Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by August

I got nothing against gay couples as long as both chicks are hot...

And how many hot lesbian chicks have you seen outside of porn films?

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am talking about tax reliefs for families and hetero couples, and other financial benefits for hetero couples and families that could emerge from them .

But since the psychological role-modelling of a male father and a female mother is different to that of a homo man or woman, I am against homsoexual couples adotping children, too, like I am also against tax reliefs for singles like myself, or adoption of kids by people who are singles.

Families are the social core-cell of any functional society in our understanding, and that is why it is of paramount importance that after the job-world already has minimised the status of families, at least the state - in conformity with the constitutional promised protection guarantees for families and their priviliged status in society - does not minimise families even more by eliminating these special status features and priviliges when giving them to each and everybody.

And finally, to say that homosexualtiy does nothing to secure the future of a society, not to mention the survival of a species that nature has designed to procreate in a heterosexual manner, has nothing to do with discrimination, but is a simple fact of life. You could as well claim me to discriminate when saying that man cannot fly due to lacking wings. In a hetero-sexual species, homosexuality appears as a symptom of curiosisty, but it is neither an important norm, nor is it "normal" in the way evolution has meant this species to be. I say that homosexuals must not be discriminated, we can afford not to do so - but I also say they deserve no right to claim they are as much a norm as heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not a norm equal to that of heterosexuality. that simple it is.

And regarding their social-communal function for their nation/people/tribe/community, they simply are by far not as important as it is politically en vogue these days to claim that it is. Families are more important for a nation or community than homosexual couples. Without families, there is no future. That is the simple reason why the status of family must be seen as exceptionell, must be protected, must be supported, boosted and given privileges that are not the same like for singles, or homo couples. because then it would not be privileges to support families anymore - and is it wise to do like that when population sizes of european peoples are in open decline?

Note to self. I am
finding myself agreeing with Skybird more and more. Schedule appointment with the shrink stat....

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Have you read "The Forever War" ?

No, is it a good read?

[Murr44]

These people have jobs & pay their taxes so they should be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Frame57

No, is it a good read?

I found the novel pretty boring.
Some plots are just ridiculous and I mean RIDICULOUS even for a SF story.
How this novel could have won the Nebula and Hugo awards is just beyond me.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Murr44

These people have jobs & pay their taxes so they should be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else.

Best goddamn thing I've read all day. I mean it.

[Max2147]

Given our sky-high divorce rates and huge numbers of orphaned children, I don't see why we should be forbidding loving gay couples from adopting children.

It's not like there's a scarcity of orphans out there. If a gay couple adopts a child, they're not preventing a heterosexual couple from doing the same. They're just taking a kid out of an orphanage and into a loving family.

Would an adopted child of a gay couple grow up differently than the child of a heterosexual couple? I don't know. But I'm pretty damn sure that almost any child would be better off with two gay parents than no parents at all.

If we didn't have enough people to populate our world, then gays' inability to reproduce might be a problem. But overpopulation is the problem we have now, and gays can play a vital role in raising children that would not otherwise have parents.

[Foxtrot]

Because they want to have equal rights. They want to lose half of their stuff during divorce and fight over it like the rest of us

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Given our sky-high divorce rates and huge numbers of orphaned children, I don't see why we should be forbidding loving gay couples from adopting children.

It's not like there's a scarcity of orphans out there. If a gay couple adopts a child, they're not preventing a heterosexual couple from doing the same. They're just taking a kid out of an orphanage and into a loving family.

Would an adopted child of a gay couple grow up differently than the child of a heterosexual couple? I don't know. But I'm pretty damn sure that almost any child would be better off with two gay parents than no parents at all.

If we didn't have enough people to populate our world, then gays' inability to reproduce might be a problem. But overpopulation is the problem we have now, and gays can play a vital role in raising children that would not otherwise have parents.

Overpopulatiojn only makes ssense on a global scale. Locally, it alos plays a role in poarts of the Earth. In our countries, underpopulation is creating problems for out economies and future social security systems.

I again refer to the importance of sexual role-models of male father, female mothers, and the difference between a mother and a gay man, and a father and a lesbian woman. We have many hetereo couples waiting to adopt children. Growin infertality is a problem in many parts of the world, the West amongst them. Growin intoxication of our environment seems to take it'S toll on male'S sperms. As long as there is a choice between adoption by a hetereo and a homo couple, hetereo adoptation always should go first. Already in the early nineties we learned at university about growing sociological eveidence that kids growing up with just one parents, in their adult life years if not decades later show statistically significant diferences for example in their vulnerability to depression, or their relation-forming with the other sex. Human children, like all mammal children, are em,ant to be reaised by a Mum and a Dad, where- ever possible, it is relevant for their psychohygiene, I am very sure. sexual role models in our present societies are seriously messed up, especially the male one, and i make this, amongst other factors, responsible for the popular assumption that a mother is perceived the same way and forwards the same social learning like a homosexual man. To equal these two - this is what I would find discriminating, btw. A homosexual man is not a women. A parent-couple where one gender is unavailable for learning of social role-modelling by the parents (and that plays a role in parent's functions indeed), something is missing. That'S why adoptations, whereever there is a choice, should favoure hetero couples of homosexcual couples. If homosexual relatiosn would have been meant to raise kids, nature probably would have formed them fertile as well. There is a reason why a childhood with one missing parent by almost most psychologists and sociologists is agreed on to be a - obvious or potentially - critical one.

Stop undermining the special status of the institution of families. Many of our problems, like low birth rates, crime, growing uneducation, career over kids, are related to the destruction of it'S importance in our social percepotion already. It is vital for the future of our societies, and inevitable for mastering our future, that we correct this terrible social-political aberration of relativising it more and more and more. Gay and lesbian couples must not be discriminated - but they must not be defined as being more important than they are. And they are not as important for the suvival of a society as families, and thus: hetero relations, are. that they pay taxes does not mean anything. singles also pay taxes. Shouold they be given the right to benefit from tax reliefs for families, and calling it discrimination if one is against that...? Blödsinn.

[Max2147]

I agree, families are vitally important to our society.

But which is better in terms of a family - A kid being raised by loving, caring gay parents, or a kid having no parents at all?

With gay couples adopting, the choice isn't between gay parents and hetero parents, it's between having parents and being an orphan.

Once there are enough couples adopting to take care of all the orphans in the world, then we can start restricting which couples can adopt.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Max2147

But which is better in terms of a family - A kid being raised by loving, caring gay parents, or a kid having no parents at all?

Point taken. I'd object to gay couples adopting less if the children were first given a choice and then heterosexual couples were given preference if the child didn't have a preference.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Point taken. I'd object to gay couples adopting less if the children were first given a choice and then heterosexual couples were given preference if the child didn't have a preference.

I think you might have a tough time getting an orphaned infant to express their preference.

Adoption is a very long process. If you want to give heterosexuals preference in the overall process, that's fine. I think you'll find that there are more than enough orphaned children out there to go around.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I think you might have a tough time getting an orphaned infant to express their preference.

You smartass

Fine, we'll offer a test like this one:rotfl:

Now the beast is free again and he will say a final word on this shamefull thread which is so desperatly held as "moving forward" to damned tolerancy thing.. Soon will be having full of tolerancy but pervfull society I guess..

First of all family is treated between man and woman not between "two dads"

Secondly before raising a question what is better: to have no parents or to have parents gays ? I would advice to think on how would you feel inside that kids shoes who is adopted by gays and what exactly future he's going to have ?
It's not difficult to realize that it will not be good for him at all. For example the kid would grow with a twisted understanding of the TRUE family ideology. Risk of twisted sex-understanding. (seeing male dad kissing and groping male mom of today). It will do psychological harm with no doubt here. He would most probably be bullied because of his parents gays the rest of his life.
So I think it's everyone of you need to wake up and start separating good from bad. What is acceptable and what is not.

Because from what I see is that too much democracy surely brings chaos.

[antikristuseke]

Contact, other than people continuing to be *******s and bullying others for their diferences there is no evidense to anything else you are sugesting. There is, however, some evidence that children raised by lesbian couples turn out just as they would if they were raised by a straight couple with similar personalities. Allso a number of peer-reviewed studies comparing children raised by two mothers and those raised by a mother and a father have not found any relation between same-sex parenting and a greater likelihood of identifying later in life as gay.

This oposition to gay marriage is nothing more than feelbood BS because some people think it is icky and then try to find rationalisation for their biggotry.