On another note, I honestly don't see how legalizing gay marriage would cause a reduction in population. To put it bluntly, you've taken an anti-gay argument and spun it in a very hilarious fashion that isn't at all homophobic yet still seems ignorant. Just because gays are allowed to marry, doesn't mean there's going to be a sudden outburst of gayness that would significantly reduce the world's population.
I will however say this, you missed the point where legalizing gay marriage doesn't create more gays. The lack of right to marriage also won't make openly gay people take the "straight" option.
I do wonder if you read my post correctly since I said you weren't homophobic, but your comment came of as ignorant since you're spouting the same stuff as anti-gay individuals who go around saying that if you give gay people the same rights to marriage, our population would go extinct. Perhaps the only thing keeping them straight are marriage laws, but normal people, I can assure you, do not work that way.
I also don't understand how you can't dissociate points the South Park creators are trying to make, and things that they are clearly just joking about. The didn't even insinuate gay marriage would create more gays. Everyone there systematically took the "gay option" to prevent the future by taking an easy way out, rather than solving the problems they have at hand in a more sensible fashion (like my suggestion of trying to increase standards of living) because it was easier to have an orgy, than to actually plan for the future. The point wasn't "more gay marriage = more gays = less people"
Last edited by The Outrage; 11th November 2011 at 09:21 PM.
Edit: Outrage why you gotta ninja? Lol
you completely missed the point they were making in that episode. It was that people would much rather take the easy way out than work things out now so we wouldn't have problems in the future.
Let's work through the logic here: if marriage is a requirement for couples to fully get together, how would gay marriage lessen the population? First of all, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children--but most people do have children after getting married. It seems to me, that allowing gay marriage as a population control would have no effect at all, since you're allowing people who can't naturally have children to get together in a union that makes it more socially acceptable to have children. In short, the only way this would work is if you are saying gay marriage would increase the frequency of gay individuals, which, as said four times now (which you amazingly seems to have escaped you all three times previously) is not the case. Really, it seems like the solution would be to ban straight marriage--but of course, that won't stop people from having children, they'll just realize marriage is just a legal term.
And to get more rhino-y, how would lessening the population stop people from poaching these creatures because their horns make money? They're not just dying because we're encroaching on their habitat.
Last edited by The Outrage; 11th November 2011 at 09:35 PM.
Beyond that, humans haven't killed that many different species of animals, at least when one considers how many different species there are. (This is one species of rhino out of many species of rhino, some of those others even flourishing.) As well, I'd like to note that man's duty is to man: should we worry about the harm we do when we eliminate malaria-carrying mosquitoes, or birds that can stop jet engines?
If I hold to any time travel at all, it's pure forward travel (that being the opposite of "suspension," where one "times" [verb] through time faster than those in normal time), though I also saw a good working of time travel in Danny Phantom: once something appears in the past, it is embedded in the past. (I.e., changing the course of the future won't remove something that went back to the past, even if the future it came from no longer exists. I.e., the present is the present.)
Oh, "being gay" is not "proven to be a natural trait." There's a complex interplay between biological factors, environmental factors, "historical" factors, and all sorts of other factors that can determine... well, the "condition" of being gay--and I'm sure you would take issue with those who offer evidence that being gay is not natural at all. Regardless, the most important factor must necessarily be choice. Seriously, I can't help but think that supposed gay "advocates" can't be but such in the simplest way: ultimately, to this effect, that law and custom should change to accommodate gays because they can't help but be. (You can't have an intellectual position if you merely form a position diametrically opposed to the opposition's position.) If being gay is purely biological, then it is by nature not a legitimate choice at all.
Last edited by League; 11th November 2011 at 10:40 PM.
Dedicated "RingOfEndlessDerpShipping " shipper!
Besides being a strange (retired) battler with a storied (I've been everywhere, man!), legendary, mythical, exaggerated, and relatively unknown career... well, that's it. I plan on writing stories though. And oh! I play games (maker of this fun one).
And I take hoedowns seriously. (And oh, pachiba, WHERE ARE YOU!?!?)