First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
Proof about gays
3234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/27/09
I don't think the bible has any right to be saying "being gay is committing a sin".

Posted 5/27/09
In this I am not a troll if I was a troll in this event I would use words as Cocksuckers in reference to Homosexuals.
Posted 5/27/09

Robo-Bot wrote:

I don't think the bible has any right to be saying "being gay is committing a sin".



To make sure the population of Israel grows. The Bible has the right to say that being a Homosexual is a Sin.
Posted 5/27/09

Darnell1 wrote:


Robo-Bot wrote:

I don't think the bible has any right to be saying "being gay is committing a sin".



To make sure the population of Israel grows. The Bible has the right to say that being a Homosexual is a Sin.


What is good about a population that is already quite large growing?
Posted 5/27/09

cerisey wrote:


Darnell1 wrote:


Robo-Bot wrote:

I don't think the bible has any right to be saying "being gay is committing a sin".



To make sure the population of Israel grows. The Bible has the right to say that being a Homosexual is a Sin.


What is good about a population that is already quite large growing?


There is so much wide open spaces on in above and in the ocean for Mankind and Food production.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/27/09

Darnell1 wrote:

There is so much wide open spaces on in above and in the ocean for Mankind and Food production.


Pretty much any space that can be inhabited by humans already has been, minus wildlife habitats that are protected by law. Those "wide open spaces" you're talking about don't have the right resources and/or climate to support human life. We can't live in the ocean, so there's no point in increasing the population to try and inhabit it.

Just because there's open spaces doesn't mean we have to cram as many people into them as we can.
Posted 5/27/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darnell1 wrote:

There is so much wide open spaces on in above and in the ocean for Mankind and Food production.


Pretty much any space that can be inhabited by humans already has been, minus wildlife habitats that are protected by law. Those "wide open spaces" you're talking about don't have the right resources and/or climate to support human life. We can't live in the ocean, so there's no point in increasing the population to try and inhabit it.

Just because there's open spaces doesn't mean we have to cram as many people into them as we can.


But we will learn to go or die by war and Homosexual practices.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/27/09 , edited 5/27/09

Darnell1 wrote:

But we will learn to go or die by war and Homosexual practices.


I've already explained that the homosexual population is too small to have any significant impact on the overall human population. For every gay couple that doesn't have kids, there will be another couple who has tons of kids to make up for the kids that the gay couple didn't have. But there is a decent chance that a large war would cause a huge dent in the human population, but not so large that we will become endangered.
Posted 5/27/09 , edited 5/27/09

Darnell1 wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darnell1 wrote:

There is so much wide open spaces on in above and in the ocean for Mankind and Food production.


Pretty much any space that can be inhabited by humans already has been, minus wildlife habitats that are protected by law. Those "wide open spaces" you're talking about don't have the right resources and/or climate to support human life. We can't live in the ocean, so there's no point in increasing the population to try and inhabit it.

Just because there's open spaces doesn't mean we have to cram as many people into them as we can.


But we will learn to go or die by war and Homosexual practices.


actually, a species has a pretty big chance of dying out when it's at it's peak (population wise). Because we'll be using up resources too quickly and all that. I guess we could always start harvesting humans as well. Yum!

On a more statistical note:
"According to the Census Bureau's 1998 Current Population Survey, a greater percentage of women of all ages are not having children. In that year, 5.7 million (or 18.4 percent) married women of childbearing age (defined by the Census as between 15 and 44 years old) were childless. And many of them like it that way." ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Nov_1/ai_79501204/)

18.4% of the population according to that statistic, or married couple (they said married women, but the statistic would be the same surely, if gender ratio is 50:50. I might be wrong there though, my maths is awful) while according to other sources listed below, the homosexual population is something around 2-4%, well below 18.4%. Straight couples are doing more damage, as you may put it, to the population than the homosexual couples are. Not that you should direct your passionate fury to them either. Their doing good in my opinion, the population is pretty big, why do you think China has a one child limit on couples? (not that China is the greatest as far as laws are concerned, but still)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 5/28/09 , edited 5/28/09
In most population studies famine or disease will wipe out the population when the environment is no longer able to sustain it. This is true for bacteria and other animals.
Humans also have the factor of war to consider as well as famine and death however those areas would quickly become repopulated as all human settlements are situated near a critical resource eg. water and oil.

Fundies say the darnedest things

Also Shakespeare who was employed to write the King James edition of the bible was infact a bisexual himself.

Ps birth rates lower in societies where medical healthcare is easy to find and when a region is overpopulated.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 5/28/09

cerisey wrote:

Their doing good in my opinion, the population is pretty big, why do you think China has a one child limit on couples? (not that China is the greatest as far as laws are concerned, but still)


China's population is so large because Mao decided that if they weren't going to be technologically superior than their enemies then they would simply have more soldiers than their enemies.
Posted 5/28/09

Fightingmonkey wrote:


cerisey wrote:

Their doing good in my opinion, the population is pretty big, why do you think China has a one child limit on couples? (not that China is the greatest as far as laws are concerned, but still)


China's population is so large because Mao decided that if they weren't going to be technologically superior than their enemies then they would simply have more soldiers than their enemies.


But then they decided to limit it because it had grown too big, I'm talking about their decision to limit.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 5/28/09

cerisey wrote:


Fightingmonkey wrote:


cerisey wrote:

Their doing good in my opinion, the population is pretty big, why do you think China has a one child limit on couples? (not that China is the greatest as far as laws are concerned, but still)


China's population is so large because Mao decided that if they weren't going to be technologically superior than their enemies then they would simply have more soldiers than their enemies.


But then they decided to limit it because it had grown too big, I'm talking about their decision to limit.


Sorry; You know how late it is (after all you're in my country).
My brains been a bit fried lately and I took it out of context.
Posted 5/29/09
Ignorant!

This is not "proof!"
This is your OPINION not PROOF.
Get it straight, asshole.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 5/29/09 , edited 5/29/09

JoeLovesCake wrote:

Ignorant!

This is not "proof!"
This is your OPINION not PROOF.
Get it straight, asshole.


I'm pro choice but do you actually have anything constructive to add to the discussion? If not then I suggest you hold your tongue.

Oh and ad hominem doesn't count.
First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.