Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it.

[Ned]

MrFun, the problem most families have is getting pregnant. So, the decision to abort a fetus for frivolous reasons probably will never happen. But to most people, homosexuality is not frivolous.

[Az]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


There are many many many many many many many many straights who should not, under any circumstances, have children. We should praise, not damn, the few who realize this about themselves.

I take it that you think that the ones that "should" should also have a ****load of them to have enough humans?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
(And just as an aside, the Dems constantly advise people to vote Democrat to save Roe v. Wade. What they ignore is that Blackmun, the justice who wrote the opinion, was a Republican appointed by Nixon.)

Yes, but Republican presidents frequently end up regretting their SCOTUS appointments. Eisenhower, famously, never expected Warren or Brennan to be so liberal; the same goes for Nixon with Blackmun and Bush with Souter.

Also, IIRC, Blackmun was given the opinion not because he was some kind ideological leader on the issue, but because he had once been chief legal counsel for the Mayo Clinic and understood the medical dimensions of the case.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Azazel


I take it that you think that the ones that "should" should also have a ****load of them to have enough humans?

Sure, why not? Though we hardly need "****loads of humans" at this point in history.

[Ramo]

Straight people that don't want to have kids are wrong.

Why?

[Az]

Sure, why not? Though we hardly need "****loads of humans" at this point in history.

With negative growth rates, we can diminish quite a bit as fast as we've sprawled, wrecking all what we've achieved, in the process.

Why?

Some people always point out that we're more than our biological selves. I fully agree. That doesn't mean that we should neglect that we're living creatures, also. Negative growth of population numbers is wrong on a couple of levels:

a) in a sense, you're screwing up the next generation, simply by not having enough people. If we can ensure that 3 more people will have a great life, having zero, instead, is wrong. And the fact that they don't even exist yet, is, amusingly enough, irrelevant, just as it is wrong to place a time bomb that will kill people in the far future, even though they aren't born yet.
b) negative growth rates wreck havoc upon our society. It's hurting to our economy, and our social life. In order to help ourselves, we need to "import" people from other countries, that have bad societies. If we need to rely on societies that are generally bad, maybe we have something to learn from them. It has been a given in every society since time immemorial that people need to procreate. In order to do this, brutal mechanisms have been in place for millenia. We have to keep the procreation, only without the brutal mechanisms.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Azazel

Sure, why not? Though we hardly need "****loads of humans" at this point in history.

With negative growth rates, we can diminish quite a bit as fast as we've sprawled, wrecking all what we've achieved, in the process.

Negative growth rates? Huh? The world has added a billion people to its teeming masses just in my adult lifetime. Certain countries may have negative growth rates, but that's what immigration's for.

[Az]

read my response to Ramo. that immigration is either coming from collapsing countries, e.g. post-soviet countries, or countries with a way of life that is different than ours.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Azazel
read my response to Ramo. that immigration is either coming from collapsing countries, e.g. post-soviet countries, or countries with a way of life that is different than ours.

Yep. People come from their own screwed-up countries to your country, which is less screwed-up. They bring their ways, which are not yours, along with their weird hygeine habits and smelly foods. The resulting culture clashes produce all manner of social disruptions, some of them violent, and the net result is that your society is changed forever.

That's pretty much the history of the U.S., and my Ukranian peasant grandparents were a proud part of it. Even with Bush in charge, you could do a lot worse than being us.

[Az]

The US is a great example of NOT being it. The USA influences the immigrants much more than the immigrants influence the USA.

It's clear, though, that you haven't got my point. My point is that if in our culture procreation isn't important, our culture cannot survive on it's own. And if you believe in all those gibberish values of modern society, like human rights, and such, you'd probably want that those other societies would change to meet those criteria, the problem being that there is no alternative mechanism to ensure procreation in place, thus making a 'modern values = not viable' equation a reality. We need to find a new social construct that would allow humans to procreate and to retain human rights, esp. women's rights, as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

This would be a dilema for the religious right anti abortionists.

Do they hate homosexuals more than abortion.

Actually, I see this more of a dilemma for homosexuals. Do they love abortion rights more than other homosexuals? Would they be willing to side with the prolifers to oppose the killing of homosexual babies just because they are homosexuals?

The prolife side is very clear. We have had a group here in Canada, an organisation of gay people who are prolife, and they are allowed to march with the rest of the prolifers, provided they abide by the same rules of conduct for everyone else.

The issue for prolifers is not homosexuality, but on protecting the unborn, regardless of the qualities of the unborn. There are many prolifers who are religious, but there are also some who are not. I used to fall in the latter category.

[MrFun]

This thread is getting weirder and weirder . . . . .


are we going to somehow connect gun control issues with homosexuality somehow, too?

Oh wait -- we can by discussing the gay mafia.

my bad

[Ben Kenobi]

We need to find a new social construct that would allow humans to procreate and to retain human rights, esp. women's rights, as well.

Azazel:

False dilemma. Look at the early feminists like Susan B. Anthony who felt that a woman should not have to choose between children and a career, but should be able to do both.

Procreation does not hinder human rights in any way shape or form. In fact, I would argue just the opposite. Look at China, with their one child policy. Is China therefore the beacon of human rights? No. Restrictions upon procreation are the source of human rights abuses.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are many many many many many many many many straights who should not, under any circumstances, have children.

That's an interesting tack.

It should be left to the individual to decide whether he or she ought to have children, rather than arbitrary limits imposed by society such as sterilising those deemed 'mentally unfit' to have children.

That's it, nothing more to be said. Not everyone will be called to have a family, some will be called to remain celebate.

Neither choice is any better than the other.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rufus:

Sorry for leaving the thread, out of fairness, here's my online source for the NIV:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=all

You can type a chapter, verse, or do a keyword search.

Starting with Romans 1:24-7

FROM THE NIV:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

From your source for the KJV:

Romans 1:24-7

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

RSV

Romans 1:24-7

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.


I don't see any difference between any of the versions with respect to Romans 1:24-7 which is probably the clearest reference to homosexuality in the NT.