Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)
That's it? That's your big intellectual
coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?
I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".
1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.
2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.
Moron.
You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.
So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.
Christ, I don't even know where to start.
How is a married couple that chooses not to have children different than a gay couple with regard to the continuation of human existence? Why even get married if you're not going to have kids, right? Isn't their relationship just as shallow and meaningless as that of the gay couple according to your logic?
You can drop the table and chair argument too if you don't want to make yourself look any less intelligent than you already have. They're not sentient. They don't love you back, they don't get the groceries. People get married because they love each other and want to solidify that love into (hopefully) permanence. Kids may or may not enter the equation. By your logic, the gay couple and the childless couple are on equal moral footing. It has nothing to do with population control; gays have never been a factor in that nor will they ever be. They have always existed and will always continue to exist. If they were going to snuff out society, they'd have done it by now since humans have been around for quite some time AFAIK.
One other question I have for you. There are already gay people out there in the world, right? They're living their lives, going about their daily business.....some of them are even *gasp* in commited relationships. How does allowing them to marry legally really change anything? I mean, they already exist, they're sure as hell not going to have kids, so in reality you're just putting a different label on a committed relationship between two men or two women. The only real change (and one you interestingly haven't bothered to mention) is that of healthcare benefits and such.