Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[Biggles]

It is now official: As of today, May 1st, 2009, same-sex marriage is recognized throughout our entire country.

Finally, our gov. did something good!:salute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden

[Tchocky]

Brilliant :up:

[FIREWALL]

Why am I not surprised. :har:

[Frame57]

Whatever happened to the Swedish Bikini Girls? OMG! That was hot stuff!:woot:

[OneToughHerring]

Why am I not surprised. :har:

Well that's not very nice. :)

[Freiwillige]

I am sorry. Well look at the bright side, Youll be over run with third world immigration in 50 years:up:

[Stealth Hunter]

It is now official: As of today, May 1st, 2009, same-sex marriage is recognized throughout our entire country.

Finally, our gov. did something good!:salute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden


:yeah:

Of course, there's going to be a lot of resistance over here.

[Torplexed]

:yeah:

Of course, there's going to be a lot of resistance over here.

Yeah...but some of that resistance is easy on the eyes. :cool:

http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/1/197/19749.jpg

[Contact]

It is now official: As of today, May 1st, 2009, same-sex marriage is recognized throughout our entire country.

Finally, our gov. did something good!:salute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:

[darius359au]

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:

So speaks a voice of tolerance and reason :down: what business is it of any of you lot that act all offended what anyone else does with their private lives? , you done like it ignore it , it isn't hurting you in any way.

[McBeck]

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:
Dont get personal.....MMmmmkkaayyy

[Contact]

So speaks a voice of tolerance and reason :down: what business is it of any of you lot that act all offended what anyone else does with their private lives? , you done like it ignore it , it isn't hurting you in any way.

My tolerance has limits by the way. I'm not wishing to see gays or lesbians kissing each other in the middle of the street. How can you justify this kind of pervertness ? It's a taboo from a religion point of view and my personal.
You can call me untolerant undemocratic but I will never accept this perverntess as a normal thing.

[baggygreen]

To each their own. But to threaten physical violence is a little OTT, if you ask me.

heres something I bring up often in these discussions with mates. None of them are offended if two ladies were to get intimate with them around, and yet they're opposed to homosexuality. what gives?

for the record, I'm personally just uncomfortable with it (gay marriage). not religious, and im definitly not homophobic, theres just some lingering doubts in my mind about it and it annoys me because i can't figure them out.

[Morts]

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:
you truely are one sick twisted person.
they got every right to stand and kiss in the middle of the street.
there is nothing at all wrong with same sex marriage IMO, as long as they love eachother i cant really see the problem? i mean how is it going to have an effect on me that 2 guys are kissing infront of me ?, i might laugh inside myself but thats about it or if my neighbour is gay and just got married ?, hell i would congratulate him

[Contact]

To each their own. But to threaten physical violence is a little OTT, if you ask me.

heres something I bring up often in these discussions with mates. None of them are offended if two ladies were to get intimate with them around, and yet they're opposed to homosexuality. what gives?

for the record, I'm personally just uncomfortable with it (gay marriage). not religious, and im definitly not homophobic, theres just some lingering doubts in my mind about it and it annoys me because i can't figure them out.

To tell it in easy way: it's just not right. Those who are same-sex addicts needs to be cured. It's deffinetly something wrong with their heads. And situations where gays are allowed to raise children some countries ? It is a total sickness I think. I will repeat myself: No way I wish to see or be close to these kind of perverts. I just can't stand them :down:

[Morts]

To tell it in easy way: it's just not right. Those who are same-sex addicts needs to be cured. It's deffinetly something wrong with their heads. And situations where gays are allowed to raise children some countries ? It is a total sickness I think. I will repeat myself: No way I wish to see or be close to these kind of perverts. I just can't stand them :down:
wrong with their heads ? have you looked at what you're typing ?
i may agree with you on the fact that they shouldnt raise children, but the rest of what you typed is simply so disgusting and intolerant that i think YOU shouldnt ever be allowed to raise a kid and that YOU should be cured

[Contact]

wrong with their heads ? have you looked at what you're typing ?
i may agree with you on the fact that they shouldnt raise children, but the rest of what you typed is simply so disgusting and intolerant that i think YOU shouldnt ever be allowed to raise a kid and that YOU should be cured

You're a gay yourself aren't you ? :stare:

[Morts]

You're a gay yourself aren't you ? :stare:
not at all, i just respect other people and their choices
unlike you

[Contact]

not at all, i just respect other people and their choices
unlike you

You made a wrong choice on what to respect. You respect pervertness you dumbass..

[Morts]

You made a wrong choice on what to respect. You respect pervertness you dumbass..
:rotfl::rotfl:thats you're arguement ?
but yeah, if you wanna call it pervertness then i respect pervertness:up:
and im not the slightest bit ashamed of my choice

[Contact]

:rotfl::rotfl:thats you're arguement ?
but yeah, if you wanna call it pervertness then i respect pervertness:up:
and im not the slightest bit ashamed of my choice

So you ARE a gay anyway. This is going to be sticky on you from now on :nope:

[Morts]

So you ARE a gay anyway. This is going to be sticky on you from now on :nope:
how does that make me gay? just because i respect other peoples choices.
if these are your best "arguements", i feel sorry for you cause they seem more like poorly made insults:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Contact]

how does that make me gay? just because i respect other peoples choices.
if these are your best "arguements", i feel sorry for you cause they seem more like poorly made insults:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


If you still don't get it it's not my fault. Anyone who supports perverts are perverts themselves in some point. Just covering their sickness with tolerance.

[Morts]

If you still don't get it it's not my fault. Anyone who supports perverts are perverts themselves in some point. Just covering their sickness with tolerance.
get what? all you have done is call me gay and say that i tolerate pervertness thats no arguement, and how exactly does that make me gay/perverted ?

[Freiwillige]

Intolerant. This has become the ultimate smear word for the p.c. elite and is only trumped by the word Racist which is itslef only trumped by the ultimate smear Nazi!

These words by there very desighn are meant to silence any opposition to a P.C. issue. Commerade Stalin would be proud indeed of what his P.C. crowd has accomplished.

Lets look at "Intolerant" for example, Would you tolerate a drug dealer living in your house?

Now I cannot myself condone violence except for in absolute defence I can agree that I am "Intolerant" about the gay issue being forced down the majority's throat.

I am not intolerant of gay people per say, I have a few gay friends. But they respect my views and dont push the issue in front of me and I dont push the issue with them.

But this whole gay movement really irks me. To say it is normal non deviant behavour is a stretch, simply because it is not natural. Everything lives on this earth to continue ones species, No other mammal has a homosexual sect. It is my firm belief that it is in fact an illness brought on by the stresses of modern society. Many psychiatrists agree with the illness view but its become such a political hot potato tht nobody will touch it anymore.

So yes I am Intolerant not of homosexuals but of their mass agenda. When states vote no on same sex marriage and then the courts overturn it well obviously there is a powerfull agenda. And the idea they have no rights is funny, sine they can Vote, get an eduction, Aquire a drivers license, serve in the millitary etc. So we the majority are being oppresive when we deny them marriage? I think not, but thats the beauty of America, we all have our oppinions and can express them freely....for now.

[Contact]

get what? all you have done is call me gay and say that i tolerate pervertness thats no arguement, and how exactly does that make me gay/perverted ?


If you are tolerant to this, you are accepting gay rights as a normal thing. This leads to a conclussion that you are either directly gay or related to this in some % of your mind.

So think about it.

[Morts]

If you are tolerant to this, you are accepting gay rights as a normal thing. This leads to a conclussion that you are either directly gay or related to this in some % of your mind.

So think about it.
im not saying that its a normal thing, but its their choices and i respect that.
that doesnt mean that im gay or "related" to it in anyway, but you seem to know alot about it, got any experience with being gay?:rotfl:

[Contact]

im not saying that its a normal thing, but its their choices and i respect that.
that doesnt mean that im gay or "related" to it in anyway, but you seem to know alot about it, got any experience with being gay?:rotfl:

Learned good lessons on a human psychology if you must know. Basically you respect what you like so you know the conclusion of what I mean. :nope:

[Biggles]

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:

No, I am not gay. I don't take that as an insult btw, since it would imply that I think it'd be something wrong to be gay. I don't.

I do, however, know some people that are either bisexual or homosexual. They are all very nice people.

For me, it seems like a basic human right to be able to be with anyone you like.

So you tell me, you would actually kill homosexuals if you got the chance? That is awful and sicko. (And illegal, just a tip for you so you won't do anything stupid.)

I am seriously saddened by reading your post, because first I thought that we wouldn't be bothered by the trolls that see their own existance as a divine miracle, and look down at others that are "different" with disgust and hatred, I posted these news because I felt that this is indeed good news for democracy in Sweden. My country is not the first to accept same-sex marriage, but I hope in the name of God (how you like that!?) that it won't be the last.

I'm all behind Morts here. Your "arguments" are nothing else than intolerant growls from someone that really need to wake up. This is the 21st Century, not the 12th. The world is changing, either change with it, or leave it.

[Morts]

Learned good lessons on a human psychology if you must know. Basically you respect what you like so you know the conclusion of what I mean. :nope:
umm, no ? again, how many times do i have to repeat this to get it into that thick skull of yours, while im not into what they do i RESPECT THEIR CHOICES, because thats what they like and want, then so be it.
now how about you make a real arguement insted of calling me a pervert and implying that im gay ?, you know, just one arguement?

[Contact]

No, I am not gay. I don't take that as an insult btw, since it would imply that I think it'd be something wrong to be gay. I don't.

I do, however, know some people that are either bisexual or homosexual. They are all very nice people.

For me, it seems like a basic human right to be able to be with anyone you like.

So you tell me, you would actually kill homosexuals if you got the chance? That is awful and sicko. (And illegal, just a tip for you so you won't do anything stupid.)

I am seriously saddened by reading your post, because first I thought that we wouldn't be bothered by the trolls that see their own existance as a divine miracle, and look down at others that are "different" with disgust and hatred, I posted these news because I felt that this is indeed good news for democracy in Sweden. My country is not the first to accept same-sex marriage, but I hope in the name of God (how you like that!?) that it won't be the last.

I'm all behind Morts here. Your "arguments" are nothing else than intolerant growls from someone that really need to wake up. This is the 21st Century, not the 12th. The world is changing, either change with it, or leave it.

I appreciate your remind on a timeline. But I will try to keep my neighbourhood clean from all this dirt as long as possible. Just to protect religious and my personal conviction on this topic. There can be gays, lesbians, bisex, all other trash, anywhere but not in my yard.

[Dowly]

I'm all behind Morts here. Your "arguments" are nothing else than intolerant growls from someone that really need to wake up. This is the 21st Century, not the 12th. The world is changing, either change with it, or leave it.

See, this is what I hate about all this tolerancy BS. It's shoved down my throat. :nope:

[Biggles]

See, this is what I hate about all this tolerancy BS. It's shoved down my throat. :nope:

Not from me, only if you act like a jerk, which you don't.

[Contact]

My further posts are temporarily suspended. I'm leaving my big city for nature :arrgh!:

[Schroeder]

im not saying that its a normal thing...
Actually it is. It even happens among animals.
As long as both of them want it I don't see a problem in it. I mean I don't get hurt by it and actually no one else does. So what's the problem?

@Contact
Beating someone up or even killing someone for their sexuality? God would be proud of you!
If you had made this fuss about child abuse I would be standing by your side, but we are talking about consensual adult people.
Would you also beat up people who are into Kama Sutra or SM because that is not seen as "natural" by some people? Who are you to tell people what sort of sex they are supposed to have? As long as it is consensual they can whip each other or kiss each others rear ends if it makes them happy for all I care.
It is not up to me to tell people what to do in their bed rooms as long as they are adults and it is consensual.

[Morts]

Actually it is. It even happens among animals.

ye, fair enough


As long as both of them want it I don't see a problem in it. I mean I don't get hurt by it and actually no one else does. So what's the problem?

thats what contact cant seem to grasp, in some way it just hurts inside him everytime he thinks of 2 men having buttsechz:rotfl:

[Taygoo]

I don't mind....

People can do what they think it's right... if it is to get married with a other person...

Love doesn't connected connected to a sex...
I heard in the radio, that a person in india got married with a goat...

[antikristuseke]

something good ??? This is awful and sicko!

I wish there would never be approved sex minority marriages in my country because it's a ******** shame for God sake! :stare: And you say your gov did something good ? Are you gay or something ? :nope:

If I ever see a gay couple walking in my streets I would smash their ******** heads to the asphalt. :damn:

What two concenting adults do is none of your damned business. Besides, I could never figure out why straight people would oppose gay marriage, it is not a if it affects us in any way, hell, think about it this way: the more gay men there are ,the more women for the rest of us.

That being said, my father is gay and i would thuroughly enjoy watching you try to smash his face into the asphalt, I might even call the ambulance for you after the sh!t hits the fan.

As much as I would like to plument into the realm of the internet toughguy realm of threats of real life violence ,and even more to actualy follow up on them, mindless biggots are just not worth the baned or actual jailtime.

[baggygreen]

Contact, you refer to 2 people making out it in the street in front of you being offensive. I dont find it offensive, but i don't like to see it amongst hetero couples either. not in public anyway. and i'm referring to intense kissing, not a peck on the lips.

Frankly, you're doing nobody any good by being so bigoted and in threatening physical violence - hollow a threat as that may be.

it is a natural occurence, as schroeder mentioned. our closest relatives, chimps, go mano y mano all the time. our aquatic friends the dolphins do it too.

Whats really funny is that in the animal there is no god, and we don't see animals hating others for sharing the love around. thats strictly a human trait.

[SteamWake]

Hey since they made same sex civil unions legal will they also allow these couples to adopt?

It seems to me the biggest draw back to same sex marriges is procreation or rather the lack thereof.

[Biggles]

Hey since they made same sex civil unions legal will they also allow these couples to adopt?


Adoption for homosexuals is indeed legal in Sweden. Think it's been so for awhile too.

[Lionclaw]

Sexuality is natural.

Religion is man-made.

[Biggles]

Sexuality is natural.

Religion is man-made.

Amen.

[August]

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

[Onkel Neal]

August saves the thread :haha:

[Max2147]

Looks like The Chaser (hilarious Aussie TV show) found our man Contact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iXbWsO4ik

[Murr44]

It's not my lifestyle but I have no problem with gays & lesbians marrying and adopting children. What's important is that the kids grow up in a decent & loving environment, not whether their parents happen to be of the same sex. There is no proof (at least I haven't seen any) that kids of gay/lesbian parents will automatically become gay or lesbian themselves or grow up warped in some way.

[Frame57]

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....:salute:

[August]

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....:salute:

You mean gays are photophobic mutants? :doh:

[Frame57]

You mean gays are photophobic mutants? :doh::har::har::har:I am choking on my coffee as I read this....No...I mean that I would be living in an almost extinct human world.

[goldorak]

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....:salute:


:haha: Have you read "The Forever War" ?

[August]

:har::har::har:I am choking on my coffee as I read this....No...I mean that I would be living in an almost extinct human world.

Face it, you'll just end up like Charlton Heston.

[Tchocky]

Nice to see some countries moving forward.
We're going back (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html)

[Frame57]

"get your paws off me, you damned dirty photo-phobic mutant":woot:

[Skybird]

A further weakening-by-relativising the socially upmost important institution of the family. That'S why I totally oppose equality for gay and lesbian "marriages", especially when it coms to financial factors. Only the right to bequeath your posessions in case of your death to whomever you like I would accept as an exception to that principle of no fiancial equality of homo and hetero marriages (but in Germany: right this free bequeathing gets penalty-taxed massively, a truly socialistic - yes, socialistic, not social - envy-tax of up to 50%).

I insist on financial privileges and special security and attention for hetero relations due to the fact that they are the future of a society and culture - a vital function for the community and it't survival that homosexual relations cannot contribute to.

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

[Biggles]

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

I know I didn't...

[AngusJS]

Congrats Sweden! :up:


A further weakening-by-relativising the socially upmost important institution of the family. That'S why I totally oppose equality for gay and lesbian "marriages", especially when it coms to financial factors. Only the right to bequeath your posessions in case of your death to whomever you like I would accept as an exception to that principle of no fiancial equality of homo and hetero marriages (but in Germany: right this free bequeathing gets penalty-taxed massively, a truly socialistic - yes, socialistic, not social - envy-tax of up to 50%).

I insist on financial privileges and special security and attention for hetero relations due to the fact that they are the future of a society and culture - a vital function for the community and it't survival that homosexual relations cannot contribute to.

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

This makes no sense. The same number of gays will continue to not have children regardless of whether they can marry or not. True, the government would have an added burden, but is it really so great as to justify discrimination against millions of its citizens? Doesn't such discrimination have a negative effect on society?

And really, that's not much of a society if it's reduced to mere numbers, and not ideas.

[Skybird]

Congrats Sweden! :up:




This makes no sense. The same number of gays will continue to not have children regardless of whether they can marry or not. True, the government would have an added burden, but is it really so great as to justify discrimination against millions of its citizens? Doesn't such discrimination have a negative effect on society?

And really, that's not much of a society if it's reduced to mere numbers, and not ideas.

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?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, just to get my two cents in.:DL

The state has no place in marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. Whether you view it as a religious construct or a private contract or whatever, there is no reason the state should be involved, at least in the U.S.

I couldn't care less if someone wanted to marry a.... flowerpot, for example. Whatever "they" might call themselves, they'd still be an idiot and a flowerpot. As long as I don't have to care, it's fine by me.

Where I do draw the line is adoption by gay couples. As much as I might love the idea of lesbians churning out bi-curious young women:D, homosexual parents are not a part of normal child development. Seriously, who wants to be the adopted kid with the gay parents? I can pretty much guarantee that if you were a guy, you'd get your ass beat every day on the playground. How much good would that do for your development?Adopted children face enough potential issues without having even wierder parents than normal.

---------------

The other big issue I have with state intervention in homosexual partnerships is the social conservative assumption that homosexuality is a choice. There is some strong evidence that says that it is not, including examples of homosexuality in animals and links between that and pre-pubescent testosterone deficiency (in males, not sure about females).
Even if it was a choice, nobody has the right to make that choice for anyone.

As long as gay marriage (or any other kind of marriage) doesn't incur tax costs to me, and it doesn't force some kind of legal recognition by me, and it doesn't make life even more difficult for some poor kid, I have nothing against it. However, I reserve the right to call my friends, and certain male family members "fags", or any derivative thereof, in a derogatory but jesting manner.

:salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird nailed it - there should be no discrimination of gays, but it should not be placed on an equal level as a family in the classic sense.

However - there is a more important question here - why is the STATE (used as a catchall term for government) being involved in what is a religious activity anyway?

Marriage is a religious term - the State has inserted itself into a realm it has no business in to start with. If 2 gays want to live together - thats their business. If they want to set up a civil contract to formalize that - ok fine. The governments have equated "marriage" to be a governmentally controlled civil contract - and thats not what it truly is.

I have no issues with "civil unions" between same sex couples. They have every right to merge in a legal sense as anyone else.

Now - proper behavior in public is another issue - but what they choose to do with their stuff, their lives, in their house - is not my business. But it ain't a marraige. Its a civil contract.

Edit - Dangit Undersea beat me too it!

[XabbaRus]

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


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

[Frame57]

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....:rock:

[Frame57]

:haha: 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]

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]

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. :salute:

[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 :D

[Skybird]

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]

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]

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. :03:

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]

I think you might have a tough time getting an orphaned infant to express their preference. :03:


You smartass:DL

Fine, we'll offer a test like this one:rotfl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OkcucXIuVI

[Contact]

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.

[Contact]

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.

Of course I think its icky, cause it's against the nature. And God gave bigger brains to human just to separate them from animals (if somebody wishes to find similiarities in same sex occurances in nature) What kind of twisted love can be in gay or lesbian couples and what example of it they will show to their adopted kids ? The one which they propagate - love to perverntess.

[McBeck]

Of course I think its icky, cause it's against the nature. And God gave bigger brains to human just to separate them from animals (if somebody wishes to find similiarities in same sex occurances in nature) What kind of twisted love can be in gay or lesbian couples and what example of it they will show to their adopted kids ? The one which they propagate - love to perverntess.
So your concern is for the kids?

Please refer to any study, evidence or anything that suggests that the will be harmed by being raised by gay couples.

Otherwise its just your opinion and not the fact you have stated.

[Contact]

This is all about my opinion expression. I did not said it has to be a fact. If anyone of you wants to be a gaylover fine, it's your bloody call.

But I think gays create a gay proned environment for a child and that is why it can be a risk for kid which is adopted by gays. I will not start to look for any proofs of it. Cause it's surely enough for me to have my own opinion which is not builted by "modern attitudes".

What goes for a society where same-sex marriage is allowed ? I don't see any point to be proud of that. It's all about this so called "modern attitude" which I believe those who belong to sex minority came up with this term searching for a gap to infiltrate their pervertness into clean society.

Is it really so on earth, the more we tolerate the more it makes us better persons ? I think tolerance might have reached it's ceiling and now turning it's dark side on those who overuses it.


P.S. I did mentioned it was my final words on this thread right ? Since I have nothing more to add I'll leave it as it is. :down:

[Skybird]

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.

No. Principally speaking, the choice is between gay parents and hetero parents. Are you aware of how many desperate hetero couples try to adopt children? I do not have precise numbers right now, but I do know for sure that is is damn many - numbers increasing, I know that from former colleagues in Berlin, who work in social jobs, burt I also read it occasionally, and it is reported oin TV as well occasionally. Infertility is spreading amongst humans. Reproduction medicine therefore is kind of "booming".

As for Conatct's fear of gay parent'S creating a gay environment for kids, that is a risk, but I would not say it is a general rule with every gay couple. But two unpleasant facts must be remembered. Gay organisations are oncredibly loud to demand more gay-friendliness in society, anf there are even those whomdemand that society should give juvbeniles "gay-years" when they should experience gay/lesbian experiences and then they should make a choice. That way, an exception from the biological rule of how our species is designed to function and to reproduce is turned into a norm that is claimed to be equal to the norm itself: heterosecuality, and of course it is demanded to see homosexuality as previous and vital a cultural nd communal function for the survival of a people. This is just total BS, and I even would say it is in parts a criminal agenda. It reminds me of pedophiles demanding a right to have sexual contacts with young kids for they claim a right for satiasfaction of themsleves and call it usually the tender, special feelings of theirs. At this point I stop to discuss and start distributing kicks and beatings.

[Biggles]

Concerning adoption, shouldn't it be focused on the parents abilities as humans (work, health, crime-record) rather than their sexuality?

[Skybird]

Concerning adoption, shouldn't it be focused on the parents abilities as humans (work, health, crime-record) rather than their sexuality?
As I said repeatedly, it is about social role-modelling, and there are subtle difference between how a mother and a father approaches themes in the outside-of-family life, or when interacting with their son or daughter. Regarding the factors you mentioned, these get taken into account by deciding committees anyway. ;)

I do not ujnderstnad this social drive of the past years to make it appear as if a homosxual man equals a heterosexual mother, or a lesbian women is the same like a heterosexual father. Neither socially nor psyhcologically, this is true.

Have you guys never heared than men and women are different? there shall not be discriminati0on towards the one or the other, although unfortunately rthere is a lot of open discirmination of individual women and hidden discrimination against men, collectively. But to say that there shall not be discrimination is not the same like saying both are equal.Both are obviously NOT equal, not only in physical features, but also by psychiological, mental, emotional design and social interaction.

It also is about social role modelling of families themsleves. There is absolutely no need for social comunities and civilisations, to adapt artificially created homosexual families with "foreign" children" as a social communal scheme equal to that of self-emerging heterosexual family constellations that can secure the community'S biological survival without any artificial intervention or crook-constructions from the outside.

Mankind, like all mammals, is a heterosexual species, and homosexuality is an abberation from this design that happens to be such that we can afford to tolerate and must not discriminate against. But we certainly must not distort it and try to push it to a status and give it a presumed importance that makes it equal in value to the institution that just came as a result of man'S normal biologicl heterosexuality: families as social core-cells and fundament of human societies.

the only exception to this that comes to my mind are some very rare primitive societies, as well as a minority in China and Iceland, when the traditonal man-womean-children structure gets dissolved, children are being taken care of by all adult members of society, and not necessarly refer two one certain couple as their parents excluisvely. But even here, you have no homosexual couples explicitly replacing hetereosexual couples in their function as "reference-parents". On Iceland, there are many mothers raising their children without father and marriage. In China, this minority (I just don'T recall their name) I refer to, is a matriarchat, kind off. And in primitive societies, all the tribe is taking care of all children together, like in the communist ideal collective.

Let'S leave homosexuality as what it is: nothing we must discriminate, but alos nothing that we must see as more and more precious than what it is: a biological dead-.end, and an aberration from a norm in the design of a given species. Seen that way, homosexuals indeed are not equals (in the meaning of: they are not the same like the norm: heterosexuals). that it appears in many mammals species frequently, does not mean that it is any more precious and respectable than let's say an Albino. we also must not discriminate Albinos, but to redesign our life, culture and social community on the basis of any special needs of Albinos, simply would be stupid, and not justified. and it would become even insane if we do so by pulling back vital interests that secure survival of the community.

Again, I am not about discirminating gyas, but I also refuse to give them any special rights that lead beyond what they are, and that come at the cost of damaging even further the one institution that has suffered already so incrdibly much in the industrial world, and is so very vital for our civilisational survival: families. the idea of families already has been damaged so verymuch in the past 150 years or so, that I am raising a fight over anything damaging it even further now. that includes "social" political agendas that rip them apart even earlier in childhood, but that also includes the idea of homosexuals being the same social role-model like mothers and fathers. If they would be the same role-model indeed - they would be heterosexuals, then. ;)

[joea]

I have to say that my view fits with Skybird's 100%. I don't see why we can't treat homosexual couples just like common-law couples as these laws are already on the books and do not need a redefinition of the family.

[joea]

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

:har:

P.S. That skank Lindsay Lohan doesn't count, she apparently has jumped back on the other side.

P.S.S. Although I'll admit Jodie Foster doesn't look too bad...:hmmm:

[Rilder]

I wonder how much I'd provoke Contact if I pretended to be Gay. :rotfl:

Also fully support gays having completely equal rights, its just sex after all nothing wrong with it.

[antikristuseke]

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

Quite a few actualy, but as I stated earlyer, lesbians are a waste of time, look for the hot bisexuals ;)

Of course I think its icky, cause it's against the nature. And God gave bigger brains to human just to separate them from animals (if somebody wishes to find similiarities in same sex occurances in nature) What kind of twisted love can be in gay or lesbian couples and what example of it they will show to their adopted kids ? The one which they propagate - love to perverntess.

1) It is not against nature as it is occuring for natural causes.
2) There is no evidence for the existance of any god, but this is a discussion for a whole nother thread, or if you want you can PM me.
3) Gay couples of both sexes, at least the ones I know, are no more open in displays of sexuality than your average heterosexuals are, therefore the fear of exposure to perverse love, as you claim, is no more of a threat than it would be for a child adopted by straight people.

[FIREWALL]

Peer pressure. The children's school life will be living hell.

Even the nerds and geeks will look down on them.


In Sweden a Proctoligist must be making a killing. :haha:

[Dowly]

P.S.S. Although I'll admit Jodie Foster doesn't look too bad...:hmmm:

Wait wait wait wait, Jodie Foster is a lesbian?? :o PICS PLZ!!!

[XabbaRus]

Yea for ages. Why is that your dreams shattered?

I read rumour that Kiera likes the girls too....

Syaing that as an ex of mine said bisexuals are just greedy.

[Dowly]

Why is that your dreams shattered?


Yup, gonna cry myself to sleep tonight.

[Aramike]

I have to say that my view fits with Skybird's 100%. I don't see why we can't treat homosexual couples just like common-law couples as these laws are already on the books and do not need a redefinition of the family.I hate to say it, but I agree with Skybird too.

[OneToughHerring]

I wonder how much I'd provoke Contact if I pretended to be Gay. :rotfl:

Why don't you go over to Lithuania and do just that. And don't just settle with provoking Contact, go ahead and provoke everyone who might have a problem with gays over there. Also make a big deal out of the fact that you are an American. That way you might get an even better reaction. :cool:

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by XabbaRus http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1095232#post1095232)
And how many hot lesbian chicks have you seen outside of porn films?


Quite a few actualy, but as I stated earlyer, lesbians are a waste of time, look for the hot bisexuals ;)



Now hold it right there. What if the hot bisexual lesbian suggests she brings over one of her friends? What are you thinking? Yeah man, two hot chick and bi-sexual. She arrives to your humble abode with a dude:o Something is not adding up here:har:

Really, homosexual/same sex unions, whatevery you would like to call it, are no big deal. Let them enjoy life like anyone else. Enjoy the benefits of a civil union and be a productive member of society. As far as adoption, why not? I see more good in a stable home then being taken from foster home to foster home.

[Tribesman]

Is Contact really Ted Haggard ?
The rants seem to match

[Frame57]

I love you Skybird.....Uh, not in that way......:oops:

[Max2147]

I wonder how much I'd provoke Contact if I pretended to be Gay. :rotfl:
It would probably go like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iXbWsO4ik

The good bit starts about 2 minutes in.

[Contact]

Why should you pretend ? take this test and check yourself: http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_stereotypically_gay_are_you

maybe you already are one :stare:

[Contact]

Why don't you go over to Lithuania and do just that. And don't just settle with provoking Contact, go ahead and provoke everyone who might have a problem with gays over there. Also make a big deal out of the fact that you are an American. That way you might get an even better reaction. :cool:

Sorry, I'm not following you on this. What's a big deal about being American ? :haha: You can come to Lithuania yourself and start spreading gay policy here, and I even may pay a visit to see you at hospital later after that :haha:

[antikristuseke]

Now hold it right there. What if the hot bisexual lesbian suggests she brings over one of her friends? What are you thinking? Yeah man, two hot chick and bi-sexual. She arrives to your humble abode with a dude:o Something is not adding up here:har:


Well, thats exactly the point, if there was a hot lesbian couple they would not let you join in the fun, at best you could watch. But two hot bisexual girls would get you the eye candy and use your imagination here.

[Platapus]

I have to say that my view fits with Skybird's 100%. I don't see why we can't treat homosexual couples just like common-law couples as these laws are already on the books and do not need a redefinition of the family.


Not every State in the US had common-law marriages and not all the states that do have the same rules for common-law marriages.

[HunterICX]

Why should you pretend ? take this test and check yourself: http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_stereotypically_gay_are_you

maybe you already are one :stare:

Sorry, I'm not following you on this. What's a big deal about being American ? :haha: You can come to Lithuania yourself and start spreading gay policy here, and I even may pay a visit to see you at hospital later after that :haha:

:roll:

previous page:


P.S. I did mentioned it was my final words on this thread right ? Since I have nothing more to add I'll leave it as it is. :down:

you certainly aint the one keeping his word.

HunterICX

[Contact]

Oookay.. So I gave a word. I'm not looking to this thread no more.
Finito lia Comedia! :)

[OneToughHerring]

Sorry, I'm not following you on this. What's a big deal about being American ? :haha: You can come to Lithuania yourself and start spreading gay policy here, and I even may pay a visit to see you at hospital later after that :haha:

From what I know there is plenty of anti-American sentiments in Lithuania as well. I'm sure with time even you will learn to hate the gay-lovin' Americans. :)

But the hospital-part we agree on. Don't worry, I won't visit your ****** country even if you paid me.

[Tribesman]

As it appears that the ladyboy doth protest too much is it time Contact crawled out of the closet ?

[Contact]

From what I know there is plenty of anti-American sentiments in Lithuania as well. I'm sure with time even you will learn to hate the gay-lovin' Americans. :)

But the hospital-part we agree on. Don't worry, I won't visit your ****** country even if you paid me.


What do you mean by anti-american sentiments ?

The gay is a gay who cares what nationality he has.

Yeah I hate gays and I hate gay-lovers! If you wanted to hear it from me again. Copy paste it and save this to you pc next time you wanna hook on me or my country something. Now if you would be so kind please piss off and have a nice day cabron.

[Skybird]

Caution your words.

Now if you would be so kind please piss off and have a nice day cabron.

The first mod seeing this will have something to say on it I'm sure.

Maybe the appropriate time to get this thing shut down.

[Contact]

I think those who wanted to speak up their minds have already done so including myself, now it's getting into personal level. I coud stop BS around if I wouldn't feel provoked to cary on :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Come on guys, neutral corners. There are a plethora of other threads to view and enjoy. Way continue this conversation at all?

[Morts]

I think those who wanted to speak up their minds have already done so including myself, now it's getting into personal level. I coud stop BS around if I wouldn't feel provoked to cary on :)
so it wasnt on a personal level when you called me a pervert and gay ?
i see

[Contact]

so it wasnt on a personal level when you called me a pervert and gay ?
i see

It were compliments to you :) I saw you liked that btw :)

[Morts]

It were compliments to you :) I saw you liked that btw :)
:rotfl::rotfl:
yea, right

[AVGWarhawk]

OK, the choice is yours. Although the SubSim Administrator is not here to shut this down, brig time is something we (moderators) can impose. From the looks of it the SubSim Admin will be away for 2 weeks. Does anyone care to take two weeks off until the Subsim Admin can decide what to do? Up to you. :up:

[Contact]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Morts is going to the gaol :haha:

[August]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Morts is going to the gaol :haha:

I don't think it's Morts they are talking about...

[AVGWarhawk]

Contact bought the farm. Anyone else want in on the action? :D

[Biggles]

I feel I deserve a real kick in the bum for starting a thread like this...:rolleyes:

[Frame57]

Just don't drop the soap while you are in the brig.....:haha:

[Biggles]

Just don't drop the soap while you are in the brig.....:haha:

I lol'd, although I shouldn't.

[AVGWarhawk]

I feel I deserve a real kick in the bum for starting a thread like this...:rolleyes:

GT is full of controversial issues. Some more than others. It all depends on how far some want to take them. :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

Just don't drop the soap while you are in the brig.....:haha:

Two wrongs do not make a right. :nope:

[OneToughHerring]

About the issue itself I might say that Sweden has a tendency to put on this act that it is the most conscious and moral country in the world. There is nothing about this that a future Swedish right-wing government couldn't overrule. But it's important right now, when Sweden and it's friends need some kind of a moral mallet to hit countries like Iran with. Never mind that gay-bashings go on every day in countries like Sweden and US, at least they have gay marriage.

Edit. Well, the US has it in five states I think.

[Skybird]

AVGWarhawk,

:up:

[antikristuseke]

Wait, what?
Are you trying to say that gay marriage should not be allowed if gay bashign takes place in a country?
I hope I misunderstood your post.


edit: directed towards OneToughHering.

[Contact2]

They're sitting in the pub and celebrating my brig time.. Early bastards! too early! :arrgh!:

[Morts]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[antikristuseke]

oh wow...:o

[OneToughHerring]

Wait, what?
Are you trying to say that gay marriage should not be allowed if gay bashign takes place in a country?
I hope I misunderstood your post.


edit: directed towards OneToughHering.

No I meant what I wrote, that they can make gay marriage legal in Sweden now and then make it illegal later at their wish. You think that things like this aren't done in politics? Or that laws etc. can't be changed later? And that there are gay bashings in Sweden and US meaning that they are not necessarily safe places for gay people either after all. Allowing gay marriages doesn't automatically remove all anti-gay feelings from a society.

But looks like this thread has become a humour thread. Which is ok too. :)

[Onkel Neal]

They're sitting in the pub and celebrating my brig time.. Early bastards! too early! :arrgh!:

Really?

[antikristuseke]

Your first post was just a unclear to me, thanks for the explanation.
Cant really argue with you here, but allowing something is a small step closer to t being accepted by society, though I am fairly sure anti gay feeling will not be anywhere in a long time. But they might become more of a fringe thing than the norm.

[FIREWALL]

They're sitting in the pub and celebrating my brig time.. Early bastards! too early! :arrgh!:

What the hell did you do now. :haha:

You don't even rate an Avatar now. :har:

Oh Contact ... Chill for awhile my friend. :yep:

[Rilder]

I wonder how someone could get that homophobic... What did a bunch of gay guys beat him up as a kid?

I realize he was probably just a troll from 4chan but still, its people like that who started things like the Whole middle ages "Anybody who isn't christian dies" thing, Crusades, and even the Holocaust.

This is not medieval Europe, thinking somebody a lower life-form because he doesn't share your beliefs, race, or Sexuality is not cool.

[UnderseaLcpl]

No.... Contact is not just a troll. Imo, neither are some of our other more vociferous and occasionally abrasive members here on subsim. They just have strong beliefs on certain issues. While that does not excuse insults and the like, it doesn't make them trolls.

There are probably some legitmate socio-political or possibly religous reasons for claiming to "hate gays and gay-lovers"........or at least....perhaps...uh......hmmmmmm.....it's hard to put a positive spin on this.......I guess it is free speech, after all, and that's good....:hmmm:

Well forget that, the point is that while Contact may feel strongly enough about certain issues to let his emotions get the better of him and post some offensive personal attacks, I think he deserves a reprieve from the brig. Censoring his opinions from the GT forum isn't going to encourage him to consider others' opinions, and those who disagreed with him could have done just a bit more to present their views in a less antagonistic fashion.

I move to release Contact from the brig, provided that he agrees to be more amicable in the future. There are a lot of subsimmers here on the GT forum, with a lot of different opinons to express and debate. As long as such discussion is conducted in a civil fashion, which I believe Contact will agree to henceforth, we can only lose from the censorship of a member.
Even when many of us do not agree with his opinions on gay unions, and may never, I'm sure he has other valuable input that we might consider.

Release Contact!!!!

[Max2147]

His earlier term in the brig and subsequent release didn't cause him to become any more civil.

[UnderseaLcpl]

His earlier term in the brig and subsequent release didn't cause him to become any more civil.
Oh, he's a prior offender?

[XabbaRus]

Tha'ts right if you look at his user name he has a list of infractions. The last one was for him making a new username to respond with another insulting post.

[Max2147]

Oh, he's a prior offender?
When I first looked in this thread, he was already in the brig. He came back and posted some more, then got sent back to the brig. Then he created another username and posted under that while he was in the brig!

Normally I'm against shutting people up like this, but this is a bit different.

[Tribesman]

I wonder how someone could get that homophobic...
Quite often that level of vocal homophobia is a sign that the"homophobe" is really rather partial to back door deliveries themselves but likes to hide it .

[Skybird]

As long as such discussion is conducted in a civil fashion, which I believe Contact will

It is no censorship of opinion that took place. It is sanctioning of absolutely unacceptable wording, and thus: bad behavior. We two also disagree on a lot of things, Lance - but I remember we always stayed polite, even friendly. some of what Contact fired, was absolutely unacceptable, and intentionally provocative for the sake of being provocative, even beyond the content of the thread.

[OneToughHerring]

Your first post was just a unclear to me, thanks for the explanation.
Cant really argue with you here, but allowing something is a small step closer to t being accepted by society, though I am fairly sure anti gay feeling will not be anywhere in a long time. But they might become more of a fringe thing than the norm.

Yea could be, I'm a little more cynical when it comes to politics in general and governments that are asking for applauds for doing the 'morally right thing'.

I remember reading an advice to gay people who are going to the Baltic countries not to walk hand in hand in public places or they could face open hostility. So I don't think it's just Contact who is at fault here, it's a question of the whole country and maybe much of Eastern Europe still having not adapted to the western 'morals'. To make clear I'm not anti-gay but I also know that the whole gay-issue can be used for other political reasons.

[Aramike]

Yea could be, I'm a little more cynical when it comes to politics in general and governments that are asking for applauds for doing the 'morally right thing'.

I remember reading an advice to gay people who are going to the Baltic countries not to walk hand in hand in public places or they could face open hostility. So I don't think it's just Contact who is at fault here, it's a question of the whole country and maybe much of Eastern Europe still having not adapted to the western 'morals'. To make clear I'm not anti-gay but I also know that the whole gay-issue can be used for other political reasons.Morality has little to do with it. DNA and genetics makes human homosexuality an aberration. It is no suprise that a large portion of the population rejects the gay disposition, as it is counter-intuitive to what is neccessary for our race to survive.

[XabbaRus]

Much of eastern europe and Russia is, if not homophobic not very receptive.

The ironic thing in Russia at least is that there are a number of very high profile gay people who are loved as entertainers there sexuality not coming into it.

For example every year in Moscow they try to organise a gay pride march, every year it is officially banned and every year they march without a permit and the result is predictable. What I don't understand is why the gay pride people insist on marching in countries which are not as tolerant as in western europe (though I'm not so sure on this one) such as in Moscow. They know what will happen to them and in my opinion marching won't make Russians any more tolerant. In fact when I was over there the majority of people I spoke with were of the opinion that they didn't care if someone was gay, but why do they have to shout about it.

[saltysplash]

It is my firm belief that it is in fact an illness brought on by the stresses of modern society. .


Would the much documented Homosexuals of the ancient world also have suffered this illness brought on by the stresses of their modern society?

[August]

Would the much documented Homosexuals of the ancient world also have suffered this illness brought on by the stresses of their modern society?

Not that I buy into the theory but the ancient world had it's stresses as well, including overpopulation which seems to be the cause of homosexuality in the animal world.

[Tribesman]

What I don't understand is why the gay pride people insist on marching in countries which are not as tolerant as in western europe
Since those marches started out as protests where the western countries were not tolerant of poofs can you think of any better place for them to march nowadays than countries that are still very intolerant .

[Letum]

overpopulation [...] seems to be the cause of homosexuality in the animal world.

I have not heard about that. Can you explain?

[August]

I have not heard about that. Can you explain?

I read an article on it some years back. Apparently homosexuality may be natures way of limiting species populations. It seems reasonable since it accommodates biological urges without increasing population.

[Letum]

Why would nature limit population?
Genes are selfish. They never do anything because it is good for the
species, only ever because it it good for the gene. If they happen to do
anything for the good of the species, it is only because it is also good for
the individual gene.

[August]

Why would nature limit population?
Genes are selfish. They never do anything because it is good for the
species, only ever because it it good for the gene. If they happen to do
anything for the good of the species, it is only because it is also good for
the individual gene.

Maybe we don't understand how genes operate as well as we think we do.

[saltysplash]

Not that I buy into the theory but the ancient world had it's stresses as well, including overpopulation which seems to be the cause of homosexuality in the animal world.


The point I was making was, if homosexuality is to be described as an illness then it been around for a hell of a long time. In fact contrary to modern popular thinking, in certain civilisations such as in ancient Greece, it was the norm rather than something abhorant. if the writers of the scriptures are to be believed its been going on since men with big grey beards roamed the earth stroking their beards and looking for god inside bushes on fire.

Not sure Alexander was too concerned with over population

[Biggles]

Maybe we don't understand how genes operate as well as we think we do.

It's plausible, but we can't know for sure if it's a realistic thought until we know if we think wrong about genes or not.:O:

[August]

Not sure Alexander was too concerned with over population


Of course they were. Why else the constant wars of conquest if not to make room for expansion?

[XabbaRus]

Since those marches started out as protests where the western countries were not tolerant of poofs can you think of any better place for them to march nowadays than countries that are still very intolerant .

I can't remember back as far as the first gay pride marches but (and correct me if I am wrong) but I dn't know if the marchers got beaten up by the coppers and bystanders nearly as much.

Although Luzhkov in Moscow is a large penis they mainly ban the marches for the safety of the marchers.

Like anything I don't care if someone is gay, bisexual or whatever but I don't like having it rammed down my throat (pardon the expression) which is what irritates me with the militant gays just like the militant eco freaks.

[AVGWarhawk]

The point I was making was, if homosexuality is to be described as an illness then it been around for a hell of a long time. In fact contrary to modern popular thinking, in certain civilisations such as in ancient Greece, it was the norm rather than something abhorant. if the writers of the scriptures are to be believed its been going on since men with big grey beards roamed the earth stroking their beards and looking for god inside bushes on fire.

Not sure Alexander was too concerned with over population

Salty,

You lost me on the last line concerning the 'writer of the scriptures'.

[Aramike]

The point I was making was, if homosexuality is to be described as an illness then it been around for a hell of a long time. In fact contrary to modern popular thinking, in certain civilisations such as in ancient Greece, it was the norm rather than something abhorant. if the writers of the scriptures are to be believed its been going on since men with big grey beards roamed the earth stroking their beards and looking for god inside bushes on fire.

Not sure Alexander was too concerned with over populationWithout any more than anecdotal evidence, one could just as easily say that the Grecian tendencies towards homosexuality are nuture over nature, as the trend wasn't as prevailent in other societies.

[Max2147]

Of course they were. Why else the constant wars of conquest if not to make room for expansion?
Because it's fun?

[AVGWarhawk]

Without any more than anecdotal evidence, one could just as easily say that the Grecian tendencies towards homosexuality are nuture over nature, as the trend wasn't as prevailent in other societies.


I would agree with this logic.

[Rilder]

Without any more than anecdotal evidence, one could just as easily say that the Grecian tendencies towards homosexuality are nuture over nature, as the trend wasn't as prevailent in other societies.


I believe it is nurture over nature in Greeces case, marriages back then (as far as I know) were more "Business Deals" between two families (Yes Christians, contrary to popular belief You didn't invent marriage!) And weren't that much about love, and when your in the army spending a lot of time away from women, well relationships can sort of spark...

Though I haven't really studied this.:88)

[Henry Wood]

I came across this thread by I don't know how ????

I'll be honest, I never followed all of the back-and-forward arguments 'cos I heard them all before over many, many years.

All I would say is, I am now exceedingly old and I am gay. I am coming towards the end of my life and whoever thinks this way of life is a "choice" is an ignoramus of the 1st degree. Does any single person who has a single brain cell imagine for one moment that at the age of 12 (for that is when I realised I was gay) at the age of 12 I said: "Oh, I want to be gay!" I could no more choose to be not gay than anyone else could decide how to live their life. All that happened is I realised I was attracted to the male of the species and not the female. It was no big deal, even in those days. I accepted it, except of course, I knew I most certainly had to keep it to myself. That came naturally. I could not discuss it with my parents, nor with my two brothers, nor my two sisters, and certainly not with any of my friends from those days.

I went to sea. I then had to be even more careful that I never, ever exhibited any "tendencies" and I must have been succesful as I did manage to rise to some degree of authority. I have never forgotten how powerless that authority really was when I received a signal from shore saying a certain junior officer had to be placed under arrest and to await the arrival of the "authorities" who would remove him from my ship.

His crime?

His flat had been broken into... His neighbours had informed the police... The police had entered the premises to "secure it"...

During their "securing" of the premises they happened to come across some copies of a magazine called "Gay Times". The investigating officer felt obliged to mention this to the naval authorities when he was asking them to inform the junior officer that his flat had been burgled.

I have never felt so helpless, nor so physically sick in my life at being unable to help that young man. I regret it to this day and it weighs heavy on me.

At the same time, to finish up, it is my own opinion that such things as gay adoption should not happen. Children are cruel. They pick on the "outsider". Apart from that, facts show that gay relationships do not last when compared to hetero relationships and the number of succesful relationships of all kinds is rapidly decreasing year on year.

Yes, I am gay.

No, I do not agree with "official gay marriages" and the like. In my day it was realised we were different, and we are! Why kid ourselves to want to be the same as *them*? We have never been the same as them from the very instant we accepted to ourselves just what we are. I put all of this present pressure for "acceptance/equality" down to bandwagon jumpers who are following the feminists' route. (Still, it seems to have done them alright, look at what Harriet HarPerson plans to do next in the UK with her "equality" laws.)

And as for "gay adoption" - definitely not! Think of the children!

All in all, I personally think the UK is buggered for want of a better word, but your mileage may vary.

[Platapus]

Henry Wood,

Thank you for sharing your insight in to this matter.

I hope the "passionate" discussions on this board did not offend or bother you.

As I am want to remind our members in such threads; we do have gay members on this board, and we should be considerate of their feelings while "discussing" different viewpoints.

[XabbaRus]

Well said Henry, I can't agree with you more.

[Aramike]

I am coming towards the end of my life and whoever thinks this way of life is a "choice" is an ignoramus of the 1st degree. I think it is ignorant to believe that there aren't people who make the choice as well as people genetically predisposed.

[Aramike]

As I am want to remind our members in such threads; we do have gay members on this board, and we should be considerate of their feelings while "discussing" different viewpoints. I don't disagree with this. However, I do find it odd that no one mentions extending this courtesy to, say, Christians.

I'm just making a social statement here.

[Henry Wood]

Henry Wood,

Thank you for sharing your insight in to this matter.

I hope the "passionate" discussions on this board did not offend or bother you.

As I am want to remind our members in such threads; we do have gay members on this board, and we should be considerate of their feelings while "discussing" different viewpoints.

Hi Platapus,
No offence will ever be taken by me. I am what I am and any person who cannot accept that must look to themselves.

I used to enjoy such discussions, but after a lifetime of them, and not much has changed, oh well ...

My own thoughts are perhaps some of the virulent/violent points of view we sometimes see today are expressions of some peoples' insecurities when a very different point of view is presented before them. And in years gone by, those different points of view were never, ever allowed to be presented.

[Henry Wood]

Not sure Alexander was too concerned with over population

LOL! At school Alexander was a great comfort to me.

[Henry Wood]

Quite often that level of vocal homophobia is a sign that the"homophobe" is really rather partial to back door deliveries themselves but likes to hide it .

After observing examples of such "vocal homophobia" in both the lower deck and the wardroom I have to agree with you.

(BTW, in the wardroom it was much more difficult to decipher the signs - the raised eyebrow might not only mean, "Steady on, old chap!" - it might also imply the Cowardesque, "Come up and see me sometime, just after my ship has sunk ... "
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034891/
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Skybird]

Henry,

no matter what some people may say, g(u/a)ys of a mind like yours surely are not the problem here. :up:

[Henry Wood]

I don't disagree with this. However, I do find it odd that no one mentions extending this courtesy to, say, Christians.

I'm just making a social statement here.

I agree with you 200% as I was baptised a Christian myself and though no longer practising I most very often feel that the basics of my country, i.e. laws based on the Judeo/Christian ethos which have served us very well over many centuries are now being abandoned wholesale. The "rules" being put in their place are neither as fair or just. "Rules" are being created to cope with every little "group" that some self-interested person/party has a need to promote.

This was not the way Britain was ruled before. We respected minorities but they also had a duty to conform to the laws of the majority in the land they had chosen to settle in. Nowadays laws seem to be being brought in with some settlers.

I'm glad I'll soon be off out of it.

[Henry Wood]

Henry,

no matter what some people may say, g(u/a)ys of a mind like yours surely are not the problem here. :up:

Hi Skybird,
As I said when I started my input, this argument will always go on and on even long after we all now present on these boards are long gone.

The argument is older than any of us and will go on to the end of time because we (like me!) will always be here. It has never, ever changed throughout history, and just because some people want certain things to be more accepted, I do not see very much changing now.

Personally, as I have said, and I repeat, I do wish some "progressives" would stop trying to push out the boundaries. A great many of us - and not just of my age group - would prefer that things were allowed to "settle" for a few years, let's stop all this confrontation.

But no, the struggle must go on ...

[Carotio]

Late comer to this thead, I had to add a few words too.

My country, Denmark, was if not the first, then one of the first countries to allow registred partnerships for homosexuals.
And discussions whether to allow marriage in churches, adoption or even insemination of lesbian couples are also on the agenda.

I'm all for the natural legal rights, and I don't mind homosexual couples or singles at all - as long as they don't hit on me... :haha: I have actually once had to kindly decline an offer... :har:

But when it comes to marriage in churches - then I ask myself why? Okay, if they want and if a priest is willing to do so, then okay. But there's a paradoxe in this matter, since most religions are against homosexual marriage, so why even bother? Is it for the ceremony? Then ask a person from the local authorities to attend a ceremony in private surroundings such as a garden, a beach or whatever. And then again, what do I care... I never visit the churches anyway... except as tourist...

Adoption - well, they might may well be loving personalities, and inside their own four walls, they may have a nice family life, but children are cruel to eachother, and these children will be target for teasing. Besides, I have seen interviews with children from homosexual couples' families, and they did find it somehow odd to have either two mums or two dads. In most cases, it was two mums, and the boys really missed a dad to go out and do "man stuff" such as playing football or the like. So IMHO, I think the homosexual couples should just settle for a dog instead, and give their love to that instead.

Insemination of lesbians - NO WAY ever. At least, not at the cost of society. Two women can by definition of nature not have children in the natural way, and as such, they are not entitled to have the same right as hetero couples, who by definition of nature should be able to have children the natural way, but for an unlucky circomstance one of them can't without help. Plus the same reason as allready written for adoption.

My words on that matter.

I may oppose some demands of homosexual couples, but not their right to coexist around the rest of us. And for sure, I would never even dream about beating anyone up because of that. I'm amazed about the frequency of previous statements like that before action was made. It's an interesting paradoxe that such intolerance was treated with an extended tolerance.

[Henry Wood]

I think it is ignorant to believe that there aren't people who make the choice as well as people genetically predisposed.

I just came across this post.

Hey Aramike, do you truly believe there are people who make the choice to be gay, as in they turn around one day and say:

"OK! I'm Aramoke! I'm a gayboi!"

Then what do THEY do?

Obviously you are speaking from knowledge, so please enlighten us?

When did you make your choice, Aramike?

Were you happy with your choice, Aramike?

Come on, Aramike, you know much different to what I have claimed for you have disputed my thoughts.

So, OK, Aramike:

PPOSTFU! Or I could make it more polite, don't sit on the pot ,,,,

Just where do *you* get your opinion that some gay people do choose to be that way?

ARE YOU TALKING FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?

[Henry Wood]

Late comer to this thead, I had to add a few words too.

My country, Denmark, was if not the first, then one of the first countries to allow registred partnerships for homosexuals.
And discussions whether to allow marriage in churches, adoption or even insemination of lesbian couples are also on the agenda.

I'm all for the natural legal rights, and I don't mind homosexual couples or singles at all - as long as they don't hit on me... :haha: I have actually once had to kindly decline an offer... :har:

But when it comes to marriage in churches - then I ask myself why? Okay, if they want and if a priest is willing to do so, then okay. But there's a paradoxe in this matter, since most religions are against homosexual marriage, so why even bother? Is it for the ceremony? Then ask a person from the local authorities to attend a ceremony in private surroundings such as a garden, a beach or whatever. And then again, what do I care... I never visit the churches anyway... except as tourist...

Adoption - well, they might may well be loving personalities, and inside their own four walls, they may have a nice family life, but children are cruel to eachother, and these children will be target for teasing. Besides, I have seen interviews with children from homosexual couples' families, and they did find it somehow odd to have either two mums or two dads. In most cases, it was two mums, and the boys really missed a dad to go out and do "man stuff" such as playing football or the like. So IMHO, I think the homosexual couples should just settle for a dog instead, and give their love to that instead.

Insemination of lesbians - NO WAY ever. At least, not at the cost of society. Two women can by definition of nature not have children in the natural way, and as such, they are not entitled to have the same right as hetero couples, who by definition of nature should be able to have children the natural way, but for an unlucky circomstance one of them can't without help. Plus the same reason as allready written for adoption.

My words on that matter.

I may oppose some demands of homosexual couples, but not their right to coexist around the rest of us. And for sure, I would never even dream about beating anyone up because of that. I'm amazed about the frequency of previous statements like that before action was made. It's an interesting paradoxe that such intolerance was treated with an extended tolerance.

I remember years and years ago when all of us in the "Underground" (before they changed the laws) said, Oh, we must move to Denmark! LOL!

As a gay man, I agree with every single word you say, and I go further and say any gay man who does not agree with your summary is maybe a deviant who needs to be watched.

I never, ever heard these stupid demands for the "right to have a family" etc., until the brazen feminist demands took hold, then these demands seem to spread out everywhere and to every Tom, Dick, Harry, Joan or Jane who wants to jump on board.

"Oooooohhhh! I want to have a child!"
"Why can't I have a child?"
"We must change the law so I can have a child!"

The main point I agree with you is for the sake of the children!

Their "friends" will be oh so cruel when they find out about Peter and his two daddies or Jane and her two mummies, and any silly, stupid, selfish gay couple who ignore this fact of life are not fit to be considered as caring adults.

[saltysplash]

Of course they were. Why else the constant wars of conquest if not to make room for expansion?


To feed the masses back home by way of tribute. Safeguarding borders, Military triumph and renown.

Expansion of the Empire is not to be confused with expansion due to over crowding.

Most Empires expanded for monetary gain and commercial reasons

[saltysplash]

Salty,

You lost me on the last line concerning the 'writer of the scriptures'.


The writers of the scriptures mention Homosexuality throughout the old and new testaments. which was in response that its an Illness brought on by Modern day stress.

[Skybird]

Whether it is a disease can be argued. While psychological stress of severe kind eventually can make a subject to "chose" homosexual partners although by hardware it is not homosexual, originally, and so can curiosity make people to experiment as well, the real, unavoidable homosexuality that the subject cannot escape, is hardcoded in the hardware, a genetical deviation from the biologcial norm of our species, and that norm is genetically encoded heterosexuality. Because you cannot change your metabolic functions and physiological chemistry by will and choice alone, but we know for sure that homosexual people "chemically" react to for example the smell of sweat (pheromones) of the same gender in the same way like heterosexuals react to pheromones of the other gender. And here we do not talk about habits anymore, but substantial basic chemical processes that get noted by the receiver, and to which he cannot help but to react, again chemically.

BTW, in North America homosexuality once was officially rated as a disease, and as such it was classified in the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual, DSM. For the revision of the 3rd version, DSM-IIIR, one followed the popular social pressure, and deleted it from it. That was one of the greatest and most spectacular successes of medicine ever: with just on stroke of the pencil, millions of ill patients got healed from their disease, from one second to the next. :DL

[August]

To feed the masses back home by way of tribute. Safeguarding borders, Military triumph and renown.

Expansion of the Empire is not to be confused with expansion due to over crowding.

Most Empires expanded for monetary gain and commercial reasons

"Commercial reasons" "Feeding the masses"; both ways of describing overpopulation. Armies and war have always been the best way of trimming the numbers of extra males in a population.

[saltysplash]

"Commercial reasons" "Feeding the masses"; both ways of describing overpopulation. Armies and war have always been the best way of trimming the numbers of extra males in a population.

Vanquished foes would send stuff and things to the victors by way of tribute such as grain as in the case of Rome.

There was no mass sending of citizens to the defeated lands in fact it was the opposite, Slaves were sent back to the homeland so I still dont buy the overpopulation thing

[OneToughHerring]

I've read that overpopulation in a, for example, a rat population leads to aggression. The rats start fighting and killing each other to bring the population down.

[saltysplash]

I've read that overpopulation in a, for example, a rat population leads to aggression. The rats start fighting and killing each other to bring the population down.


I can understand aggression but it certainly wouldnt encourage me to start snuggling up alongside my cohorts

[OneToughHerring]

Yea well, to equate gays with rats on any level to me seems like that ol' familiar technique that Goebbels & co. were so fond of in relation to the Jews.

[saltysplash]

Yea well, to equate gays with rats on any level to me seems like that ol' familiar technique that Goebbels & co. were so fond of in relation to the Jews.


Sorry, you lost me, who's equating gays with rats?

[OneToughHerring]

Sorry, you lost me, who's equating gays with rats?

Hopefully nobody. I guess August's tests were conducted with a human population.

[Frame57]

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

[antikristuseke]

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

Could you point me in the way of those peer reviewed papers, please?
(this is genuine curiosity, not sarcasm)

[porphy]

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

The history of comparing anatomical structures (brain or otherwise) between men and women do have some not so impressive credentials when it comes to the conclusions drawn. Within medicine, anatomy and physiology it wasn't that long ago women were looked upon as a less perfect or less developed form of man... a kind of abnormal creature.

If the brain scan results are valid, it could simply mean that this is quite a normal and frequent occurrence in the human species. If widespread it is a biological variation, or maybe the result of different hormonal exposure. Anyhow, the phenomenon (if it should be viewed as "the cause" of homosexual disposition) has obviously been part of human history for a very very long time. I would be careful with the word abnormal in this context, what does it mean here? That it's uncommon or that it's something faulty?

There are plenty of perfectly normal variations within biological species, that can't easily be classified as a disorder or disease. The way the human species propagates naturally involves and results in not fully clear cut divisions between male and female, so finding some traits that we connect to a "male" or "female" body or behaviour in a man is to be fully expected, not necessarily something abnormal in a strong sense.

Apart from that, sexual orientation and preferences are things which obviously are quite open to influences during life as well. Just have a look at what heterosexual males find possibly sexually interesting... It would be interesting to see how a try to trace every sexual behaviour back to, and explained through, biological factors present from birth, would fare. Probably not very convincing.
Oh, wait, that has already been tried in vain and with some pretty lame results since the birth of the clinic. ;)

cheers porphy

[Skybird]

Porphy,

I do not know about that amygdala thing, but if there is such a hardcoded abnormity, it would make sense. Somehow the switched polarity of reactions to biochemical signals as I tried to describe above, must have a hardcoded origin. The Amygdala (plural, it is two regions) have to do with emotions, fear, the subconsicous assessement of conflicts, threats and dangers, and feelings of pleasure, and sexual arousement.

And if such an abnormity correlates with different sexual orientation, then it is not just a cosmetic thing like different teint of people's skins, but a functional difference indeed, that in this case collides with the general design of survival mechanisms our species that depends on heterosexual reproduction. In Thailand you can find a significantly higher population of hermaphrodites that show both male and female sexual body characteristics. That does not make them a normality in our race. and if it is about "featuzres" that maybe even are man-made, like the proverbial brain-damaged hill-billies in a godforsaken region where a family clan practices incest since generations, it also does not make the imbecile a norm just because he exists.

I did not heared of differences in the amygdalas before, but I know that the chemcical differecnes in reaction patterns (homosexual men reacting to male pheromones like heterosexual men react to female pheromones) are real and a proven solid fact.

I think people here should listen more to what Henry said. I had two gay colleagues at university, too, and although I am not gay, we came along and formed a lose friendship easily, without problem. They said in general the same things , like Henry: "We are different to you, stop trying to make us as "normal" as you are, we are not. We are against gay marriage, for that is not what marriage and family is about. We hate gays and lesbian parading in the streets almost naked on Christopher street days, that is offensive to the cultural norms of our civilisation."

Normality is not acchieved by telling different people constantly how normal one considers them to be. Normality is in normal, unirritated action and deed, and not ignoring differences - but also not making a big thing of them, if that can be afforded.

[Frame57]

Info on Brain scans can be found at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and was also reported in World Science April 29th 2009.:salute:

[porphy]

Hi, some of my further thoughts on the subject. Not really meant to pick on you Skybird, but you will serve as my stalking horse at the moment. :)

I do not know about that amygdala thing, but if there is such a hardcoded abnormity, it would make sense. Somehow the switched polarity of reactions to biochemical signals as I tried to describe above, must have a hardcoded origin. The Amygdala (plural, it is two regions) have to do with emotions, fear, the subconsicous assessement of conflicts, threats and dangers, and feelings of pleasure, and sexual arousement.Sure, heterosexuality and homosexuality can be explained the same way, if one prefer to concentrate on the biology of sexuality.

And if such an abnormity correlates with different sexual orientation, then it is not just a cosmetic thing like different teint of people's skins, but a functional difference indeed, that in this case collides with the general design of survival mechanisms our species that depends on heterosexual reproduction.I'm not so sure biology teaches that being aroused by the same sex collides with the general survival mechanisms of our species. Of course if everyone did this, it would be true, but that is not the case. Fact is that homosexuality has been around a very long time without, for what it seems, colliding with the species survival. On the contrary, there have been people arguing that a genetic disposition like this must have been selected for as beneficial, through kin selection, and as such it even might be of importance for the species survival in a evolutionary perspective. Population genetics shows how genetic dispositions, which seems to contradict the passing on of the the individual genes, still can be explained as a result of natural selection. The classic example, although different from human reproduction and homosexuality, is the sterile ant workers. I'm not advocating that this is the case with human homosexuality, but just want to point out that biology can give a lot of different answers. In fact, it is my view, that almost any opinion about man and society can be dressed up in biological arguments, and that has already been done to a great extent if you look into the history of politics and biology. As such biology is not the final arbiter.

In Thailand you can find a significantly higher population of hermaphrodites that show both male and female sexual body characteristics. That does not make them a normality in our race. and if it is about "featuzres" that maybe even are man-made, like the proverbial brain-damaged hill-billies in a godforsaken region where a family clan practices incest since generations, it also does not make the imbecile a norm just because he exists.Of course not. But my point was that a lot of things which deviate from the norm are quite normal in biology. I would guess homosexuality, if indeed it can be reduced to biology, is quite normal in that sense. Hence my warning about using the word abnormal, as it can easily be understood as simply faulty, which isn't that clear according to an evolutionary approach. It's also worth noticing that even if one prefer the same sex, there is nothing wrong with the organs of reproduction. Gay men can produce children just as heterosexual men, and lesbian women can give birth to children. Human hermaphrodites on the other hand are mostly sterile. Incestuous relations usually brings out recessive traits for for genetic diseases, and I can't see that calling homosexuality normal in a certain sense is the same as saying that the "imbecile" resulting from prolonged incestuous relations is the norm just because he exists.

Also norm and normal are concepts that really invites confusion. Norms are generally understood as prescribed things, and saying that homosexuality is normal among humans doesn't imply that it should be the norm. On the other hand being less than normal among humans doesn't by default mean that I can't argue the same rights to what most people find essential in life, like having or raising children, or have the same legal rights from living together in a marriage, or if a Christian be married by a priest. Of course the answers too the questions like, "should gay marriage be allowed?" "Should priests conduct the marriage?" should lesbians be allowed to adopt and raise children?" can't be known by a simple look at how things are now.

In Sweden it is only 88 years since women were allowed to vote. You don't have to dig very deep to find all kinds of bizarre arguments against their right to vote, biological and others (brains and intelligence, giving birth and being mothers, the nature of the family etc.) Might be food for thoughts when anyone find it simply natural that homosexual people should be satisfied with "don't ask don't tell" or living a life without children in their family.

I did not heared of differences in the amygdalas before, but I know that the chemcical differecnes in reaction patterns (homosexual men reacting to male pheromones like heterosexual men react to female pheromones) are real and a proven solid fact.Maybe it is so, but sexuality, heterosexual or other, obviously involves a lot more than the unconscious smell of male or female pheromones. For example looking at what you find to be an attractive member of the human race, or feeling attracted to a special personality. :yep:

I think people here should listen more to what Henry said. I had two gay colleagues at university, too, and although I am not gay, we came along and formed a lose friendship easily, without problem. They said in general the same things , like Henry: "We are different to you, stop trying to make us as "normal" as you are, we are not. We are against gay marriage, for that is not what marriage and family is about. We hate gays and lesbian parading in the streets almost naked on Christopher street days, that is offensive to the cultural norms of our civilisation."Well, I certainly agree that we should listen more to people who are gay and have a lived experience of what that means in our society. But they are not all saying the same thing though, so I can easily pick and choose something which conforms with my own view of family life, for example. The quote you have from your friends tells me nothing more than that they look at themselves as different and not normal, and I can guess a little about their views of what a family should be, and that they find public nudity offensive. That could have been the opinion of anyone in society being part of a special social group.

Normality is not acchieved by telling different people constantly how normal one considers them to be. Normality is in normal, unirritated action and deed, and not ignoring differences - but also not making a big thing of them, if that can be afforded.[/quote]

I don't really agree at all with that last paragraph. First thing is, I don't really understand your concept of normality, it seems to dervive from a kind of physiological view. "Normal unirrtated deed and action", what is that? Actions and deeds have mostly been viewed as results of some kind of external or internal irritaion. What would count as unirritated actions?

Second thing, I don't think homosexual people want to achieve the tag normal or normality by any available means, but I guess that some of them want to take part in what very many people on earth find is a normal life, that is to marry, excersie their religion, have children and live in a family. But then some of the arguments against these claims boils down to, "You are not normal, so please don't make all that noise, and by the way I don't want to pay for anything of this".

Puh, that was a long write up. I have no idea how you can keep going with your sometimes massive and frequent posts, Skybird. Please don't crush me by sheer volume, I will not be able to keep up with this kind of writing. :cool:

cheers porphy

[SUBMAN1]

Well that's not very nice. :)

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S

[Morts]

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[OneToughHerring]

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S

What do you mean exactly, kinda lost me there.

You see, funny thing is, there is this mentality in Finland according to which "all Swedish men are homosexuals". Which isn't true of course but is repeated anyway.

You hear this especially when Sweden beats Finland in ice hockey. :)

[Skybird]

Porphy,

I just mean that just because a physiological or physical abberation from a norm exists, this does not make it a norm in itself. The phenomenological existence of an exception to the rule may be called "normal" in the meaning of that it could happen, could appear, could take place, but nevertheless it is not necessarily a norm euqla to that to which it is an exception. Albinos also a reality, both people lacking pigments in their skin, or in their eyes - or both. Nevertheless that is in not the way our genetical design is meant to be, and even can cause disadvantages. Albonos are noi norm for our specie'S design - they are a copy of our design that happened to have been reproduced with a fault. Genetic mutations can be caused by environmental influence, but thexy can also take place atb random, due to an accident in the genetic reproduction sequence, and then eventually being carried over to the offspirngs of that individual. And medicine knows quite some of these egnetical diseases - and usually you would not call them "normal" in stati9ng that they are a norm of our design, the natural intnetion of how we were meant to be like, genetically. If homosecxuality is caused by differences in the hardware, it may be like this, too, thew thiung one could argue over is if this automtically makes it a "disease". IMO it does not, although that also has something to do with the subjective experience of suffering due to this aberation from a norm. but in a country of blin people, the seeing man would be called the ill, too - does this chnage the fact that nevertheless man's genetical design is such that man is meant to have two eyes for stereoscopical eye-view? Are hemophiliac people nromal in that they represent an evolutionary intended design feature of our species? Hardly. With homosexuality, it is the same, in my understanding, and it suffers sometimes more sometimes less disadvantages from it, but I cannot see a single positive advantage from it. In a homosexual world, individuals would be unable to carry over their genes to the next generation in a natural way, although this is a basic principle of life on earth: genetical copying. Not too mention the suffering from communal constellatios and social system in a heterosexual world.


Homosexuality does nothing for the survival of the species, for it does nothing to help the species to reproduce: it even cannot reproduce, our species's design is to survive as a species by heterosexual reproduction. From evolution's standpoint, it is not anything else but a failing blueprint, unable to live on. When talking of survival, I do not mean "fight or flight", or something, but reproduction. Without reproducing, our species would die within 2-3 generations, for obvious reasons. If homosexuality would be normal in your understanding, it would be able to survive by itself - but it cannot.

Homosexuality can be found as a phenomenen appearing in many mammal species. But in no mammal species it is "normal", but appears to take place in form of a violation of the norm, or violation of a rule - not because it is intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention. It is a genetic accident, something like that, an accident that does not cvause a retarded mind or three arms and four eyes, but an unproductive sexual orientation. We also fail to understand or to demonstrate any evolutionary advantage for the individual from being homosexual, or to see an advanatge from it for the social context and the community in which the homosexual individual lives. Society wins nothing from the example of homosexuality, but history shows that it can be able to tolerate it, like we also tolerate somebody having something harmless like a flu. But with animals you often see that it allows the animal to gain relief from sexual energetic pressure that it cannot relieve by mating with an individual of the other gender when such an matching partner is not avialable. Whether it be there are no female animals around, or they are all being "reserved" by other male partners.

Homosexuality may appear with a certain frequency, but I completely fail to see why that makes it a norm in itself, or even a norm euqal to that of heterosexuality, or makes it appear to be normal with regard to the genetical design of the species. that some genetical abberations in diseases come together with a positive side effect, in some cases is true, for example sichel-cell-anemia raises your immunity to Malaria, however, nobody so far has been able to show such effects for the majority of known diseases - or for homosexuality. Such examples as I just gave, are expections to the rule which appear with a certain frequency - they are not part of the content of the rule itself.

You can also eventually see a broken-down car driving home on just three tires. that does not make it normal. The norm is that a car has four tires. :DL Anything less is called a malfunctioning car. To what ammount the driver cares, is his business. just when he drives in public on three tires, security concerns become valid - and then it is the community's business as well.

I agree on your last remarks on "desires to share the majority's way of normal living". but I cannot help it, family and marriage are terms reserved for certain social constellation which define these terms, and these constellations nevertheless also are of vital importance for the communal interest and the oingoing exoistence of the society. A person being born with a crippled leg maybe also desires to be "normal" and to compete in running competitions, but his leg is simply against that. he will not grow a new, healthy leg just becasue he wishes for it. Nobody should hinder gays or lesbians to live together if they want, all fine and okay with me, and if one dies, he/she shall even have the right to leave his possessions under the same regulations and conditons like they are legally valid for heterosexual couples, for God's sake: okay, do it like that if that makes them happy and forms social peace Just when they want the same privileges and finacial support and material boni and legal protection that the far mor important institutions of family and related marriages enjoy, and are guaranteed to be given in several Wetsern constitutions - then I become willing to start a fight. and as I said and as Henry also said: quite some many homosexual themselves argue against seeing family as such an arbitrary thing that it could be used as a term to describe homosexual relations as well, maybe even adopting children. This is where my understanding ends and turns into determined rejection.

I think those "representaives" of gay/lesbian lobby organisations we use to see on tV, are not representing a majoirty of their subcommunity, like the hyperaggressive, provoking nudity at Cristopher street Day alöso probably is not representing a majority of their sub-community's general sexual attitude. It's just that they are so incredibly noisy, and the majority that just wishes to live in peace and normality, unrecognised by the general public, does not wish to start a high profile in the media, spoiling their privacy and adressing the media themselves by that.

for heaven's sake, start making such a fuss about these things, guys, and start to please the lobby orgnaisation only, they are little more than noisemakers. just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "nevertheless very much okay", and that they "nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.

[Freiwillige]

Yup, its true. All this girl had to do was serve and keep her mouth shut but nope....She had to let her commanders know she was gay as a rainbow. I dont understand why it is such an issue to keep your sexuality to yourself in the Military.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

I found this online too.
DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMER!:salute:

The new military anthem for homosexuals sung in tune to the green berets

"Falling fairies from the sky,
I broke my nail oh how I could cry!
Dont you like how my tushie sways,
We are the fags of the queen berets!
Obama's words upon our ears,
"You guys have rights, be proud you're queers!"
I once was scared, now I'm Okay,
Cause I'm a fag in the Queen Berets.
Put silver earclips on our nuts;
We love the pain, now spank our butts!
The way you walk is awfully cute;
I sure would love to pack your chute!
Back at home, a young wife waits,
Her Queen Beret just won't go straight;
For his team he stays undressed,
Spreads his legs, and lies on his chest.
This Army stuff is really slick;
Free clothes, bunk beds, and lots of d*#ks.
When we retire, we'll still get paid;
We thank you, Obama, from the Queen Berets!:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Puh, that was a long write up. I have no idea how you can keep going with your sometimes massive and frequent posts, Skybird.

My tip: a team of good ghost-writers. ;) And get a better corrector than I got.

[Biggles]

just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "nevertheless very much okay", and that they "nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-cat-scratches-post.jpg

[Platapus]

Good. The DADT policy was ill-conceived.

I had a gay roommate when I was in Korea. Didn't bother me any more than having a heterosexual roommate.

[Zachstar]

Well im sure this thread will fill with its share of homophobic bigots soon so I will just make my view known.

DADT is bullcrap. Our military is weaker when part of its ranks fears for even saying the word gay for fear of reprisal or dismissal. And on top of that even if it was valid back in the day. Its completely crap now that society has moved much fruther towards accepting homosexuality.

Nobody gives a rats ass if someone is gay or lesbian in a warzone with IEDs and hostiles disguised as civilians. Nobody will give a rats ass if we go to war in Iran and they face a much stronger militant force.

DADT is going to be nulled. Maybe not this year but soon as homophopia perishes faster than racism did in the aftermath of the civil rights movement.

Oh just to let it be known. Zachstar <<---- Straight not narrow!

[SUBMAN1]

Letting Homo's live in peace is fine by me. Problem comes when they force their lifestyle on others as they are doing with marriage laws and other special rights.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

It goes along with our increasingly weaker country.

-S

[OneToughHerring]

Letting Homo's live in peace is fine by me. Problem comes when they force their lifestyle on others as they are doing with marriage laws and other special rights.

-S

What special rights?

[porphy]

I just mean that just because a physiological or physical abberation from a norm exists, this does not make it a norm in itself. The phenomenological existence of an exception to the rule may be called "normal" in the meaning of that it could happen, could appear, could take place, but nevertheless it is not necessarily a norm euqla to that to which it is an exception.Sure, I agree that everything existing can't be normal, but what is normal or not, in numbers can't simply dictate what should be viewed as abnormal, meaning faulty. There is a difference between normal as in most common and normal/abnormal as in working/faulty.

Albinos also a reality, both people lacking pigments in their skin, or in their eyes - or both. Nevertheless that is in not the way our genetical design is meant to be, and even can cause disadvantages. Albonos are noi norm for our specie'S design - they are a copy of our design that happened to have been reproduced with a fault. Genetic mutations can be caused by environmental influence, but thexy can also take place atb random, due to an accident in the genetic reproduction sequence, and then eventually being carried over to the offspirngs of that individual. And medicine knows quite some of these egnetical diseases - and usually you would not call them "normal" in stati9ng that they are a norm of our design, the natural intnetion of how we were meant to be like, genetically. If homosecxuality is caused by differences in the hardware, it may be like this, too, thew thiung one could argue over is if this automtically makes it a "disease". IMO it does not, although that also has something to do with the subjective experience of suffering due to this aberation from a norm. but in a country of blin people, the seeing man would be called the ill, too - does this chnage the fact that nevertheless man's genetical design is such that man is meant to have two eyes for stereoscopical eye-view? Are hemophiliac people nromal in that they represent an evolutionary intended design feature of our species? Hardly. Sure, but all your examples are about very clear cases of disease, or physiological problems, or organ dysfunction. As I already said, the analogy does not really hold up that well when it comes to homosexual disposition and sexual desire. Nothing is clearly wrong, or not working on that level of bodily functions, as with the eyes, blood, skin colour etc.
You actually point to a fault in how homosexual behaviour functions in relation to reproduction and the evolutionary survival of the species. This is not clearly a fault by any bodily design, as in your examples. I would agree more with you if that was the case.

I can see how it is very tempting though, to think and reason about homosexuality in that way. And I guess that is why scientific research always tries to pinpoint something abnormal and faulty in the homosexual persons body/brain that would explain this behaviour and sexual desire. In that context I find it important to remember how many of these tries that have failed to show anything conclusive throughout history, and the kind of abuse it has leant itself to.
It was not that long ago that criminal behaviour was thought to be traceable to a specific subtype of human. And early classical genetics was often thought of as a promising way to finally explain the criminal that was impossible to correct. The criminal person was simply physically abnormal, a deviation or showing examples of atavisms.

With homosexuality, it is the same, in my understanding, and it suffers sometimes more sometimes less disadvantages from it, but I cannot see a single positive advantage from it. In a homosexual world, individuals would be unable to carry over their genes to the next generation in a natural way, although this is a basic principle of life on earth: genetical copying. Not too mention the suffering from communal constellatios and social system in a heterosexual world. Well, you propose the thought of a homosexual world as a way of showing that it can't be of any evolutionary gain to the species reproduction. But my example of kin selection was an example of how poulation genetics have explained how a trait that in itself seems to stop its own genetic transmission, acctually is possible, or even something selected for in a positive way.
Homosexuality is a persistent and quite frequent trait in the human population. Kinsey in his days estimated about 4% of the population as homosexual, but if you count the amount of people that say they have sexual desires for the same sex that could well be 7%. How is it that this sexual disposition and desire seem to be both persistent and not that uncommon? If trying to explain it in a biological way, it must be accounted for on a evolutionary plane as well.

Homosexuality does nothing for the survival of the species, for it does nothing to help the species to reproduce: it even cannot reproduce, our species's design is to survive as a species by heterosexual reproduction. From evolution's standpoint, it is not anything else but a failing blueprint, unable to live on. When talking of survival, I do not mean "fight or flight", or something, but reproduction. Without reproducing, our species would die within 2-3 generations, for obvious reasons. If homosexuality would be normal in your understanding, it would be able to survive by itself - but it cannot. But it does live on, does it not? Again, what about kin selection? This is not the same as cross coupling where good and bad traits get inherited together. It is debatable if one can use kin selection in this case, but it shows there are biological ways to understand how seemingly self contradictory traits, like being sterile, can be transmissioned genetically within a population without being classified as a fault, disorder or disease. In this case it would explain how grounds for a sexual disposition that results in no offspring still can be within the scope of positive natural selection, it is then not a failed blueprint. Homosexuality is about sexual desire and behaviour in general is no doubt more complex to explain this way compared to being sterile, but the function you find abnormal and faulty is the same as being sterile.

Homosexuality can be found as a phenomenen appearing in many mammal species. But in no mammal species it is "normal", but appears to take place in form of a violation of the norm, or violation of a rule - not because it is intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention. It is a genetic accident, something like that, an accident that does not cvause a retarded mind or three arms and four eyes, but an unproductive sexual orientation. We also fail to understand or to demonstrate any evolutionary advantage for the individual from being homosexual, or to see an advantage from it for the social context and the community in which the homosexual individual lives. Society wins nothing from the example of homosexuality, but history shows that it can be able to tolerate it, like we also tolerate somebody having something harmless like a flu. But with animals you often see that it allows the animal to gain relief from sexual energetic pressure that it cannot relieve by mating with an individual of the other gender when such an matching partner is not available. Whether it be there are no female animals around, or they are all being "reserved" by other male partners. I would be a bit more careful with expressions like "violation of a rule" or "intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention" in a Darwinian context. And to provoke you a bit more, doesn't it seem to be at least to some part a successful genetic accident, as it seems to live on quite happily? Adopting some flavour of Richard Dawkins way of thought provoking images, one could perhaps say that the "homosexual genes" have found the perfect way to live on, as the heterosexual part of the human population only is the vehicle for their propagation. :D

Yes, I agree it is not that that easy to point out what advantage the same sex sexual behaviour should give evolutionary or in a society. But for example it has been argued that homosexuality gives a more stable society, as individuals can form stable sexual relations in both homosexual and heterosexual ways. A stable society (think of a group of individuals where there is fierce competition for mating) is beneficial for reproduction in general within the group. On a larger scale this could be just enough for natural selection to work on. Or as a recent study from Italy is said to have showed, that the maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. If this is true, it could suggest that there is a reproductive benefit to women whose DNA tends to result in homosexual male children. See, with biology you can argue anything. :yep:

Homosexuality may appear with a certain frequency, but I completely fail to see why that makes it a norm in itself, or even a norm euqal to that of heterosexuality, or makes it appear to be normal with regard to the genetical design of the species. that some genetical abberations in diseases come together with a positive side effect, in some cases is true, for example sichel-cell-anemia raises your immunity to Malaria, however, nobody so far has been able to show such effects for the majority of known diseases - or for homosexuality. Such examples as I just gave, are expections to the rule which appear with a certain frequency - they are not part of the content of the rule itself.

You can also eventually see a broken-down car driving home on just three tires. that does not make it normal. The norm is that a car has four tires. :DL Anything less is called a malfunctioning car. To what ammount the driver cares, is his business. just when he drives in public on three tires, security concerns become valid - and then it is the community's business as well.I think I commented already about the design thing. And I don't mean that homosexuality is the norm in humans. But what is the rule and what is a deviation of the rule depends on where you start. I think you sometimes overstate the importance of the rule thinking as you connect it to intended design, hardware and blueprints.
And you know, there are three wheeled cars produced as we speak. Not only Mr Bean has one. :woot:

I agree on your last remarks on "desires to share the majority's way of normal living". but I cannot help it, family and marriage are terms reserved for certain social constellation which define these terms, and these constellations nevertheless also are of vital importance for the communal interest and the oingoing exoistence of the society. A person being born with a crippled leg maybe also desires to be "normal" and to compete in running competitions, but his leg is simply against that. he will not grow a new, healthy leg just becasue he wishes for it. Nobody should hinder gays or lesbians to live together if they want, all fine and okay with me, and if one dies, he/she shall even have the right to leave his possessions under the same regulations and conditons like they are legally valid for heterosexual couples, for God's sake: okay, do it like that if that makes them happy and forms social peace Just when they want the same privileges and finacial support and material boni and legal protection that the far mor important institutions of family and related marriages enjoy, and are guaranteed to be given in several Wetsern constitutions - then I become willing to start a fight. and as I said and as Henry also said: quite some many homosexual themselves argue against seeing family as such an arbitrary thing that it could be used as a term to describe homosexual relations as well, maybe even adopting children. This is where my understanding ends and turns into determined rejection.

I think those "representaives" of gay/lesbian lobby organisations we use to see on tV, are not representing a majoirty of their subcommunity, like the hyperaggressive, provoking nudity at Cristopher street Day alöso probably is not representing a majority of their sub-community's general sexual attitude. It's just that they are so incredibly noisy, and the majority that just wishes to live in peace and normality, unrecognised by the general public, does not wish to start a high profile in the media, spoiling their privacy and adressing the media themselves by that.

for heaven's sake, start making such a fuss about these things, guys, and start to please the lobby orgnaisation only, they are little more than noisemakers. just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "nevertheless very much okay", and that they "nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.Please no more crippled legs and three wheeled cars! I need to sleep now... But before that, I have to say something about the terms family and marriage. I agree that you can't change them and their use according to every whim, but I think one can see where they are possible to extend. Concepts are not rigid by nature and they are usually open ended.

Families are vital parts of society, true, but a homosexual family is not that far of from a heterosexual one as far as I know. Two parents and a for example two adopted children (or female couple with a natural born child or two) living together and being responsible to each other.
I'm not convinced about the role model argument you wrote about earlier. There will probably be enough of male and female role modelling available for the kids in their lives anyway. If one allow families like that, they will also be families that actually do support and bring benefits to the society, not just a cost. Isn't more working families even better from a social point of view?

And the ones that want to live unnoticed in peace and normality as you say, well nothing stops them from doing that, gay marriage approved or not. As I understand it, the thing is not so much about if we accept them as totally normal, the thing is about if people who prefer the same sex and that really want to have a family, children, marriage and legal rights, can have that or not.

Anyway, time to sleep now. I enjoyed the discussion! :salute:

[Platapus]

"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
-- Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)

[Zachstar]

Not if you are going for range! :haha:

[Onkel Neal]

Threads merged. Boy, you guys have gay on the brain.

[Rilder]

Letting Homo's live in peace is fine by me. Problem comes when they force their lifestyle on others as they are doing with marriage laws and other special rights.

-S

So gays being allowed to marry makes you gay?

They are just wanting to get married, they aren't forcing anything on you.

[Aramike]

So gays being allowed to marry makes you gay?

They are just wanting to get married, they aren't forcing anything on you.Sure they are forcing something on the rest of us. They are forcing others to recognize a marriage which they believe demeans the very term. It's actually more flagrant than, say, the right displaying the Ten Commandments on public land.

Ironic how the left seems to think that would be an infringement of rights (although there's literally no effect to those who don't believe) while they proclaim gay marriage as harmless...

Personally, I'd be fine with allowing civil unions in place of the term "marriage". Why? Because using a different term would allow for different rules as well as respect the traditions of the institution of marriage.

But what really pisses me off about gay activist groups is when they claim to what "equal" rights as the rest of us. Umm, they do have equal rights. Literally. Any man, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry a woman. What they want are SPECIAL rights.

What's sick to me, however, is that these groups sadly tend to identify themselves almost solely by their sexual preference. Maybe one day they'll realize that it's easier for the mainstream to accept that which isn't being shoved down their throats (no pun intended).

[Max2147]

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love. There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

[Skybird]

Sure, I agree that everything existing can't be normal, but what is normal or not, in numbers can't simply dictate what should be viewed as abnormal, meaning faulty. There is a difference between normal as in most common and normal/abnormal as in working/faulty.
Fine. then let'S say homosexuality is abnormal indeed. It is a faulty copying of man'S natural sexual orientation. For sex has a meaning and purpose, that is reproduction - the pleasure we take form it, is just a trick by nature to turn us into addicts although raising children is a tough job. And for that, memebers of a heterosexual species must be attracted by the other gender, not by their own.


Sure, but all your examples are about very clear cases of disease, or physiological problems, or organ dysfunction. As I already said, the analogy does not really hold up that well when it comes to homosexual disposition and sexual desire. Nothing is clearly wrong, or not working on that level of bodily functions, as with the eyes, blood, skin colour etc.
You actually point to a fault in how homosexual behaviour functions in relation to reproduction and the evolutionary survival of the species. This is not clearly a fault by any bodily design, as in your examples. I would agree more with you if that was the case.
We disaagree. Where homosexuality does not come as a psychological reaction to stressful experiences, traumata (never heared of just a single case liekt hat, btw.), or is not tried for reasons of curiosity (and read Henry's comments if you think homosexuals just choose to be gay/lesbian, I still wait to meet the first person ever to say that this was the case for him/her), and is correlated with hardcoded differences in physiological chemistry and brainstructure, your argument already has become invalid by your own claim. It's just that the subjective dlevel of suffering experienced form that may differ for the affected people, and not necessarily a suffering of the community. so we can afford not to impose sanctions or even brainsurgery on them. :D Man is not meant to be an albino. Nor is he meant to be gay or lesbian. He occasionally may try that when young, for curiosity, I suppose most do not, and those who tried it, may return to their normal sexual orientation nevertheless. For these it may be right what you say. But all-life-homosexuals do not chose their orientation. They have no other choice, like you and me do not have a choice regarding the skin colour we want to have.


I can see how it is very tempting though, to think and reason about homosexuality in that way. And I guess that is why scientific research always tries to pinpoint something abnormal and faulty in the homosexual persons body/brain that would explain this behaviour and sexual desire. In that context I find it important to remember how many of these tries that have failed to show anything conclusive throughout history, and the kind of abuse it has leant itself to. , that it has been abused does not make it less valid. And if there is genetically encoded causes for homosexuality that represent accidents or abberations from a regular genetic copying procedure, then there is nothing discriminatory in stating that. Discirmination lies in what consequences one justifies by the scientific finding. By what you say, scientific research should be forbidden in case of any possible results eventually being unwelcomed. That is not acceptable for me. It reminds me a bot too muh of the medieval, the chruche'S power and the way it tried to silence people like Copernicus and Gallilei.

It was not that long ago that criminal behaviour was thought to be traceable to a specific subtype of human. And early classical genetics was often thought of as a promising way to finally explain the criminal that was impossible to correct. The criminal person was simply physically abnormal, a deviation or showing examples of atavisms.

We know that sociopathy can lead to criminal behavir. Sociopathy, the hints are mounting, is genetically caused, and causes a misfunctioning brain physiology. Kleptomania also is increasingly linked to neural deficits in the brain. I do not know, though, how far it has gone already. However, our behavior and acting for us humans must have correlates in the material-physical-physiological world, we do not form thoughts in a metaphysical sphere of substancelessness. there is the world of neurons, electirc potentials, chemical bridging of neural gaps. there is the reason why neurons are hardwired they way they are, and not in a different way. There is neutrotransmitter substances, hormones, pheromones. Nothing we do we do wiothout solid-matter-processes taking place somewhere in our body.

Well, you propose the thought of a homosexual world as a way of showing that it can't be of any evolutionary gain to the species reproduction. But my example of kin selection was an example of how poulation genetics have explained how a trait that in itself seems to stop its own genetic transmission, acctually is possible, or even something selected for in a positive way.

Oh, I have understood that, it'S just that I cannot see that positive, neither for the individual, nor the community. at best, it causes no negatives for anybody (which is not the case considering that a gay man meets a certain ammount of social pressure that in most cases makes him to hide. On the other hand, what is so fantatsic in letting all the world know that one is gay? As if the world must care for that).

Homosexuality is a persistent and quite frequent trait in the human population. Kinsey in his days estimated about 4% of the population as homosexual, but if you count the amount of people that say they have sexual desires for the same sex that could well be 7%. How is it that this sexual disposition and desire seem to be both persistent and not that uncommon? If trying to explain it in a biological way, it must be accounted for on a evolutionary plane as well.

Mutation, maybe, not always mutations are psoitve, or even have any meaning at all. Evolution has no linear cause, it just adds somethign here, and removes somethign there, and sometimes it is not for the better but the worse of a given design. Short-sightedness also is very priminent in our species now. It is passed from generation to generation, in families. Does thius make it a natural characteristic of ours? No. It very clearly is a fault, a sign for decreasing quality of the gen-pool. This is a contradiction to modenr medicine that many do niot like to be mentioned, and they immeditaely start arguing with the Naz9i doctors and such: but fatc is that modern medicine helps to destabilize the human gen pool, for it increases the life-expectancy of geneticall ill people that before would have died, and in enables them to reproduce and multiply their genetic defects. That'S why the number of heamophiles is rising, for example. It may be politically uncorrect to mention this, but nevertheless it is true. The scientific data and the ethical debate, are two different things here. But ethics cannot chnage the research data. they can (and should) only influence the way the data is being used for forming consequences in our decisions and deeds.

But it does live on, does it not? Again, what about kin selection? This is not the same as cross coupling where good and bad traits get inherited together. It is debatable if one can use kin selection in this case, but it shows there are biological ways to understand how seemingly self contradictory traits, like being sterile, can be transmissioned genetically within a population without being classified as a fault, disorder or disease. In this case it would explain how grounds for a sexual disposition that results in no offspring still can be within the scope of positive natural selection, it is then not a failed blueprint. Homosexuality is about sexual desire and behaviour in general is no doubt more complex to explain this way compared to being sterile, but the function you find abnormal and faulty is the same as being sterile.

As far as I understand you, I cannot agree to your argument.

I would be a bit more careful with expressions like "violation of a rule" or "intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention" in a Darwinian context. And to provoke you a bit more, doesn't it seem to be at least to some part a successful genetic accident, as it seems to live on quite happily?
That may be becasue mankind has stopped to hunt down and slaughter gay people. :D No, serious, that means nothing. Many genetically caused diseases are living on. As I said somewhere earlier, some of these may have advanatges for a population (see the Malaria-example), but most of them, accroding to all what we know today, simply are this: diseases, withiut comensating advantages. they remained be carried over to the next egneration before modern medicine showed up, and since moern times, medicine even may have starrted to help them being spread.

Adopting some flavour of Richard Dawkins way of thought provoking images, one could perhaps say that the "homosexual genes" have found the perfect way to live on, as the heterosexual part of the human population only is the vehicle for their propagation. :D
that would be called parasitism. ;)

Yes, I agree it is not that that easy to point out what advantage the same sex sexual behaviour should give evolutionary or in a society. But for example it has been argued that homosexuality gives a more stable society, as individuals can form stable sexual relations in both homosexual and heterosexual ways.

circular logic here. A is of advantage in an arrangement with A and B present, becasue it allows to refer to not only B, but A also.

Without homosexuality existing, there would be no need to form homosexual relations.

that homosexuality helps to increase social stablity, I totally fail to see. It's just that discirmination lowers such stablity, and non-discrimination does not affect stability, leaving it at the same level where it is.

A stable society (think of a group of individuals where there is fierce competition for mating) is beneficial for reproduction in general within the group.

Or not. depends on discrimination switched on or off.

On a larger scale this could be just enough for natural selection to work on. Or as a recent study from Italy is said to have showed, that the maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. If this is true, it could suggest that there is a reproductive benefit to women whose DNA tends to result in homosexual male children. See, with biology you can argue anything. :yep:

I would instead say: with statistics you can argue anything. Even more so when many scientists do not even reliably know the most elemental basics of statistics. The novice'S fault of overinterpreting correlation coefficients is prominent even amongst high academic levels - which is a scandal.

I think I commented already about the design thing. And I don't mean that homosexuality is the norm in humans. But what is the rule and what is a deviation of the rule depends on where you start. I think you sometimes overstate the importance of the rule thinking as you connect it to intended design, hardware and blueprints.
And you know, there are three wheeled cars produced as we speak. Not only Mr Bean has one. :woot:

Please no more crippled legs and three wheeled cars! I need to sleep now... But before that, I have to say something about the terms family and marriage. I agree that you can't change them and their use according to every whim, but I think one can see where they are possible to extend. Concepts are not rigid by nature and they are usually open ended.

In this case only with chnaging the already massiveoly hurt most basic fundament of social community in Wetsern civilisation. And I am not willing to accept any more dmaages to this fundament, sicne it already is shaking. And we see the cataclysimic effects of that everywhere, in the feministic approaches, in education problems, in schools failing, in the changed and falling apart set of ethic rules in ypoung people not seeing perspectives anymore - I could write a whole social-scientific essay here. All damage done to "family" - shows as damage to our world and community.

Families are vital parts of society, true, but a homosexual family is not that far of from a heterosexual one as far as I know.

I see it from a psychologist'S view, and say there is a difference. A gay man would need to violate himself to get engaged in a heterosexual partnership and have children of his own. but the truth is, and again I say this from a psychologist'S perspective, that for many - i assume: a wide majoreity - this comes at the price of supressing a part of themnselves and experience suffering from this. Such people sometimes show up in partner- and family therapies, you know. the reasons they once choosed to go hetero, are diverse, but most often it also has something to do with a desire to be "nromal" like the normal majority around, and not being different with all the negative consequences for that, and just live a peaceful life by not attracting hostile attention. They really may love their hetero partner, yes. But still, their original orientation is - and always will be - a different one. That'S where the pressure comes from they are under, and it can make them suffer, sometimes more, sometimes less.


Two parents and a for example two adopted children (or female couple with a natural born child or two) living together and being responsible to each other.
I referred earlier to adoptation and the importance of sexual role models, which indeed is leading far beyond later sexual behavior. Adoptation by homosexual couples makes a smuch sense to me as intentionally removing a ftaher or a mother from a family. where divorces happen, it is a tragedy for the kids in most cases (only exception is wheere they suffered more from the parent'S constant battles, but that is in no way the rule). That parents nevertzheless sometimes divorce, dos not mean that adoptation by singles or dicriocing itself should be declared an arbitrary normal option that could be chosen at will. It is not normal, but it is normality failing.

there it is again, this thing normality. but man cannot help it, normality is important for us humans. We could bear to live in a world we perceive as unpredicatble and filled with more excepotions from the rules, than there are rules. Such ammount of uncertainty makes us sick easily. We need normality. and beside that, I still think it is valid to claim some things being a norm, and even being a normality beyond just statistical relations between variables and values. It also is nromal that a child has two parents. There are orphans in the world, too. but it is neither a norm, nor normal.


I'm not convinced about the role model argument you wrote about earlier. There will probably be enough of male and female role modelling available for the kids in their lives anyway. If one allow families like that, they will also be families that actually do support and bring benefits to the society, not just a cost. Isn't more working families even better from a social point of view?
I must question the easiness by which you claim it is functioning famiolies, and I have earlier referred to research data that is known since the 80s that children being grown by just one parents have a significantly higher probability of showing chnaged social behavior patterns especially rehgarding the other sex, then children from functional families. A mother is not just any female in the world, a father is different from just being a male. Both are that, too, but the role of parents leads beyodn that. And then there is the simp0le fact that you ncannot doubt that chikldren from homosexual "families" would suffer from that, and being mocked out. As Henry said: "think of the kids!". He meant whyt many of them will need to go through.

despite that, I stiuck to what I said about the importance of role modelling by father and mother, again taLKING FROM A PSYCHOLOGIST's VIEW AND THAT OF A CLOSE GIRLFRIEND OF MINE WHO IS WORKING AS A FAMILY THERAPIST: SHE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IMMIGRANT FAMILIES with often rigid, patriarchalic structures, and thus she has a seat in the first row to watch what damage disfunctional or non existing or perverted role models by mothers and fathers do to sons and daughters.

And the ones that want to live unnoticed in peace and normality as you say, well nothing stops them from doing that, gay marriage approved or not. As I understand it, the thing is not so much about if we accept them as totally normal, the thing is about if people who prefer the same sex and that really want to have a family, children, marriage and legal rights, can have that or not.

Indeed, and I totally oppose anything that equals gay partnerships to the constitutional portected status of families, dissolves the concept of marriage in it's - you cannot help it - given definition to be a bond between heterosexual partners with an outlook to create children of their own, and adoptation of children by homosexual partners.

And from the few direct experiences with gay people that I had, I must say: all of those that I met, agreed with me. Who are we that we want to know better than they themselves what they want?

Anyway, time to sleep now. I enjoyed the discussion! :salute:

Indeed. A discussion that does not turn into name-calling and catch-phrases, most often is a good one, even where disagreement remains. Sweet dreams to you, my darling. :O:

[Skybird]

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love.

First, less than a century ago, people used to marry just once in their lives, and stayed together until high age. that has been the norm. Today it is the exception from the norm.

Second, originally, marriages have been about economic traits, distribution of work, and securing a safe environemnt with future perspective to children. love is luxury in that. Certain cultures even see marriages as a tool to increase family status, gain political power, and to come to wealth by selling their kids into marriage.

For Christians, marriage is a "holy sacrament", a bond that is meant to be natural, spiritual, social, all in one, and due to the social role, it was meant to be between a man and a woman. That religion gave it that status was for two reasons: as a mediator in forming that bond, the religious institution won in social power and influence, and it added to the argument that where there can be children from that partnerhsip, a far-reaching perspective of socially protective stability must be maintained.

Many young people marry head over heels, just becasue they asre in love. Theyignore other fatcors, and oversee other important factors, even in the other's character, that speak against a lasting relationship. Add to this the social stress from working environments, the economic pressure to dissolve the family and rip it apart so that women can (must?) return into their jobs as early as possible, and a general hedonistic egoism and tendency to not being enduring and to avoid difficulties on first sight, and you have many major reasons why marriages fail often these days.

It all is about the social institution of family, the way it is mant to be, has already been so severly hurt.

There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.
Two bads do not form one good.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.


Maybe that is becasue you do not use the term "marriage" int he historically grown meaning of it, and just cisntruct your idea of relationship and mislabel it as "marriage", althiugh that temr smeans soethign different. Already Confuzius complained about the disorder of term - and the unpleasant consequences coming from that. More and more words get used, but less and lesser they do have a meaning.

Names and terms are not arbitrary. Use them only for what they actually are reserved for in meaning. "Marriage" neither by name nor economically nor religously nor culturally nor socially is not meant to describe homosexual partnerhsips, like it or not. I also do not marry my dog, although I may like it very much. And when I call "Discrimination!" because somebody tells me I should not marry my dog, nevertheless I will not be allowed to marry my dog.


All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

At least the German constituion puts the family in its tradito9nal meaning under explcit special protection by the state, and financial and tax benefits given to families also base on that constitutional guarantee. Since families in their traditional meaning of "father-mother-children of their own" are so vitally important for our society (even more with our societies overaging and not enough babies being born), I fully agree with these bonis, last but not least becasue they express that their importance is being accepted and recognised. Indeed the need to not compromise the importance of - already massively hurt - families as a social core institution even more is my main argument against not accepting home marriages as equal to normal marriages.

And taken for itself, the idea simply is absurd to the max, too, consiering that the term is not arbiotrary, but has a long grown history of meaning.

[Onkel Neal]

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common.


Yeah, I have to agree, all this talk about weakening the institution of marriage...straight people have already destroyed it. Marriage means nothing anymore. It takes two people to agree to getting married, it only takes one person to end it. Straight people should look to their own faults with marriage before bellowing about gays.

[Skybird]

Again, two bads do not make one good. People say the world is a mess. I tend to agree. I pointed at some causes. That marriage does not mean much anymore and the family has been hurt so massively, has reasons. I listed some of them. The cure to this neither is gay marriage, nor makes it gay marriage taken for itself any less unreasonable. Traditonal marriage and family has been hurt, and gy marriage hurts it even further. That simple it is.

[mookiemookie]

Hurts the institution of marriage? Two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry hurts the institution of marriage? I hardly think so.

I always thought the list of reasons why gay marriage would ruin society was great:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[Skybird]

Hurts the institution of marriage? Two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry hurts the institution of marriage?

Sure it does, by relativising it'S value. As I pointed out, and is my understanding, marriage is a heterosexual thing by definition. It has a certain purpose, and a historic record that made it what it is.

I cannot share this populistic obsession to claim that the idea of marriage is anything different. The politically most correct hysteria to euqlaise all and everything and actively refusing the recognition of differen ces is producing some very braintwisting rollercoasting deathspiralling mega-looping intellectual adventure here.

Hell, even the official German lesbian and gay association does not use the terms "marriage" and "marrying" anymore, having understood the heterosexual background that defines a marriage and is part of the definition of the term. They talk of "verpartnern" (roughly: "partnering").

Some years ago, in South Africa there was an Asian minority, which ws and still is Asian in every means, had the skin colour of Asian people, the eyes of Asian people, the hair os Asian people, and was everything but "Negroes" or "Blacks". They were Asians indeed, happening to live in South Africa. then some tax laws changed, and the following implications would have meant that Blacks would gain certain advantages from that reform that the Asians would not get, for they were not Blacks, but Asians. they sued the state over claims of being discriminated. the Salomonic verdict: although by race they are not African Blacks, but Asians, they are now officially and medically rated as African Blacks. Non-black Blacks, so to speak. That probably makes pale, white-skinned me a red-skinned Indian, because as a juvenile I read Karl May.

Did I say Salomonic...? Forget it . Of course, it is absolutely, totally absurd to define "yellow-skinned" Asians as negroid Blacks for reasons of "equality" and non-discrimination. They should have included Asian emmigrants living in south Africa for a given number of years in that law reform, and they would have been done. now you have a situation where the classification of someone being a Black does not have any meaning anymore. In fact, this Black man could be a white Scandinavian indeed, eventually.

Left could mean right. Yes could mean No. Up could mean Down. everything must mean everything, else it is called a discrimination.

Nuts. Crazy.

It reminds me very much of this absurd discussion about gay marriages. A blue Red. A silent noise. A cold warmth. A dark brightness. (A liberal totalitarianism, a humanistic Islam, a democratic absolutism, while we are at it).

[porphy]

Great list mookiemookie, :)

Really Skybird, you seem to be a bit obsessed with what looks more and more as a linguistic last stand of yours. But I think you really described the position you yourself is in, with the example from South Africa.

It is as if you would be saying that "tax reduction" has by its very legal and cultural history a meaning that has nothing to do with Asian people (it could have been like that, with some imagination). If we include these people in the legal reform, tax reduction will mean nothing clear any more. It could mean anything. The whole economic system is in danger if we do this.

They should have included Asian emmigrants living in south Africa for a given number of years in that law reform, and they would have been done.Yes, and homosexual people can be included in a reform of marriage without any terribly mind twisting or muddling of the language, or a somewhat mystic devaluing of it as an institution!

You are well into the metaphysics of marriage the way you argue the other stuff at the moment. I can agree there are things to discuss and consider in connection to this subject, some of which you have brought forward. But when it now comes to all this talk about value, definition and confused meaning, it seems like a very weak line of defence.

Marriage is a term with a history, yes, grown out of and denoting certain practices and rules in organizing and controlling society. That has been a changing history, even in western civilization. So you mean marriage was suddenly an unclear word every time something changed in the practices or rules connected to it? Or is it that now, with homosexual marriage, the essential thing about the concept is challenged, which somehow never happened with the other changes of what marriage can be and can not be? This sounds as when Thomas Hobbes refused to accept the possibility of vacuum on the grounds that it was a contradiction in terms, which would turn natural philosophy into turmoil, as the words would not be part of a proper science any more...

To me, you try to make the term marriage do a lot more work than it can.
It's not a logical concept as you try to have it, therefore nothing bizarre will happen if one extends its meaning to allow for homosexual marriage. Heck, people that don't like that legal definition of marriage in a country (like in Sweden) can still talk about it in the good old way, but people left out from the real legal, economic and social benefits a marriage given to citizens forming a family can't talk themselves into having these rights by using the words this or that way.

So why can't we just call it "verpartnern" instead? Homosexual verpartnern and heterosexuals marry each other. But that would be like having two concepts for the same thing... Like when gay people own something its called propertyx and heterosexuals have property, but they are still part of the same legal and social system in a society that rules what you can do and not do with things you own.

Ok, I'm taking a break from all these analogies. Going for the Sunday long running session. Take care everyone. :salute:



Cheers porphy

[Aramike]

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love. There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.Part of an institution is the traditions surrounding it. Remove the traditions and you're altering the very meaning of the term.

[Aramike]

Yeah, I have to agree, all this talk about weakening the institution of marriage...straight people have already destroyed it. Marriage means nothing anymore. It takes two people to agree to getting married, it only takes one person to end it. Straight people should look to their own faults with marriage before bellowing about gays.Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples will do nothing to fix a broken concept. In fact, it would more likely pervert it further, as there will be more people engaging in it - including some for purely political purposes.

[porphy]

Part of an institution is the traditions surrounding it. Remove the traditions and you're altering the very meaning of the term.

True, but the fact that you in general alter the meaning of the term by removing or changing traditions connected to it can't really in itself be a good reason against some proposed change of institutional tradition.

[Skybird]

Nonsense. It seems I am just much more aware than quite some of you folks that problems like growing civil unrest and violence and mobbing amongst jueveniles, school shootings as well as coma-drinking, breaking marriages and drug consumation, just do not fall from heaven to earth, but have causes and aorigins, and the major key issue here is the fialing of tradiitonal family structures, and a mother and a father giving a home to their offsoprings that they have thrown into the world. and that this is failing, also has causes again, that range from charcteristics of the industrial age and working conditions, to the replacing of ethical values (whether it be in form of religions or not) by orientationless materialism. Now without doubt I will be accused of dramatising, nevertheless, I see this a bit from apsychologist's background who has focussed on family and systemic therapy, amongst others.

i am also am totally pissed by today'S tendency that is so very much en vogue today, to relativise all and everything until nothing is loeft anymore that makes a difference between the one and the other quality, category, meaning, person, whatever. Modern culture is a culture of lacking differentiation, and throwing everything into one kettle and stirr it until it all is just one and the same grey featureless mass. and this bull**** then gets celebrated as tolerance or multiculture and how democratic we are that all and everything is just one and the same in worth. I newver believed this kind of crap. Equality to me means not declaring that every Peter and every Pauls is as important than every Newton or every michelangelo, and we can safely assume that without quite some losers living in our societies, both under the bridge and in the ruling villas of the elties, we would all be better off for sure. i also refuse to subscribe to an attitude that could be described as "all party in my life, and when I am dead, after me the great flood." That institutions like family and marriage have fallen apart, and have been destroyed to wide degrees, does not mean they are less important. It means that a lot of sopcial probelms and cultural problems of today are triggered by this former destruction, and that it would be important to strengthen them again, insbtead of saying "it'S all just going to hell anyway, so let'S not care if contirbuting to it myself, it all does not matter anyway." It does matter, and defending it in your everyday life against people who you directly meet - that is the real meaning of man being a zoon politicon, not this infantile party nonsense. And if I would not try to make the world a slightly better place by trying to convince those people I meet in my life, and would reject even this most basic poltical responsibility everybody cannot avoid as long as he lives inside a community - what would that say about me? Nothing I would find pleasant, I'm afraid.

regarding "partnering" and "marrying", of course it is more than just to terms for the same thing, for it is not the same thing. Certain benefits of marriages, financial for the most, that are last but not least meant to help families and reiterate their special status and special imp0rotance for the whole, I reject to accept for partnered couples, like I also reject to give them to singles like myself. Becasue if all are given these special protection/boni/helps/whatever, the status of families no,longer is any specially protected, and recognised to be of a prioritized importance. This weakening of it by relativising it when giving others the same status and boni like married couples and families, i do not accept - last but not least becasue the idea of the family already is so massively damaged that most families today run a higher risk to fall victim to poverty, than singles and unmarried couples anyway.

Our societies in the West are a mess, and that we have let down our most basic social core-cell that much, has something to do with that. And all you guys are thinking about is how to destroy it even more - in the name of some almost hysteric illusions about "equality" for everybody, and declaring each and everybody as valuable as anyone else, and not wanting to see that in our culture (hell, in almost all cultures on the planet) marriage has somethign to do with forming a family, with children born by the parents that married. That is where the focus is: family protection. We failed miserably in that, and it has helped to bring down our culture very much. The disfunctionality of the social institution called family is the most underestimated central cause of why we have allowed our world and our civilisation to fall apart that much.

People are not equal, and people are not equally important for the whole. Saying that is politically uncorrect, that is not considered to be noble, so crucify me, but you will not get any other message from me. To declare every individual being the navel of the earth is one of the great sins our culture has committed. And it costs us dearly. And in practice, we have allowed our noble ideals being hollowed out for materialistic reasons anyway, and at our courts, the demand for everybody being equal before the law is all nice and well, but hardly is being followed.

Do not discriminate a human being for being "just" a woman, or a homosexual, but understand that this does not make everybody "equal". Let people live in forms of partnerhsips as they want, but understand that some of these partnerships are unimportant for the whole community, while others are indispensable for the community and thus it cannot afford to not give the latter special rights and support without damaging the community wellbeing in general. Cut back the many exceptions and special rules to the laws, so that after all this bureaucratic confusion laws get something to do with justice again, and let everybody, no matter the ammount of money he can invest in his army of lawyers, be equal before the law indeed, so that justice no longer is an issue of bureaucratic rules and personal wealth.

[CaptainHaplo]

Here is the crux of the matter....

"Marriage" is a religious term. Like it or not - it is. The State has overreached by claiming to be able to license or control such a thing.

By using the insidious control of the State in a RELIGIOUS institution, those who push for "gay marriage" are doing nothing more than attempting to subvert a moral stance based on religion.

If it was about equal rights - as some claim, then whats wrong with a civil union that gives same sex people all the same "rights" as well as responsibilities?

The reason its not ok - is becuase equal rights isn't what its about. Its about finding ways to reduce the moral foundation of what the majority stands on.

I am not saying this based on a single religion - but its an attempt to weaken the entire moral fabric of our society - so that it becomes more accepting of those things that are immoral based upon the myriad of theologies, beliefs and even common sense that majority hold close.

Get someone to turn a blind eye to one thing, then it becomes easier to do the same the next time.

Its like an injustice to your neighbor - they say "well it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it???"

And when the gestapo arrested the neighbors - the man did nothing... until finally they came for him - and there was no one left to speak out.

[Platapus]

Mookiemookie

Great list. :yeah:

[Onkel Neal]

Hurts the institution of marriage? Two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry hurts the institution of marriage? I hardly think so.

I always thought the list of reasons why gay marriage would ruin society was great:


Great list, Mookie. :haha:

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples will do nothing to fix a broken concept. In fact, it would more likely pervert it further, as there will be more people engaging in it - including some for purely political purposes.

Mike, no one is suggesting expanding marriage to same sex couples will fix anything.

If Bob and Bill or Sue and Jan move in together and say they are married, it won't throw the world into crisis. And married gays will not cause straight people to take marriage any less seriously, they already have made a mockery of it. I could see some weight to this arguement if straight people married and kept their vows... but 50% or more do not.

Seriously, straight people use marriage for political and economic motives too.

[Skybird]

These economical motives base on "boni" and assistances of the state for the instiututoon of families, Neal. And to maintain/restrengthen this institution as a key item of social integrity (whose decline is affecting the poor state our societies are in) - this is what it is about.

In Germany, despite the usual sets of voluminous family laws, the special protection for and status of families even is founded in the constitution, article 6 of the Basic Law:


Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]

(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.
(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.
(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.
(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.
(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.


The explciit understanding of "marriage" being a heterosexual thing, concludes from several other law sources, and also is an implicit basis int the family law system we have over here. And as I said, even gay and lesbian interest groups have moved away from demanding to use the term "marriage" in this related meaning for their same-sex-relationships.

The creators of this text obviously were well aware of the social importance of "family", and it'S early pre-stage, "marriage", and in the years afterwards, specific tax- and other related laws were designed to reflect a special status of families that benefits from material support that sets families apart from other social partner constellations that do not have the same importance for the state'S and the community's future wellbeing, which exludes gay marriages as well as singles like me from having access to these "boni". That in the past years and decades the chnages in the industrial and economic job world as well as party-interests and politcal distortions have crippled this original intention, does not chnage the fact that families are more important thah any other social constellation and that they should be given special protection and benefits for the community'S best self-interest. If these boni are given to everybody - how is the special status of families being recognised then anymore? You have said somewhere earlier that it already is so damaged that it doesn't matter to contribute even further to the damage by accepting to relativise it even further, you said it not in these words, but this is the conseqeunce of what you said. Well. Think twice.

"Marriage" is just a word. What counts is it's meaning. and in meaning, gay "marriages" should not be as valuable and appreciated by state and community as the far more important hetero marriage, and "family". Gay parents are not the same like hetero parents. That some children grow up with one parent missing, does not make that a condition desirable, and open for intentional choice. Usually, singles get refused to adopt children even if wishing desperately to do so, therefore. So it should be with gay/lesbian couples: children's interest ranks above their interest. and since it should be expressed in form of a law, you have to formulate a rule of general valdity, not basing on some theoretically imaginable exceptions from the rule. Laws already have far too many of these. That's why our legal systems are such a mess nowadays.

And that list above, it is not helpful to replace arguments by sarcastic comments and aggressive rethorics, and just displays a lack of arguments. All it does is heating up tension and lowering the willingness to listen. And much on that list is simply crap anyway. It tells more about the mind authoring such a list, than about those he wants to adress by it.

I think Captain Haplo also has a very valid point that I just touched en passant.

[porphy]

My view is maybe not that far of Skybird. If the family and its values as institution in society needs strengthening, why is it so hard to accept homosexuals to be allowed to form families? One could look at their wish to live in a marriage, with children (adopted or natural born) and acting as responsible parents as being part of these values, not primary to dilute and twist them.
For example, I can't see anything in that paragraph 6 you quoted that would stop same sex parents or married couples. Part of the argument seems to be that society can't bear the costs of extending marriage, possibility of children and family life to everyone, but if family life and its values is the holy grail of modern society, why not put up some money to strengthen it even this way?

In Sweden the family and marriage, and some of the traditional values connected to this, are very much en vogue again. So, maybe it is quite reasonable and much in line with this current tendency to extend the values and benefits of family and marriage to citizens that have been barred from this by people and groups that claim the exclusive right to both concept and the social benefits and status on grounds of their sexual orientation.

Yes, marriage is a concept with a long history in religion, but its history is only in part religious. Claiming that it is essentially a wholly religious concept somehow kidnapped by some evildoers with the agenda to erode morality, like CaptainHaplos post seem to indicate, is simply an opinion which ignores much of todays modern facts about what a family and marriage is, in most western countries.

cheers Porphy

[Skybird]

I will not repeat myself once again, Porphy. I have answered all that several times now. If you cannot see that a lesbian women is not a male father and a gay man is not a female mother, and that a family resulting naturally from a marriage is something different than a friendship between two people, or a partnering between to homosexuals, well - then it is so. I still oppose equal tax and other finacial reliefs for singles as well as homosexual couples, and I still oppose the bidea of legalising adoptation by singles, or homosexual couples. the reasons, social, psychological, cultural and communal reasons, I have listed repeatedly now. and I have not seen one reasonable or responsible counterargument in this thread or the two we have had last year, that would make sense to me and is not directed against vital key priorities of both communities, and children.

and as already said, this ongoing relativising of the importance of intact families (as they are being formed up by mother nature, biologically as well as psychologically and socially) may have reasons that cause it, nevertheless in themselves are one of the major reasons why our socieites is bristling so much with social problems that range from collapsing functional values over material egoism on all social levels (from the social wellfare parasite to the top banker) to youth violence, street crime and drugs, and school schootings.

What children need, is an intact family with one father and one mother. How absurd it is that even this nowadays must be discussed and considered to be open for debate! You guys should talk with a close girlfeiend of mine, a family-therapist. she could tell you some things about the conseqences of single mothers raisjng kids without the father, patriacrchalic family tyrannies, and the conseqwuences this can have for kids once they are older than 30. It ranges from signficantly raised vulnerbilities for depressipon or various forms of neuroticism, to sexual deviations and disturbed relation-building with members of the other sex. And that is no cliche, gentlemen, but facts of not just slightly but solid statistcial significance. Not every children ends like this. But it has much better statistical chances to end up like this if it's family background is not intact. And that is what health prevention, psychologically as well as physically, is about: to keep such risk-probabilities low.

, is simply an opinion which ignores much of todays modern facts about what a family and marriage is, in most western countries.


It's less functional and for the communal interestm than before. i would not be so proud on today'S status of families. To me, it is a major, critical damage, and an ongoing deconstruction.

[Frame57]

Letting Homo's live in peace is fine by me. Problem comes when they force their lifestyle on others as they are doing with marriage laws and other special rights.

-S I knew of at least two of them while in the military. One was on the AS-33 the other on the SSN-687. Both of them were severe problems in various ways. Both got BCD discharges. Both openly vaunted their sexual preference and desires in a very unprofessional way which led to them being ejected from the military. Not in a million years would I want to be in a combat situation with any of them

[SteamWake]

I knew of at least two of them while in the military. One was on the AS-33 the other on the SSN-687. Both of them were severe problems in various ways. Both got BCD discharges. Both openly vaunted their sexual preference and desires in a very unprofessional way which led to them being ejected from the military. Not in a million years would I want to be in a combat situation with any of them

Makes one wonder how they got past the recruitmen office let alone serving on a ship of the line.

Not the fact that there gay in particular but their 'odd' behaviour and outlook on life.

[Freiwillige]

Here is the crux of the matter....

"Marriage" is a religious term. Like it or not - it is. The State has overreached by claiming to be able to license or control such a thing.

By using the insidious control of the State in a RELIGIOUS institution, those who push for "gay marriage" are doing nothing more than attempting to subvert a moral stance based on religion.

If it was about equal rights - as some claim, then whats wrong with a civil union that gives same sex people all the same "rights" as well as responsibilities?

The reason its not ok - is becuase equal rights isn't what its about. Its about finding ways to reduce the moral foundation of what the majority stands on.

I am not saying this based on a single religion - but its an attempt to weaken the entire moral fabric of our society - so that it becomes more accepting of those things that are immoral based upon the myriad of theologies, beliefs and even common sense that majority hold close.

Get someone to turn a blind eye to one thing, then it becomes easier to do the same the next time.

Its like an injustice to your neighbor - they say "well it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it???"

And when the gestapo arrested the neighbors - the man did nothing... until finally they came for him - and there was no one left to speak out.

This is dead on target:up: Couldnt have said it better.

[Freiwillige]

On the whole rights issue, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. They can get married, just not to the same sex and its exactly the same as hetero people.

[Armistead]

Gay is becoming a norm. When I was young you seldom heard of it. For me the issue is sexual common sense. They wouldn't let a male coach in the girls locker room, because of sexual attraction. There are places that still should be banned because of the problem of possible sexual attraction. I don't want my son taking showers with gay scout leaders. It has nothing to do with body parts, but sexual attraction. If this were OK, then letting men and women take part of everything should be the norm, showers, locker rooms, bunks, toilet, ect. We split these things because of the problems of possible sexual attraction, not body parts. If gay in these things are OK, then all should be allowed.

I was outraged this past school year. My son who is just 12, going through puberty was forced to watch a movie at school "Why Billy has two fathers." The teacher that player it is gay. I'm all for sex sexual education, but not pushing an agenda.

As far as marriage......I could care less what people do inside. Gays are everywhere today, because it's an in thing. I don't think most today are born gay, they choose it.

[Morts]

why did you revive this thread?:damn:

[Task Force]

lets get this thread locked... so no sh** gets started...

[Morts]

yes please

[Task Force]

I pmed Xabba...

[Biggles]

I pmed Xabba...

Good initiative. I feel sorry to start this bloody mess in the first place...

[antikristuseke]

You should'nt, far less "controversial" threads have degraded into worse ****storms than this did.
In a free society people should expect to have their cvalues questioned by others, instead of taking offence there should the discussion.

[Morts]

Good initiative. I feel sorry to start this bloody mess in the first place...
you shouldnt, i had a great time posting here :DL:rotfl:

[Biggles]

you shouldnt, i had a great time posting here :DL:rotfl:

Aye, I had a great time reading your posts too:salute::yeah:

[Buddahaid]

If this wasn't taken so seriously it would be hilarious! My solution? Make all unions outside the church civil unions. Marriage is the name given unions recognized by the church only. If your church is progressive, gay/lesbions will be married. If old school, then there will be no marriage, only a civil legal union.

There is no longer any societal pressure to keep marriage sanctified, and the term is near meaningless anyway. Too bad in many respects, as I do value the family, and extended family, as binding social cells that would police their own rogues and take much of the burden off the state for elder care, teaching social values to the youngsters, etc.

Guess I'm getting old! My parents and my wives parents were only married once, and I've been married for 31 years. While we are not a religious family group, I do value this upbringing and what it means to all involved.

Buddahaid

[mookiemookie]

Have you ever had trouble swiping your older, more-used credit cards through a card reader? Has the cashier sighed heavily and cast an annoyed glance in your direction as he or she finally gives up and types in the number manually? Next time, try the handy plastic bag solution.

There are tiny particles embedded in that magnetic strip on the back of your card. When the card is “swiped” through the reader, those particles are translated into binary code and transmits your card number (and other pertinent information) to the computer at the bank or wherever the merchant transmits the data for verification. As a card gets older and more worn, slight surface defects might occur in the magnetic strip that could corrupt the data stream. (The machine might read a zero where there isn’t one, and kick back your card as being invalid.)

Increasing the distance of the card surface from the reader even a few thousandths of an inch often improves the signal-to-noise ratio, causing the electric eye to skip over the “ticks” in the magnetic strip. The easiest way to accomplish this is to place a strip of clear cellophane tape over the strip, but since most consumers don’t carry a roll of Scotch tape with them, a plastic shopping bag will do the trick. Place the card in the bag, pull the bag tight around the card, and swipe it. In many cases, the card will now clear. Of course, we know that once you get home you’ll immediately apply for a replacement card, so that you won’t be holding up the line like that again.

[Armistead]

You know it's also about perspective. Guys sure don't mind two lesbo's going at it....

[Buddahaid]

You know it's also about perspective. Guys sure don't mind two lesbo's going at it....

I could never be gay, cuz when I get done I go to sleep. I don't want to have to get in of the shower and scrub the stuff out of my balls.

Did you mean camera angle? :har:

Gotta go now, sign off for the night.
Buddahaid

[Task Force]

good night...

@Armistead... Horriable thoughts... horriable thoughts.:dead:

[stabiz]

Jeez, there are some dinosaurs roaming around the sub pens.

[Task Force]

So... should I watch my step... I dont want to get crushed... or step in a giant pile of dino poo. lol

[XabbaRus]

OK this was a dead thread that caused a lot of trouble but did die of its own accord.

This time I'm putting it out of its miserable life for good.