian gives the go ahead. If I am unable to make the decision, a loved one can make it for me.
[/quote]

I think Life or Death is a bit different than choosing sexuality.