Are there any atheists that are against equal rights for LGBT? If so what are your reasons? I'd be fascinated to find out.

Views: 209

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Given that Australia is 7,617,930 km² and there are 6,910,000,000 human inhabitants as of April 25, 2011 then a 'family farm' would be 907 people per km² or .9 people per m². Sounds a bit cramped.

And given that Australia, like Canada, like Russia, is far from being all suitable for agriculture.

 

And that Australia, like Canada, like USA and like most of Europe, sends heaps of human garbage to be processed abroad... in poorer countries

Most biologists who examine this issue agree the human population should be under 2 billion people. As a biologist myself, I err to the lesser number of a half billion people being the optimal number for healthy living on planet Earth, this is allowing other species to have a life also.

Not in Australia, you couldn't.  Most of it's desert.  It's uninhabitable by anyone that doesn't keep moving in order to find food. It is just not fertile enough for everyone in the world to have their own subsistence level farm. Even if that were possible, the exponential rate of population growth would make that unsustainable within a generation.

Australia's experience of "individual farming" is that such people cannot survive without government welfare top ups.  Most small farming types end up back in the city for the sake of their children.  Small farms cannot compete with the huge industrial plots that  feed the city populations. 

but you must have at least 1-2 kids so you procreate and pass down your genes so some "part" of you survives.

The word "must" has no place in that sentence. You should investigate the is-ought divide.

 

 

Please tell me you're joking.

I don't thjink he was... but I could be wrong...
If you're concerned with carrying on your genetics, your genes will have almost 0 impact on your descendants in less than 1000 years from now.

Here's a brief explanation. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2236#comic

IF you do not have any children, you are weak and your genes dissipate.

That's silly. There is nothing "weak" about allowing your genes to dissipate. Darwinian reproduction is not a demonstration of "strength". Reproductive success is reproductive success: no more and no less. Our strength as human beings is not related to how long we can keep our genes in circulation.

What does a marriage contract have to do with the perks of marriage.. If you have an issue with the tax laws then so be it. Go after them...

People have a right to offically have a family, the same last name for the adults and the children.

If you don't want to get married, don't.

"Perks" are a driving force behind marriage outside of procreation. And I don't call procreation a right. And why do you consider a marriage contract to be a "right"??? Marriage is a favour not a right.

Really? That's your opinion.. you stand by it..
I'm married 26yrs. and it wasn't for the perks... Speak for yourself, not for me... 

If you couldn't get married because of your sexuality, you'd think it was a right... or not...

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service