'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[Gerald]

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.

The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

Note: Published January 07, 2011

[gimpy117]

well the thing is too...if I had gotten a passport when i was a minor via my dad and stepmother... I don't really call her my mother. So i can see how even in a situation where it's not a same-sex marriage situation it would be more politically correct.

[Tribesman]

Where did you put your name if you were the guardian not the parent?

[TheDarkWraith]

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope:

[Gerald]

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope: True, something is screwed here, :hmmm:

[Tchocky]

This is clearly the last straw! Stock up on canned food, guys.


Can't see why it's not left as is. I doubt many non-traditional parents take offence.

[Castout]

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope:


I share your sentiment

[Penguin]

I foresee interesting scenes at the passport office:
"Ok, my name is Bill Bonehead, and I am parent one, as I am the father"
"Hey, I am his mother, so I should be parent one!"
"Nancy, we debated this before! Clerk, write my name under parent one!"
"No way, mofo! Take this:" *bang, bang, bang*

:D

[Ducimus]

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.”

I wonder if he means, "married queers that adopted some poor kid". Because, clearly, there is no father or mother in that type of scenario. :har:

[Gerald]

I wonder if he means, "married queers that adopted some poor kid". Because, clearly, there is no father or mother in that type of scenario. :har: :O:

[Castout]

I foresee interesting scenes at the passport office:
"Ok, my name is Bill Bonehead, and I am parent one, as I am the father"
"Hey, I am his mother, so I should be parent one!"
"Nancy, we debated this before! Clerk, write my name under parent one!"
"No way, mofo! Take this:" *bang, bang, bang*

:D

Yea the new designation will offend even many more parents.

I suggest parent A and Parent 1. :haha:

[mookiemookie]

complete and utter breakdown of American society. No it's not.

Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: No I'm pretty sure they're going to keep it at legal adults.

What happened to core values Like bigotry?

morals Like intolerance?

and 'complete' families?Two parents make a complete family.

Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope: Hysterics.

[Rilder]

Personally I would think that "Guardian" would make a better choice of words here. *Shrug*

[Skybird]

And more PC crap from the crowd that thinks mothers should be ashamed to be mothers inmstead of making a career (a mother by the terminology is a thread to the concept of that women have to be seen as successful and equal to men in jobs, so they simply shall no be called mothers anymore). It'S also more relativisation of homosexual relations, and if socialist conformity and state-run caretaking of children should be needed as it is desired by those benefitting from the dependency of the electorate, then first the primary social security net for kids - intct familiues - have to be destroyed.

It is so sick and perverse.

The US is just following the Swiss and European madness here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=170706

In a lose context, some days ago two Catholic German cardinals have accused the PC crowd of wanting to homosexualise mankind. Considering that leftist pedagogues have already have seriously demanded to educate children and teens at school to encourage them to try out homosexual experiences and "see the good in it" (quoted by memory, the news is 1-1.5 years old and was in the news in Germany), I cannot guarantee that maybe they do not have a point. It's just a highly suspicious organisation raising these accusations.

I like what in the past our culture was standing for, and has created in creations and benefits and values. But the way it detoriates now and is being destroyed by bored leftist idiots, PC-relativisers and superpedagogues (a typical German disease) does not even make me wanting to vomit on it anymore - for in comparison that would still be an expression of appreciation.

Siock, sick, sick. The time is near when parents do not even have "children" anymore. To call a child a child may be expression of a possessive claim, and may be considered discrimination.

[Platapus]

Don't assume this is in response to homosexual couples :nope:

Heterosexual couples like The Frau and I would benefit from this.

She is the mother of the kids. What am I?

Unfortunately passport and other government documents don't give me the options of

1. The Guy whats boinkin the mom
2. The Chump who just pays the bills

Until one of those options are open, I will be satisfied with parent 2.

There is a growing number of heterosexual couples in the same "status" as I am.

[Aramike]

Like bigotry?
Mookie, I think you could use a little help in defining bigotry, as it certainly isn't terminology on a document that identifies a child's parents as "mother" and "father", unless you think that nature really screwed up on that one.

To be honest, I don't see this change as an issue. But it IS yet another example of the minority's imposition of political correctness through obfuscation and dilution of meaning for the sole purpose of avoiding unintentional insult to those who find offense in the traditions of the majority.

So, yet again, we decide to bow to such petty demands rather than insisting that those whiney, self-important, easily-offended individuals grow thicker skin.

Why is it that we insist on changing how the MAJORITY percieves the world rather than insisting the the minority try to simply UNDERSTAND that most of us have different values?

[krashkart]

Fill in the blanks and get on with it. Jesu Christo, does every little thing in life have to be so difficult? :doh:

[TLAM Strike]

Personally I would think that "Guardian" would make a better choice of words here. *Shrug*

Yea I agree. I see "Parent or Guardian" on a lot of forms and it makes sense, not everyone was raised by their parents.

For example I was raised mostly by my grandmother until I was about 10.

[Wolfehunter]

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope:I actually see people getting tattoos' of bar codes stamped on there arms... hmmm didn't someone do this already?... Oh wait my bad..:nope: They put GPS chips in you or soon will... ya...:doh::stare: hopeless..

[antikristuseke]

Oh ****, the world is changing, doom must be upon us all! Give me a ****ing break.

[Gerald]

This is just the beginning....

[Tribesman]

In a lose context, some days ago two Catholic German cardinals have accused the PC crowd of wanting to homosexualise mankind.
As opposed to a couple of cardinals accused of buggery?:doh:

Don't assume this is in response to homosexual couples
Given the bitter nature of some break ups and custody battles you can imagine the complaints recieved from parents who see someone else listed as the mother/father of their child.

But it IS yet another example of the minority's imposition of political correctness through obfuscation and dilution of meaning for the sole purpose of avoiding unintentional insult to those who find offense in the traditions of the majority.

What has this to do with PC? If someone is not the mother/father of a child they should not be listed as the mother/father, it isn't Political Correctness it is just correct.
If you want traditions of the majority you would amend the page to include all the various traditional titles for someone who is not actually the childs mother/father

[the_tyrant]

personally, I actually want to hear what these guys would like to say about this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU&feature=related
troll warning

the Westboro Baptist Church, the world's biggest trolls without question. the third man, you should watch and learn

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, I think you could use a little help in defining bigotry, as it certainly isn't terminology on a document that identifies a child's parents as "mother" and "father", unless you think that nature really screwed up on that one. I took TDW's little rant as being against gay marriage/gay couples adopting a kid. That's what I was going for there.

So, yet again, we decide to bow to such petty demands rather than insisting that those whiney, self-important, easily-offended individuals grow thicker skin. The answer to irrational bigotry and intolerance isn't for the victim to grow thicker skin.

Why is it that we insist on changing how the MAJORITY percieves the world rather than insisting the the minority try to simply UNDERSTAND that most of us have different values? Because hate isn't a value. And as I've said before, if the majority doesn't want to recognize the worth and value and equality of human beings just because they're gay, then yes, that idea needs to be rammed into their heads. Civil rights trudges on, no matter how much people kick and scream and wail against it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Off-the-cuff reply fueled by intolerance and ignorance: complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope:

Nuanced, rational reply:
well the thing is too...if I had gotten a passport when i was a minor via my dad and stepmother... I don't really call her my mother. So i can see how even in a situation where it's not a same-sex marriage situation it would be more politically correct.
What a difference between the two. See, folks, sometimes it pays to lay down your zealotry, take a deep breath, and think before you post.

So, yet again, we decide to bow to such petty demands rather than insisting that those whiney, self-important, easily-offended individuals grow thicker skin.
Oh, the irony :) .
I foresee interesting scenes at the passport office:
"Ok, my name is Bill Bonehead, and I am parent one, as I am the father"
"Hey, I am his mother, so I should be parent one!"
"Nancy, we debated this before! Clerk, write my name under parent one!"
"No way, mofo! Take this:" *bang, bang, bang*

:DThat was my first thought as well:rotfl2:.

Personally I would think that "Guardian" would make a better choice of words here. *Shrug* Yeah, there's that, too.

[antikristuseke]

This is just the beginning....

Whoda thunk it, future society will not remain stagnating in its current state, but it will be different, that is something completely unprecedented in the last 10,000 or so years of written history.:shifty:

[Buddahaid]

This is just the beginning....

It is in line with allowing a married woman to keep her sirname on legal and other forms. I was married in 1978 in California where that was recognized, but other states and business forms had no provision for it. The world survived somehow. This is a non-issue.

[Safe-Keeper]

Whoda thunk it, future society will not remain stagnating in its current state, but it will be different, that is something completely unprecedented in the last 10,000 or so years of written history.:shifty:We're doomed:-?

[Skybird]

I actually see people getting tattoos' of bar codes stamped on there arms... hmmm didn't someone do this already?... Oh wait my bad..:nope: They put GPS chips in you or soon will... ya...:doh::stare: hopeless..
In fact, occasionally these things get suggested. In all seriousness. For example, one argument to raise a smoke screen is to have an ID and banking chip in your hand, so that you can pay by laying your hand onto the sanner, and that'S it.

[Gerald]

Whoda thunk it, future society will not remain stagnating in its current state, but it will be different, that is something completely unprecedented in the last 10,000 or so years of written history.:shifty: Technique is refined and it is something that will shape society, regardless of what citizens have to comment

[Platapus]

Personally I would think that "Guardian" would make a better choice of words here. *Shrug*

The word Guardian has specific legal meanings. Taking my life as an example, I was never the Legal Guardian of The Frau's kids. So in my case, a form that has Guardian would not be of help to me.

[tater]

A friend of ours and his partner adopted THREE older, hard-luck kids from the reservation (in a really bad situation). They adopted all three siblings so they'd have SOME continuity in their sh*tty lives. Now the kids are doing great, and will likely—like their parents—be successful professionals (one is an engineer for the labs, the other a dentist).

They have the disposable income to take their 3 kids abroad on vacation. Why should the form not allow for this?

Tempest, meet teapot.

[ReallyDedPoet]

A friend of ours and his partner adopted THREE older, hard-luck kids from the reservation (in a really bad situation). They adopted all three siblings so they'd have SOME continuity in their sh*tty lives. Now the kids are doing great, and will likely—like their parents—be successful professionals (one is an engineer for the labs, the other a dentist).

They have the disposable income to take their 3 kids abroad on vacation. Why should the form not allow for this?


:sign_yeah:

[antikristuseke]

Technique is refined and it is something that will shape society, regardless of what citizens have to comment

And this means what, exactly?

[Gerald]

And this means what, exactly? It means exactly that in many cases the technique goes before human interest

[antikristuseke]

I still don't understand what you mean, could you paraphrase? I am not trying to be difficult here, just interested in what you are saying.

[Gerald]

We live in a world that is changing,and although we not always welcome ideas which in this case, so they grow into society just like everything else,(and you must excuse) but when I'm doing a job I do not currently able to make a deep analysis of the situation, then you are not satisfied with the outcome of the results

[Skybird]

Since several millenia mankind uses to think in terms of mother and father and child and family. Noticable rules of far-reaching adoptation, like in Rome for example or with certain Indian tribes, do not change that. But suddenly a going-mad Western mankind thinks it must take it upon itself to abandon a social concept that has proven its worth and value both for survival and for the interest of society since so long just to "prove" that women no ölonger are discriminated by being asspoicated with the mother-role and that they act as successfully and equal in the business world like men? Because that is what is really behind it: the ideologic desire to abandone motherhood in order to free women for the claim by emancipation. You can find this, hedged and encoded, both the the official description of policy for the running legislation period of the German family ministry run by the womean with the always present battle-smile, Ursula von der Leyen, and you also find it in the declaration of interior political goals for social policies on EU level.

BTW, there have been several people crossing my ways who were raised by stepfathers or stepmothers, and nevertheless called them, felt for them as and referred to them as their father or mother. Becasue the terms describes not so much a statistical observation of how man children ar raised by the biological or just social parents, but in the first the terms describe how somebody refers to and feels for a given women and man playing a role in his/her life, and it refers to the emotional binding and the social role model and the communal importance of having children raised not by state-run collectives or interest groups refered to as "Anonymous Parents" or "Elter in Neutrality", but by families.

We see our Wetsern cultural structure desintegrating since longer time now. We endlessly relativsde ourselves. We are being out in question by new challengers in the race. The conditions of the envrionment in whichg we live, raise certain indices indicating the conditions of our future survival to critical levels. We are demanded to apologise endlessly and feel guilty for the crimes coimmited by our forefathers. We want to be nice and demosntrate how tolerant we are even if that means to deny our own identity. We have plenty of academic brnches, namely social "sciences", pedagogic "science", psychology, wanting to maintain the fincial fundings and individual careers - and so need to endlessly produce fictional ideas and pseudo-theories in order to found an explanation and reason why they even exist, and so they theorise away like mad - in Germany, we can sing a song of that, for example regarding our school system and the Kultusministerkonferenz. The latter is not only incompetent, disconnected from reality, and a total disater - it'S existence even gets explained by several law experts as non-constitutional (ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt also says that).

So: when seeing it in this context, and in the context of an ideologic drive to make woman, whether they want or not, to serve in a new social role-model, no longer as "mother" but as "female males", then it all nevertheless is still self-damaging and insane - but in the insane context as outlined above the insane thing - in a perverse way - suddenly makes a lot of sense.

[Tribesman]

But suddenly a going-mad Western mankind thinks it must take it upon itself to abandon a social concept
Wow, changing innacuracies on a declaration is abandoning a social concept:doh:

BTW, there have been several people crossing my ways who were raised by stepfathers or stepmothers, and nevertheless called them, felt for them as and referred to them as their father or mother
So what?
Irrelevant nonsense, just like your "I knew two gays at school"

This is about an official declaration on an official document, it doesn't matter if you knew someone who called a stepmother a mother as its got bugger all to do with it as mother/father means something just as guardian means something.
What you are talking about is emotional attatchment which is about as relevant on a passport application as the size of their uncles left shoe(which according to secret EU legislation written in invisible ink on the back of the Lisbon dictat must now be included in all formal applications as your mother or fathers brothers shoe size is an important key in the deliberate dismantling of western society)

[Safe-Keeper]

Since several millenia mankind uses to think in terms of mother and father and child and family. Noticable rules of far-reaching adoptation, like in Rome for example or with certain Indian tribes, do not change that. But suddenly a going-mad Western mankind thinks it must take it upon itself to abandon a social concept that has proven its worth and value both for survival and for the interest of society since so long just to "prove" that women no ölonger are discriminated by being asspoicated with the mother-role and that they act as successfully and equal in the business world like men?Appeal to tradition. You know better than this.

Because that is what is really behind it: the ideologic desire to abandone motherhood in order to free women for the claim by emancipation.Yeah, when two men fall in love and want to marry they do it not for the same reason straight couples do, but to change the role of females in their society.

We see our Wetsern cultural structure desintegrating since longer time now. We endlessly relativsde ourselves. We are being out in question by new challengers in the race. The conditions of the envrionment in whichg we live, raise certain indices indicating the conditions of our future survival to critical levels. We are demanded to apologise endlessly and feel guilty for the crimes coimmited by our forefathers. We want to be nice and demosntrate how tolerant we are even if that means to deny our own identity. We have plenty of academic brnches, namely social "sciences", pedagogic "science", psychology, wanting to maintain the fincial fundings and individual careers - and so need to endlessly produce fictional ideas and pseudo-theories in order to found an explanation and reason why they even exist, and so they theorise away like mad - in Germany, we can sing a song of that, for example regarding our school system and the Kultusministerkonferenz. The latter is not only incompetent, disconnected from reality, and a total disater - it'S existence even gets explained by several law experts as non-constitutional (ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt also says that).</derail>

So: when seeing it in this context, and in the context of an ideologic drive to make woman, whether they want or not, to serve in a new social role-model, no longer as "mother" but as "female males", then it all nevertheless is still self-damaging and insane - but in the insane context as outlined above the insane thing - in a perverse way - suddenly makes a lot of sense. No, it doesn't. In fact, can't make head nor tail of your post. It starts off vaguely related to the topic but then goes off on a rant about foreigners and political correctness and conspiracy theories.

[Skybird]

[sigh]

For the x-thousandth time: a homosexual man cannot replace the role-model of a fem,ale mother, nor is a lesbian women capable to serve as a role model of a male.

And homosexual couples cannot and will not reproduce, their value for the community thus is zero, they are not capable to biologically contribute to the survial of the tribe, to put it in archaic language. Fopr soc iety it means nothing whether I have feiewnds or notr, wheter I have colleagues or not, and whether I live with another man or not. Only when I live with a women and their is the chance that we will raise kids by ourselves, we make a difference - beyond that, comosexual couples are as non-relevant to the survial interest of the comm unity as are us singles.

That you cannot understand the context in which I see the relativising of the mother-role (some emancipatory activists even still think that every coitus is a demonstration of males subjugating females, and all that nonsenes...), and how ideologic leftist camps try to demonstrate enforced equality between genders by destroying the traditional roles of fathers and mothers so that the gender-component gets ignored, does not automatically mean that you lack of understanding indicates that I have it wrong. Maybe you simply are not capable to see it, or you simply do not wish to see it, for whatever your motives are. ;)

[antikristuseke]

Last I checked humanity was in no risk of going extinct due to lack of reproduction.
Other than that the so called traditional roles are a relatively new thing as fas as the history of humanity is concerned. And equality is not enforced, only made possible. There is a HUGE chasm of a difference here.

[tater]

This isn't about the relative effectiveness of different parenting scenarios, it's about a FORM that must include options that exist to properly categorize the people in question.

Divorce and remarriage is also an issue. In addition to "parent" there should probably be some indication of the relatedness of them biologically. Why? Because in case of some mishap, the passport data might be all authorities have to ID a body. Knowing if Parent 2 is biologically related (instead of perhaps being dad #3 or something with multiple divorces not at all uncommon) would be useful (they find the body of parent 2 but are trying to ID others based on DNA alone, for example—if parent 2 is unrelated to any of the kids that will be fruitless).

Anyway, it's just a form, and there are MANY scenarios where the "parent" might not be the mother or father (could be the grandparents, in fact).

[trekchu]

Last I checked humanity was in no risk of going extinct due to lack of reproduction.
Other than that the so called traditional roles are a relatively new thing as fas as the history of humanity is concerned. And equality is not enforced, only made possible. There is a HUGE chasm of a difference here.


:agree:

This. In a perfect society we wouldn't even need any equality legislation.

Even so, the 'disappearance' of traditional roles/values/techniques that is often so bemoaned in certain circles has in areas other than marriage often led to innovation and actually led to progress in human society. Modern science anyone?

[tater]

:agree:

This. In a perfect society we wouldn't even need any equality legislation.

Even so, the 'disappearance' of traditional roles/values/techniques that is often so bemoaned in certain circles has in areas other than marriage often led to innovation and actually led to progress in human society. Modern science anyone?

I don't think any "equality" legislation is needed, actually (in terms of sexual orientation). Personally, I think as long as the State doesn't hold them to any different standard than anyone else (and they don't, any man has the same right to marry a woman that I do, neither of us has the right to marry another man, we are entirely equal), there's nothing to see. Regarding "marriage," my personal feeling is that "marriage" is well defined in common law as a male/female pair bonding. I would vote "yes" on a ballot tomorrow for a "civil union" law, and might even do so if it was called "marriage" though I think that that word already has a very specific meaning. What gay couples need is the cheap, durable legal rights that marriage gives "off the shelf," from the county clerk—the word is just a word.

[trekchu]

You sort of missed the point. What you propose IS equality legislation, and the lack of equal rights for everyone is what makes it necessary. No matter if you call it marriage, civil union or the Big Mac Companionship, the denial of equal rights and legal protection for same-sex couples is denying civil rights, plain and simple.

[tater]

You sort of missed the point. What you propose IS equality legislation, and the lack of equal rights for everyone is what makes it necessary. No matter if you call it marriage, civil union or the Big Mac Companionship, the denial of equal rights and legal protection for same-sex couples is denying civil rights, plain and simple.

No, it's not. Marriage is not a right. The laws about real marriage (man/woman) are filled with arbitrary requirements (age, relatedness, etc). What the state grants is a license. A State cannot grant a "right," a right you have in the absence of the government. States can only take away rights, not grant them. In the US you are not granted free speech, the government is DISALLOWED to interfere with your free speech. Huge difference.

A gay man has the exact same rights WRT marriage as I do. I could (and did) marry a woman, and a gay guy can marry a woman, too. He can't marry a man, but neither could I. No discrimination. No civil rights violated since marriage is not a civil right. The legal benefits can be had for any couple as a contract, they simply have to pay a lawyer to draw it up. The only down side is it costs more than a marriage license (we had friends that were not going to get married, but it was easier than drawing up the contracts to be married in all but reality, so they got married instead).

That's why a law needs to be passed to allow them a civil union. A law must be passed because it is a statutory issue, not a rights issue. Any claim of rights violation pretty much requires using the word "love," which presents a huge can of worms (a court decision that marriage would be a right would HAVE to say that the problem is that a gay man cannot marry who he LOVES, since he has the exact same "rights" to marry as any other man. Add in that "love" in a court ruling, and it begs the question why any "love" can be abridged (why not marry 10 people, or your sister? If the real right is to "marry who you love."). Better to treat it as the non-right it is, and pass a LAW instead of trying to legislate in court which will certainly have unintended consequences.

[Aramike]

I took TDW's little rant as being against gay marriage/gay couples adopting a kid. That's what I was going for there. Fair enough.The answer to irrational bigotry and intolerance isn't for the victim to grow thicker skin.Why not?

If the "irrational bigotry" you're referring to merely is using traditional terms such as "mother" and "father", than again, why not?Because hate isn't a value. Disagreement and opposition isn't necessarily hate, either.And as I've said before, if the majority doesn't want to recognize the worth and value and equality of human beings just because they're gay, then yes, that idea needs to be rammed into their heads.If by "value" you mean generically human life, I would agree with you. If by "value" you mean one's abilities to perform functions, either by biological imperative or one's ideological leanings, such values SHOULD be questioned.

Not doing so is along the same lines as allowing people with horrible eyesight to fly airplanes in the name of civil rights, which makes no sense.

Civil rights trudges on, no matter how much people kick and scream and wail against it. Civil rights are indeed important, but they shouldn't fly in the face of pragmatic sensibilities nor preclude discussion of an individual's fitness regarding the ability to engage in society's most important functions. And, being a member of a larger subgroup does, in some ways, define the individual. If those particular definitions are seen as detrimental to certain functions, engagement in those functions should be examined.

[Skybird]

The family (mother, father, children) is under expliciut special protection by the state - so it is ruled black on white in the German constitgution. It is intentionally given a special status, due to the importance of it for the communal wellbeing and future survival.

If now the term family gets watered down and desribes non-families as well, relations that do not have the capoability to contribute to the communal interest by producing new kids and future tax payers paying for the old, then this can be achieved by two ways: the special legal status of families gets destzroiyed, or it gets relativiised by lifting other couple rerlations of homosexual natuzre to the same legal status . Both is what is being done. Which is a breaking of the constitution, in case you have not noted it, becasaue the constitution rules, for good and sane and vital reasons, that families are not to be seen as equal as other social relations, both as being of higher importance. This additionally is also due to the keeping of the interest of the weakest, the children.

Giving homosexuals the same legal status and tax privileges like families, and claiming they are of the same value for the community, is discrimination of singles, colleagues and social friendships. If homosexuals now are treated the same way as hetereosexual couples, although they do not controibute anything more to the community than twio individual persons ´not reproduzcing and not raising a family, then I demand the same legal status and the same tax privileges for people like me: singles.

Which still would be a breaking of the constitution.

You can argue that men and women are not equal as long as women have no penisses and men have no breasts, and you can cry wolf over black snot being white and whites not being black, and that it is not erquality as long as they all are not light brown. But it is absurd. It is as absurd as claiming that it is a thing of euqlaity that hetereo and homo couples must be treated the same, and are of the same benefit for the community. They are not, and it does nothing for a community whether or not to homsexual people live together or not. Couples reproducing and educating chiuldren in our shrinkling and over-aging Wetsenr societies - that is what it is about. And youz cannot argue around the basic design nature has decided for ther bluieprio9nt of the human species. Homosexcualisity is a reality, but it is not the norm, and it is not the way survival mof the species was meant to be acchived by. And in this understanding, homosexuality is not "norm al", and never will be. A homosexual population of any sypecies - dies within two generations. Period. Is that fair or unfair? Honestely said, nature doesn'T ask you for your ideas of fairness. Man is a heterosexual species. That's
how he is meant to be, to live, to survive as a species. Live with it.

A homosexual couple is of no more value to the community than is the single living. So why should the one be given the same special status like families, and the other not? Why should any of the two be given the same status like families/hetero couples, when none of the two do contributes as much to the community, as families do, invests as much in timer and money, and securess the future survival of the community by producing and educating kids??

I am against singles like me being given the same tax status and benfits and the same legal status, like families. And for the same reasons I am strictly against giving homosexual couples these benefits and rewards. I qwould contraqdict myself if I will it for the one, and exlcude it for the other. So I rule it out for both - for the sake of families still being recognised as something special that is more important than singles, and homosexual relations.

[trekchu]

*snip*


Have you somehow been asleep for the last seventy years?

While admittedly giving singles the same tax status as couples is daft, gay couples can procreate if willing to go over a few hurdles.

[Safe-Keeper]

[sigh]Oh, I dunno, you're actually on-topic now. It's a start.

For the x-thousandth time: a homosexual man cannot replace the role-model of a fem,ale mother, nor is a lesbian women capable to serve as a role model of a male.So if you have a tomboy or an especially feminime man, they shouldn't be allowed to marry because mommy isn't being a real mommy if she works full-time and takes her kid on motorcycle rides? You have to "serve a role model" to rear a kid now? Poppycock.

And homosexual couples cannot and will not reproduce, their value for the community thus is zeroDisgusting. My aunt and uncle cannot reproduce either, yet they contribute to our society just fine, and my beloved 10-year old cousin would very well still be in an orphanage in China if it wasn't for them. Please think before you post:nope:.

they are not capable to biologically contribute to the survial of the tribe, to put it in archaic language.Then neither are other people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce. We would have to terminate the marriages of a ton of sterile cancer patients if marriages were only to serve as a baby factories for "the tribe". Even then, there's such a thing as artificial insemination and adoption, thus homosexual/lesbian couples can, and do, raise couples together just like straight couples.

That you cannot understand the context in which I see the relativising of the mother-role (some emancipatory activists even still think that every coitus is a demonstration of males subjugating females, and all that nonsenes...), and how ideologic leftist camps try to demonstrate enforced equality between genders by destroying the traditional roles of fathers and mothers so that the gender-component gets ignored, does not automatically mean that you lack of understanding indicates that I have it wrong. Maybe you simply are not capable to see it, or you simply do not wish to see it, for whatever your motives are. ;)Or maybe I just don't understand what on earth it should have to do with gay marriage.

A gay man has the exact same rights WRT marriage as I do. I could (and did) marry a woman, and a gay guy can marry a woman, too. He can't marry a man, but neither could I. No discrimination.50 years ago, all white people were free to marry other white people, and black people were free to marry black people.

Add in that "love" in a court ruling, and it begs the question why any "love" can be abridged (why not marry 10 people, or your sister? If the real right is to "marry who you love."). Better to treat it as the non-right it is, and pass a LAW instead of trying to legislate in court which will certainly have unintended consequences."Indeed. If we're to let white people marry Negroes, what's next? People will be marrying cows, and children, and sheep! It's a slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), I'm telling you!"

Giving homosexuals the same legal status and tax privileges like families, and claiming they are of the same value for the community, is discrimination of singles, colleagues and social friendships. If homosexuals now are treated the same way as hetereosexual couples, although they do not controibute anything more to the community than twio individual persons ´not reproduzcing and not raising a family, then I demand the same legal status and the same tax privileges for people like me: singles.Buzzz. Wrong. Singles, collegues and people in "social relationships" can marry each others just like gays can.

You can argue that men and women are not equal as long as women have no penisses and men have no breasts, and you can cry wolf over black snot being white and whites not being black, and that it is not erquality as long as they all are not light brown. But it is absurd.
It is as absurd as claiming that it is a thing of euqlaity that hetereo and homo couples must be treated the same, and are of the same benefit for the community. They are not, and it does nothing for a community whether or not to homsexual people live together or not. Couples reproducing and educating chiuldren in our shrinkling and over-aging Wetsenr societies - that is what it is about. Again, sterile couples do not reproduce either, yet they're allowed to marry just fine. Heck, sex offenders, spouse-beaters, poverty-stricken, and terminally ill people are allowed to marry. Reproduction or the ability to raise children in an optimal environment has never been a requirement of marriage.

And youz cannot argue around the basic design nature has decided for ther bluieprio9nt of the human species. Homosexcualisity is a reality, but it is not the norm, and it is not the way survival mof the species was meant to be acchived by. Is that fair or unfair? Honestely said, nature doesn'T ask you for your ideas of fairness. Man is a heterosexual species. That's how he is meant to be, to live, to survive as a species. Live with it. Appeal to nature. Logical fallacy.

A homosexual population of any sypecies - dies within two generations. Period.Bollocks. Homosexuals can have sex with the otrher gender and reproduce just like we straight people can. Period.

And in this understanding, homosexuality is not "norm al", and never will be. Appeal to common practice.

[Schroeder]

You can find this, hedged and encoded, both the the official description of policy for the running legislation period of the German family ministry run by the womean with the always present battle-smile, Ursula von der Leyen, and you also find it in the declaration of interior political goals for social policies on EU level.

*Hustgucknochmalnachwerfamilienministerinisthust* ;)

[trekchu]

*Hustgucknochmalnachwerfamilienministerinisthust* ;)


*warstdreisekundenschnellerwieich*

[Skybird]

*Hustgucknochmalnachwerfamilienministerinisthust* ;)

:D

Hu, seems Mrs. Schröder has left a huge impression on me :D But the initiative for that policy chnage derives to Leyen'S time as minister, as far as I know. It had not been stated that clearly before her.

Trekchu, Safe-Keeper,

when you are determined to intentionally misunderstand the point I am after, and twist what I say into absurd distractions, then no argument is able to adress that, no matter what argument it is.

And you two know better anyway what I said and meant, don't you. ;)

[antikristuseke]

Try to paraphrase your position in big friendly letters so what we might all better understand, because what your wrote was understood in the same way by me as it was by trek and Safe-Keeper.

[Aramike]

Bollocks. Homosexuals can have sex with the otrher gender and reproduce just like we straight people can. Period.But they don't have the natural drive to do so, which is what propagates a species. Period.


...well, maybe not "period", of course if you're suggesting that homosexuality is a choice rather than instinct...

[trekchu]

But they don't have the natural drive to do so, which is what propagates a species. Period.
.
Science has long since found ways around that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation)

[Aramike]

Science has long since found ways around that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation)Indeed it has. But, quite frankly, it would be unnatural and would redefine what it is to be human should the species rely solely or dominately on such methods.

[Safe-Keeper]

when you are determined to intentionally misunderstand the point I am after, and twist what I say into absurd distractions, then no argument is able to adress that, no matter what argument it is.

And you two know better anyway what I said and meant, don't you. ;)No. When I say I don't understand what you mean, I mean it. Try to be a little less verbose and a bit more clear. Quality over quantity, my friend.

Indeed it has. But, quite frankly, it would be unnatural and would redefine what it is to be human should the species rely solely or dominately on such methods.But since we're not looking at a future in which everyone will rely on this method, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's rather like being against the use of trucks because "there would be nothing but traffic jams if every vehicle on the road was a truck".

[trekchu]

Of course. But bear in mind that Homosexuals of either gender with a will to have kids are a minority. The scaremongering that some are doing in regards to 'traditional marriage' makes it sound like it's the other way around.

[tater]

50 years ago, all white people were free to marry other white people, and black people were free to marry black people.

It's not at all the same.

This is interesting, and I think a valid POV (note that as I said I am PRO gay unions, just not through the courts, but by law).

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.


Marriage—the word—means a union of man and woman. That's what the word means, and has virtually forever (and in the long history of marriage, "interracial" marriage has in fact been common—I'd argue that laws limiting it by race occupy a shorter time frame than the rest of the history of marriage. That's why I think a new word makes more sense.




"Indeed. If we're to let white people marry Negroes, what's next? People will be marrying cows, and children, and sheep! It's a slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), I'm telling you!"

My argument was not a slippery slope fallacy. In US Constitutional law, the rationale for the decision matters. If a COURT creates a "right to marry who you LOVE" out of thin air, then the love bit has force of law, which can absolutely lead to a challenge by a brother wishing to marry a sister, etc. Ditto group marriage since having it be just 2 people is similarly arbitrary. That's the trick if it becomes a RIGHT, since arbitrary limits on natural rights make no sense.

In effect the legal system can create slippery slopes where none should exist. To avoid unexpected consequences, AND to protect civil unions from future courts messing with it, it would be better to change the law the right way, through the legislature.

[Aramike]

But since we're not looking at a future in which everyone will rely on this method, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's rather like being against the use of trucks because "there would be nothing but traffic jams if every vehicle on the road was a truck". So, wait - we are to avoid any and all discussion of points refutting your own arguments now?

Was it not you that said this:Appeal to nature. Logical fallacy....and despite the fact that you never reasoned why nature should actually be a logical falliacy, considering that nature is the fundament of all logic, we should take that at face value, we should also avoid the logic that changing the natural, species-inherent method of procreation should also be no-win?

What exactly is an argument you feel qualified to argue against without one-liner sarcasm? Science? Nature?

Or are we all supposed to just rely upon your premise as self-supporting and abandon the discussion because the conclusion is predetermined on the basis that you "said so"?

I do apologize for my directness in this matter as I am far closer to your position than you likely think - however, my contrarian, independent nature only allows me to accept actual logic as logic, rather than circular arguments that supposedly justify themselves regardless of independant logic or data.

[Gammelpreusse]

Man, what a debate.

As if homosexuals suddenly start becoming straight just so that they can marry. And as if straight couples only have children because they can marry. There is an ever growing trend, at least in Germany, for people to stay single anyways, "marriage" certainly did not much to change that.

You want more children? Provide day long day care and enable mothers a better reentry into work afterwards. And get the upper classes to get more children instead of complaining all day for the lower classes to have them.

And if gay couple want to have a children by adoptions, then that's still better then those children being raised in orphanages, with a proven track record of abuse, arguable way more harmful to their psychological development then being raised by a same sex couple. And that comes even more true in a society where men and women become ever more the same in their behavior patterns.

And this "contribute nothing to society" has far too familiar and eerie rings. What's next, sterilizing mentally disabled people because they do not contribute to society? Deporting Hartz IV candidates?

Whatever happened to "Live your life however you want as long you don't hurt others?" attitudes?

This whole debate is more based on prejudices and christian brain washing then facts. The ancient Greeks and Persians had much less Problems with those concepts and yet they quite managed to build up empires.

[Aramike]

Whatever happened to "Live your life however you want as long you don't hurt others?" attitudes?I support that attitude 100%. But how does that equate to society fiscally and legislatively supporting it?

Hell, do what you want ... just don't ask anyone to support you doing that which I find objectionable.

[Gammelpreusse]

I support that attitude 100%. But how does that equate to society fiscally and legislatively supporting it?

Hell, do what you want ... just don't ask anyone to support you doing that which I find objectionable.

But what IS objectionable? All I that came out of this debate so far is personal preference on how people have to live their lives. I completly agree on the stance that nature certainly did not plan for living beings to be straight, kinda a contradiction to reproduction. However, homosexuals are homosexuals, they won't just simply change. All you do is making others lifes miserable with such stances with no win whatsoever for anybody but the satisfaction of straights keeping the upper hand. Believe me on the other hand, if homosexuals ever came into a position where they tried to force their lifestyle onto others I'd be as opposed to that as well.

In the US, the impression constantly comes over that people have an utter aversion for the government to meddle in the affair of families and how to raise up children. So why does the same not apply to people themselves as well?

[Skybird]

Man, what a debate.

As if homosexuals suddenly start becoming straight just so that they can marry. And as if straight couples only have children because they can marry. There is an ever growing trend, at least in Germany, for people to stay single anyways, "marriage" certainly did not much to change that.

You want more children? Provide day long day care and enable mothers a better reentry into work afterwards. And get the upper classes to get more children instead of complaining all day for the lower classes to have them.


But that is the problem, and it is not just a fincial one. The Elterngeld raised by van der Leyen saw no raise in births, but a further decline, and Gunnar Heihnsohn, professor erimitus, shows by his statistic research on demographics and immigration that there is a growing of the social lower class and a decline in the upper and academic class, for example I referenced him here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171110&highlight=Gunnar+Heihnsohn). As von der Leyen has learned, couples do not get babies becasue the state pays them a bitmore money - at least in the upper class they still get babies becasue of love, and because they want babies - not necessarily the money.

Question is, why those families who could afford to have more children, don'T have them to maintain the size of that social group, not to mention to increase it. And why those not being able to afford it, have so many children.

There is also an other trend, that you correctly pointed out, and that is that more and more kids get raised by just the mother (for the most) or the father. Obviously the parents got a baby unprepared I (no excuse for that, sorry), or at a stage of their relatioinship where they still could not be sure whether they would last with each other, or split again. To much bed-adventures going on too easily, and everybody jumps into the bed with everybody else too fast.

But it is also both a cause and a consequence of the further erosion of the institution of an intact family.

We do not need babies per se in Germany. We need more babies fro t he highly educated socail classes, and we need less babies from the less educated social classes. Only then there will be a future population that even can hjpope to have a slim chance to shoulder the tax burdens of the near futurte that are needed to maintain even basic, minimal sociual security. Having babies and more babies that will not contribute to the tax income once they have grown up, but that will cost the state becasue they will not make it in a job with solid payment because due to their social class they had no chance to raise to higher education (there is a strong link between social class and future job perspectives, and some other factors), will make things worth for all of us. So we do not need an undiscrimionatory increase in our population again to counter overaging, not by a baby-.boom and not by immigration. We need babies from the "right" social backgrounds. Every mother getting a baby while being young, maybe without job or in a low-payed job, and husband left her, costs us money, and easily more money than the baby will give back to the state once it has grown up, in taxes.

This is - beside the immense interest service of the state for its existing debts, and possibly in the near future the Euro collapse - the one thing that ruins Germany's finances more than anything else, and leading the nation to the brink of collapse.

[Rilder]

I say we make everyone have equal rights, if you won't let Gays marry then Hetero Couples shouldn't be able to marry... if you won't let Gays have children then you shouldn't let Hetero couples have children. :yep:

[Gammelpreusse]

But that is the problem, and it is not just a fincial one. The Elterngeld raised by van der Leyen saw no raise in births, but a further decline, and Gunnar Heihnsohn, professor erimitus, shows by his statistic research on demographics and immigration that there is a growing of the social lower class and a decline in the upper and academic class, for example I referenced him here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171110&highlight=Gunnar+Heihnsohn). As von der Leyen has learned, couples do not get babies becasue the state pays them a bitmore money - at least in the upper class they still get babies becasue of love, and because they want babies - not necessarily the money.

Question is, why those families who could afford to have more children, don'T have them to maintain the size of that social group, not to mention to increase it. And why those not being able to afford it, have so many children.

So far agreed.



There is also an other trend, that you correctly pointed out, and that is that more and more kids get raised by just the mother (for the most) or the father. Obviously the parents got a baby unprepared I (no excuse for that, sorry), or at a stage of their relatioinship where they still could not be sure whether they would last with each other, or split again. To much bed-adventures going on too easily, and everybody jumps into the bed with everybody else too fast. Also agreed.



But it is also both a cause and a consequence of the further erosion of the institution of an intact family. Here we part in cause and effect. More next.



We do not need babies per se in Germany. We need more babies fro t he highly educated socail classes, and we need less babies from the less educated social classes. Only then there will be a future population that even can hjpope to have a slim chance to shoulder the tax burdens of the near futurte that are needed to maintain even basic, minimal sociual security. Having babies and more babies that will not contribute to the tax income once they have grown up, but that will cost the state becasue they will not make it in a job with solid payment because due to their social class they had no chance to raise to higher education (there is a strong link between social class and future job perspectives, and some other factors), will make things worth for all of us. So we do not need an undiscrimionatory increase in our population again to counter overaging, not by a baby-.boom and not by immigration. We need babies from the "right" social backgrounds. Every mother getting a baby while being young, maybe without job or in a low-payed job, and husband left her, costs us money, and easily more money than the baby will give back to the state once it has grown up, in taxes. We need, more babies, period. It does not really matter where they come from.

A couple points to that.

First of all, the lower clases "always" had lots of children, even in the times before social securities and Kindergeld. Children always have been the safe keepers of a couple's future, so to say their life insurance. The more children, the more security later on. Actually, with all that financial security nowadays it would be logical for lower classes to get "less" children.

Second, we have a huge problem with class penetrability. It really does not matter so much where children come from, as long they do not get better education it won't achieve to much. I do not buy the argument that lower classes are inherently more stupid and thus less capable, that is 19th century thinking long disproved. I also personally met enough "lower" class folks with a high degree of intelligence but the inability to make any proper use of it because they never really learned how to move within German business and upper class society. And look at German society, where especially higher class parents try to get their children away from public schools and to private ones. And no wonder, given the sorry states of many schools and the lax attitudes of many teachers. We need all day schools where the children get away from their social environment and teachers taking their profession serious.

Third, I especially lay the blame at the higher classes, which have enough ressources to get children going and ensure their education. However, in this class children have become a status symbol like a dog. You have them, you show them around and you brag with their achievements. The few children available to this class are under 24/7 surveillance, have to fill their days with all kind of activities like music, riding, going abroad and so on, with hardly time for themselves. The result are artificial beings without social competence and a serious lack of character, tweaked solely for performance and no idea what the real world looks like. That these folks also lack a serious feeling for family does not wonder me much.

All these complains by higher class folks are a distractions for problems caused by themselves in most parts and their unwillingness to give up their status and influence in society. This is also reflected in the abandonment of the "Humboldtsche Bildungsideal" for the sake of economic performance in universities.


This is - beside the immense interest service of the state for its existing debts, and possibly in the near future the Euro collapse - the one thing that ruins Germany's finances more than anything else, and leading the nation to the brink of collapse.There we agree again, but as I said, under completely different preconditions.

But this is worth a new thread, I think this goes too much off topic now.

[Skybird]

You said we need mor babies, period. But that is wrong. You must make the destinction between later net-payers and net-receivers. Net-payers will be those getting good education and get well-payed jobs so that they produce tax revenues (as long as they are stupid eniough to stay in Germany). Net-receivers will be those that are raised in social wellfare conditions, will have Hauptschule as school diploma only, and have good chances to end up as unemployed social wellfare receivers. Our society is overaging, pensions will rocket through the ceiling. In this situation you currently have the circumstance that more social "loser" babies get born than social "winner" babies, that is demographical fact. That means the ratio n between payers and receivers is shifting towards the reciever. Few and fewer peopled need to pay for more and more peoplke - those being old and those being in social wellfare circumstances.

We need more babies. But the right ones. "Right" means: having access to b etter eudcation, thus better jobs, thus better poayment when they had grown up, and so: tax incomes for the state instead of ripping off the state.

Thilo Sarrazin aimed at the same direction with his disputed statement that our society by average becomes more stupid in a natural way. He was about the discrepancy between the raise in low educated population groups both due to migration and births, and the decline in well-educated population groups. People may not like his provocative style, but by content he get things right.

Gunnar Heihnsohn is specialised on these issues of demographic developement and the consequences for our societies in the West, I urge you to read some of his books, they are science-statistic fact-bombs. His other "hobby" is the so-called "youth bulge" theory by him, showing that there is a link between the outside-bound, expansive aggressiveness of a society and the ratio of young adult men in its population. The more there are, the more aggressive and expansive that society is. Main focus here is on Islamic societies, of course. Heihnsohn therefore predicts that our current confrontation with Islamic challenges will continue for the next two generations, or 50-70 years. Not before thenh their socieites will be as overaged as ours are topday, and the ambitious expansive energy of them will decline.

Political very incorrect he is, and so he has many enemies and critics. But it is hard to argue with his numbers and demographic and financial statistics. He knows his stuff, and very well.

A correction on your claim that there is the claim that social class is linked to intelliegence. At least that is not what I am after. What can be shown is that there is a link between social class, success chnaces in the edeucation system, and later job chances. That is no claim, it is a statistical link that has been shown so reliably that most sociologists do not deny it. Whether or not this effects intelligence, depends on your understanmding of the term (and as a former psychologist I can tell you that if you ask 10 differfent psychologists what intelliogence is, you will get at least 6 or 7 different definitions). But intellectual activity trains or "degenerates" intellectual capacities. So a class where people do hard labour or live oin wellfare, are dealing with depression, unemployment, boredom and do not get challenged intellectually, is very prpone indeed to score lower IQ value on avwerage. Hell, we even have been shown that there is a highly significant link between social class and eating and food habits. The higher your education level and social class, the lesser meat you eat. The lower your social cvlass, the worse is your food and the more meat you eat! Which may also be the reason why the lower the social class, the more fat people you seem to see on average

Statistics are about trends, mean scores and generalised average statements about groups, so do not cite the individual case you happen to know, that is pointless when dealing with statistics.

[Gammelpreusse]

You said we need mor babies, period. But that is wrong. You must make the destinction between later net-payers and net-receivers. Net-payers will be those getting good education and get well-payed jobs so that they produce tax revenues (as long as they are stupid eniough to stay in Germany). Net-receivers will be those that are raised in social wellfare conditions, will have Hauptschule as school diploma only, and have good chances to end up as unemployed social wellfare receivers. Our society is overaging, pensions will rocket through the ceiling. In this situation you currently have the circumstance that more social "loser" babies get born than social "winner" babies, that is demographical fact. That means the ratio n between payers and receivers is shifting towards the reciever. Few and fewer peopled need to pay for more and more peoplke - those being old and those being in social wellfare circumstances.

We need more babies. But the right ones. "Right" means: having access to b etter eudcation, thus better jobs, thus better poayment when they had grown up, and so: tax incomes for the state instead of ripping off the state.


You already wrote so, just elaborated on that, and I already wrote why I disagree with this kind of analyzsis. Right and wrong babies, in all seriousness, the mere notion of that is utter bollocks. There are neither right or wrong, their are only prepared and not prepared children. And I also wrote what can be done about those conditions. Your argumentation is based on the believe that ppl that are born into certain classes will also stay in those classes, you take that as a fact without even attempting to try to figure out "why" that is and what can be done about it.

Another example? the boss of the company I just left is the son of an ex Bundesbank Vorstand. In an interview, even available on youtube, he stated he was too lazy to look for a job and thus founded this company. This company now exists for 8 years and yet has to see black numbers.

It is a typical example of a rich boy that runs a company for the sole reason of societies standing, to present something to his friends and to be cool. He is the last to come in and the first to go in that company each day. This is the very same company that sees a couple turkish immigrants work their asses of to achieve something.



Thilo Sarrazin aimed at the same direction with his disputed statement that our society by average becomes more stupid in a natural way. He was about the discrepancy between the raise in low educated population groups both due to migration and births, and the decline in well-educated population groups. People may not like his provocative style, but by content he get things right.Thilo Sarrazin is an idiot, who by his own words never met lower class member or immigrants in person. It is a frustatrated old man who wrote a book to adress the over the top political correctness in Germany, ranting and whining without presenting solutions or ways to get out of that problematic situation. His book is as helpful to the debate as was were the Nazis graphs that made out the very same statistics for the future of Germany, completely neglecting the fact that Germany always had and always will have immigrants and lower classes. As if that is an issue that only appeared in the last 30 years, instead of the last 3000 years.

You also may want to read this:

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2011-01/zahlen-sarrazin-studie


Gunnar Heihnsohn is specialised on these issues of demographic developement and the consequences for our societies in the West, I urge you to read some of his books, they are science-statistic fact-bombs. His other "hobby" is the so-called "youth bulge" theory by him, showing that there is a link between the outside-bound, expansive aggressiveness of a society and the ratio of young adult men in its population. The more there are, the more aggressive and expansive that society is. Main focus here is on Islamic societies, of course. Heihnsohn therefore predicts that our current confrontation with Islamic challenges will continue for the next two generations, or 50-70 years. Not before thenh their socieites will be as overaged as ours are topday, and the ambitious expansive energy of them will decline.

Political very incorrect he is, and so he has many enemies and critics. But it is hard to argue with his numbers and demographic and financial statistics. He knows his stuff, and very well.The problem with political correctness is that both sides of the argument use it as a weapon. The one side to stop discussion, the other side by making themselves heroes by claiming that being anti PC is somewhat closer to the truth. Both is bollocks. There are problems and problems have to be solved, and you do not solve problems by swinging from one extreme to the other and back and claim one fact to be true just because the other said the opposite.

Btw, the situation is as serious as ever.



A correction on your claim that there is the claim that social class is linked to intelliegence. At least that is not what I am after. What can be shown is that there is a link between social class, success chnaces in the edeucation system, and later job chances. That is no claim, it is a statistical link that has been shown so reliably that most sociologists do not deny it. Whether or not this effects intelligence, depends on your understanmding of the term (and as a former psychologist I can tell you that if you ask 10 differfent psychologists what intelliogence is, you will get at least 6 or 7 different definitions). But intellectual activity trains or "degenerates" intellectual capacities. So a class where people do hard labour or live oin wellfare, are dealing with depression, unemployment, boredom and do not get challenged intellectually, is very prpone indeed to score lower IQ value on avwerage. Hell, we even have been shown that there is a highly significant link between social class and eating and food habits. The higher your education level and social class, the lesser meat you eat. The lower your social cvlass, the worse is your food and the more meat you eat! Which may also be the reason why the lower the social class, the more fat people you seem to see on average
Now here I agree. But the obvious conclusion is that we have to bring those with lesser chances up to specs for better chances later on.

But a big point also is...you "need" the lower classes. We do not only have high management or academics jobs here. All the smaller stuff has to be done as well, it is not as prestigious, but just as important. We need folks collecting the garbage, we also need folks cleaning streets, toilets and so on. These people are a fundamentally important part of this society, though are only looked down onto. No wonder such people develop depressions and aggressions, I'd say that plays as much a role in their psychological development as their finances, which in return are a direct result of that attitude. I would, too, if my work were to be discredited all the time.


Statistics are about trends, mean scores and generalised average statements about groups, so do not cite the individual case you happen to know, that is pointless when dealing with statistics.Statistics, most of all, are scientific attempts of categorisation. This is very helpful in desciribing obvious circumstances, but the more complex an issue becomes, the less suited statistics are to describe them. And this is especially true in the case of humans, even more so given the fact that science yet has to truly understand how humans actually work in their emotions, expiriences, genetics, biological chemicals and drives and motivations. That's like trying to describe the performance of a car based on their number of accident statistics, without taking into account how powerful the car is, what road it used, what the weather conditions were and so on. In my book this approach is utterly flawed and even worse, they base humanity solely on economic performance and worse of all, an economic model that is not sustainable in the future anyways.

All in all this debate is another chapter in the age old herrenrasse symptons in a new disguise. Once it was royalty, then it was the bourgeoise, then back to the royals, then the nazis, then back to the bourgoise. Every generation makes up it's own definition of people that are worthy and who are not it appears, some in more, some in less radical manners. No offense, but if suddenly humans are not treated as humans anymore, and some kind of people consider themlselves, or by others, as better for society then other humans, then this society has a major problem. And as a reponse we will have enother kind of communism trying to counter that with their own senses of extremes. Ppl obviously never learn. I am not saying this in polemics, but what I observe in society day in day out on a "real" life basis, not pictures created by medias and stomach feelings.

So, let me repeat. We need all day schools, to get ppl out of their environment, rich and poor alike, and make sure they get a good foundation of values and education. After that nobody can complain about a lacking starting field. What they make out of it in later life then really becomes a question of personal capability. But to differ between people to this degree and make their fate and perception based on their parents is nothing short of reactionary, with hardly any potential for a betterment in the future and not a single example in the past of such a concept working in the long run.

All in all this whole debate, in my personal opinion, is an attempt to find an easy explanation and solutions to a serious problem that is too complex and multi aspected for a most individuals to grasp in all it's extend due to lack of time, intellect or motivation.

[Skybird]

I observe a statistic correlation between social class and , life expectancy, food habits, education grade, job chances. Or better, other observed and calclated that, and I just take note of it and refer to it.

A correlation is nothing you either beliueve or not. It is the result of a statistical calculation process. Formally, it is being done in a clearly defined methdological manner, it is neither random, nor totally arbitrary. It is not the result of believing something, nor do beliefs change it.

When a factor analysis gives you a highly significant result, for example, showing certain matches of features being interlinked, then that is so: there is a link. No matter what you believe. ;) Whether or not the one causally effects the other or another, third intermittend vartiable is envolved , is something different.

Again , we are not talking about opinion polls and hear-say or beliefs and ideas, but correlations, variance anylsis, factor analysis and the like. We are talking statistical methodology. Wanting to clean that off the table by just saying "I don'T buy it, I simply believe spomethign different", is a bit thin.

You better never take no drugs and medical substances the doctor had prescribed for you, because - ignoring betrayal and data forging for the moment - their licensing and permission for the market all have been determined by such statistical methods, criterions and analysis. ;)

Anyhow, I said what I have to say on the issue of links between social status and certain life parameters. I again refer to Gunnar Heihnsohn if you want scientific literature on demographic developement and its consequences, he is really no unknown name in this academic branch.

[mookiemookie]

It's not at all the same.

That's very interesting. I always thought the courts would use Loving vs. Virginia as the basis for a gay marriage case. I don't agree with their rationale as I think it does fall into the "appeal to tradition" fallacy, but it's very interesting nonetheless.

And they're wrong anyways - gay marriage existed in the Roman empire.

[Gammelpreusse]

I observe a statistic correlation between social class and , life expectancy, food habits, education grade, job chances. Or better, other observed and calclated that, and I just take note of it and refer to it.

A correlation is nothing you either beliueve or not. It is the result of a statistical calculation process. Formally, it is being done in a clearly defined methdological manner, it is neither random, nor totally arbitrary. It is not the result of believing something, nor do beliefs change it.

When a factor analysis gives you a highly significant result, for example, showing certain matches of features being interlinked, then that is so: there is a link. No matter what you believe. ;) Whether or not the one causally effects the other or another, third intermittend vartiable is envolved , is something different.

Again , we are not talking about opinion polls and hear-say or beliefs and ideas, but correlations, variance anylsis, factor analysis and the like. We are talking statistical methodology. Wanting to clean that off the table by just saying "I don'T buy it, I simply believe spomethign different", is a bit thin.

You better never take no drugs and medical substances the doctor had prescribed for you, because - ignoring betrayal and data forging for the moment - their licensing and permission for the market all have been determined by such statistical methods, criterions and analysis. ;)

Anyhow, I said what I have to say on the issue of links between social status and certain life parameters. I again refer to Gunnar Heihnsohn if you want scientific literature on demographic developement and its consequences, he is really no unknown name in this academic branch.

Nothing to add to this, in doubt let's agree to disagree

[MaddogK]

LOL
Parent 1: egg donor
Parent 2: sperm donor
or
Parent 1: petri dish
Parent 2: fertility doctor
:down:
Parent 1: orphanage
Parent 2: My Lawyer

:cool:
Feel free to 'mix and match' above.

[Penguin]

Man, this thread is better than the funny pictures one!

2 substitute words in a passport to conform with the reality of today is a destruction of the traditional family? :har:
I call this nostalgia for a time that never existed. Sure, some 50 years ago the divorce rate was lower than today. Is it better to be raised by one loving single parent or by two who stay together "for the kid's sake", who have nothing in common anymore except for arguing. Still better than to be raised by fags, or what? :damn:

To the german baby discussion I only have to say that any system which is based on unlimited growth is a sick one.

[Sailor Steve]

Marriage—the word—means a union of man and woman. That's what the word means, and has virtually forever (and in the long history of marriage, "interracial" marriage has in fact been common—I'd argue that laws limiting it by race occupy a shorter time frame than the rest of the history of marriage. That's why I think a new word makes more sense.
Dictionary definitions change from decade to decade. The dictionary doesn't tell us what a word should mean, it tells us what the contemporary meaning is. Because a word has been used to define something in the past doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future, or that it should.

[Aramike]

Dictionary definitions change from decade to decade. The dictionary doesn't tell us what a word should mean, it tells us what the contemporary meaning is. Because a word has been used to define something in the past doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future, or that it should.But isn't it what the majority sees the word as meaning what defines it?

[Aramike]

Man, this thread is better than the funny pictures one!

2 substitute words in a passport to conform with the reality of today is a destruction of the traditional family? Either you're missing the point completely or intentionally trying to reduce it to an anecdote in order to invalidate it.

Which is it?

[Tribesman]

But isn't it what the majority sees the word as meaning what defines it?
No.

Which is it?
He is spot on. He is hitting the point exactly and validly.

[Aramike]

That's very interesting. I always thought the courts would use Loving vs. Virginia as the basis for a gay marriage case. I don't agree with their rationale as I think it does fall into the "appeal to tradition" fallacy, but it's very interesting nonetheless.Why is appealing to tradition a fallacy? Since when does tradition have to exist outside of logic, and isn't it a fallacy itself to follow logic over tradition (ie, should a bride wear black to a wedding would it be wrong to state that it is against the tradational wedding garb?)?

It is the combination of tradtion and logic which creates a just society. To eschew one in favor of the other is dangerous, to say the least.

[Aramike]

No. Yes.

What the majority of people who are aware of the concept or meaning of a spoken item percieve it to be is what defines tha item.

Read: vernacular.

In the ultimate sense, what is generally accepted as a definition (read: majority) is the definition, so long as the general acceptance is within the qualified awareness of the subject.

[Tribesman]

Yes.


No.

Read: vernacular.



Which definition of vernacular?
Point proven.

[Rilder]

Marriage has always, to me, meant the union of two souls under love. Gender has never factored into the definition to me, nor has religion.

[Aramike]

No.



Which definition of vernacular?
Point proven.Pat yourself on the back more then go try to figure out a bit about language. I know what you're TRYING to get at, but it's nitpicky and clearly not what I was getting at.

[Tribesman]

Pat yourself on the back more then go try to figure out a bit about language.
You mean understanding what words mean and how they are used, like you displayed an inability to.

I know what you're TRYING to get at, but it's nitpicky and clearly not what I was getting at.
So in which context do you want to define a definition?
ooops its that old word context again, not of course suggesting that you have a problem with words:har:

What you need to do is drop all of the "the" (or add a "one of" to it) and discard the claim about "majority"as they simply make it incorrect....by which time your claim is no longer what you were trying to claim which is why the short and simple reply of "no" was sufficient though you couldn't grasp it.

So lets guess, you are going back into the realm of Skybird and that "preacher" who doesn't know scripture:yeah:

[MaddogK]

I believe I've been confused by the term 'parent' shown on all the govt applications over the years, they've obviously meant a more traditional definition of biological parents instead of the now adopted definition of parent- a caretaker of the offspring in their own species.

So now I wonder what does a grown child put in those spaces when it was raised in an orphanage ?

Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty ?

[antikristuseke]

Marriage has always, to me, meant the union of two souls under love. Gender has never factored into the definition to me, nor has religion.

I have seen marriage as just a legal contract which offers some benefits and protections while also having downsdes, I see love as being a completely different subject.

[mookiemookie]

Why is appealing to tradition a fallacy?

"An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:


The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

Yes.

What the majority of people who are aware of the concept or meaning of a spoken item percieve it to be is what defines tha item.

Read: vernacular.

In the ultimate sense, what is generally accepted as a definition (read: majority) is the definition, so long as the general acceptance is within the qualified awareness of the subject.

http://trenchperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pipe.jpeg

[Safe-Keeper]

Why is appealing to tradition a fallacy?A tradition is just something people have done over a long time. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's actually a good idea.

Examples of "bad" traditions include slavery, female circumcision, witch burnings, and marriages reserved for people marrying within their race.

[Sailor Steve]

But isn't it what the majority sees the word as meaning what defines it?
Only if you believe in tyranny of the masses.

I see two antagonistic concepts here:

1. Marriage is a contract between the state and two people, designed to force a couple to stay together to ensure that the children have two parents of differing genders, which does indeed require that it be between a man and a woman. One problem I have with that is that in a truly enlightened society the concept of what it takes to properly raise children has changed. Another is the question of how, as has been pointed out, that affects opposite-sex couples who cannot, or will not, have children. The 'tradition' itself has changed over the centuries.

2. A religious ceremony uniting two people "under God". If your church subscribes to the biblical injunction that homosexuality is "an abomination" then your church will refuse to perform such ceremonies for same-sex couples. If not, then same-sex couples should have the same priveligdes as others, and the State should stay out of it.

[tater]

The specific "tradition" that matters here is "common law."

Love has exactly nothing to do with marriage as a legal contract. We were talking about this with old friends of ours (gay—one of whom is a lawyer) and they agreed that this would likely have been settled already had they pushed "civil union" as the term. The trouble is that even most democrats don't like "marriage" being used as the word—blacks particularly (a monolithic democratic voting block and important "base" to pander to).

Pragmatically, that makes the most sense to me so they can get reciprocal, durable power of attorney, visiting rights, yadda, yadda, yadda, for the cheap price offered by the County Clerk with a single form. Push for "civil union." Worry about what to call it later.

tater

[Penguin]

Either you're missing the point completely or intentionally trying to reduce it to an anecdote in order to invalidate it.

Which is it?

I see exactly what I've read here:
people thinking that a change of words in a travel document would mean a (intentional) further destruction of the traditional family.

Like it or not: in 2011 hundreds of thousands of kids are raised under different circumstances than living together with their bio-dad and bio-mom. It is striking that nobody wrote something about Platapus' argument, that a document that states the name of the de-facto parents would be benefitial for him - at least it would put him not in stupid situations where he has a lot of explanations to give.
A customs officer gives a damn about who donated the sperm and the egg, their duty is to check if the two people who accompany a child are legitimate.
Another benefit might be, that a document like this could prevent cases of child abduction. It happens that a guy takes his kid and takes him back to his homeland. If the child is not reported missing yet, he is often succesfull doing so, cause the passport states him as the father = legal child companion. A document that states the two legitimate people who are allowed to travel with the kid can inhibit a situation like this.

[Aramike]

Only if you believe in tyranny of the masses.When it comes to communication, generally speaking, I do. Which is what I was referring to (specifically your comment about the dictionary changing).

As far as this issue is concerned, while I don't believe in the tyranny of the masses, I also do not believe in the imposing upon the traditions of the masses by the minority.

Remember my position on this from the last time we debated this: let homosexuals have all the same benefits of marriage - just call it something else.

[Aramike]

"An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:


The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)
*Sigh*

I suppose I need to brush up on the different terms of logical fallacy.

What I was TRYING to say was that justifying a debate over tradition with tradition is not a fallacy when the argument is, essentially, we don't like it because it is untraditional. Hence my "black dress" analogy.

When the argument is about social preference itself it seems to make perfect logical sense to reference said preference when the context is not simply tradition but tradition CURRENTLY held within favor.

[Sailor Steve]

Remember my position on this from the last time we debated this: let homosexuals have all the same benefits of marriage - just call it something else.
I'm sorry, but I see a bit of "Some are less equal than other" in that concept. If anyone has a monopoly on what anything is allowed to be called, then they are indeed excersizing discrimination and tyranny.

That's my feeling anyway.

[Skybird]

There needs to be consensus on what a term is meaning. That udnerstanding needs to be defion ed, and shared by all. Else any communication becomes useless at best, causing troubles at worst.

Already more than 2000 years ago Kung Tse called for what he called "the ordering of terms" (in German: das Ordnen der Begriffe).

Language shall not be arbitrary - else it becomes impossible to talk with each other.

That is why it makes me so angry when PC brigades for example hijack terms like "racism" in order to brandmark criticism of religious ideologies, and even make laws basing on these corrupted definitions of terms. Askling questions of relgion'S claims, is no racism, and not agreeing with the supremacist claim of relgious groups is no racism. A law ruling that it is, is basing of totally misled conceptions.

In other words it has lost its relevance for reality from which it is now disconnected.

Terms are important. Or as poets say: names give us power over things and items. If we misuse them, then we don't say what we mean, and we do not mean what we say. So does the other person as well. Nothing good can come from that.

[Aramike]

I'm sorry, but I see a bit of "Some are less equal than other" in that concept. If anyone has a monopoly on what anything is allowed to be called, then they are indeed excersizing discrimination and tyranny.

That's my feeling anyway.How is that less equal? We're talking about terminology - right now, the terminology is already different, as we call it "gay marriage" rather than "marriage". This in and of itself shows the pervasiveness of preferred tradition, except that the polarizing factor is the term "marriage" itself.

We ARE talking about something different here - why do we have to pretend it's the same when it clearly is not? This isn't separate but equal, as gays ALREADY have the same rights as HUMAN BEINGS that the rest of us do. This is about honoring something different but in an equal legislative fashion.

Or do you suggest that churches be required to marry homosexuals as well?

[Aramike]

There needs to be consensus on what a term is meaning. That udnerstanding needs to be defion ed, and shared by all. Else any communication becomes useless at best, causing troubles at worst.

Already more than 2000 years ago Kung Tse called for what he called "the ordering of terms" (in German: das Ordnen der Begriffe).

Language shall not be arbitrary - else it becomes impossible to talk with each other.

That is why it makes me so angry when PC brigades for example hijack terms like "racism" in order to brandmark criticism of religious ideologies, and even make laws basing on these corrupted definitions of terms. Askling questions of relgion'S claims, is no racism, and not agreeing with the supremacist claim of relgious groups is no racism. A law ruling that it is, is basing of totally misled conceptions.

In other words it has lost its relevance for reality from which it is now disconnected.

Terms are important. Or as poets say: names give us power over things and items. If we misuse them, then we don't say what we mean, and we do not mean what we say. So does the other person as well. Nothing good can come from that.That is precisely my point from earlier, worded more completely. :rock:

I think when I said this:In the ultimate sense, what is generally accepted as a definition (read: majority) is the definition, so long as the general acceptance is within the qualified awareness of the subject. ...it was too complicated for a certain individual and therefore it was ignored. Especially when in the context (another difficult word for said individual) of "majority" it was clear I wasn't referring to some sort of vote tally but rather the general acceptance of those familiar with common usage of a term (IE, qualified awareness of the subject).

PS: I know this is kinda feeding the trolls, but hey - sometimes it's amusing. I even tried to use the term "vernacular" to help clarify the issue, but hey - I guess if you're a troll you can define anything any way you want it to be.

[Sailor Steve]

How is that less equal? We're talking about terminology - right now, the terminology is already different, as we call it "gay marriage" rather than "marriage". This in and of itself shows the pervasiveness of preferred tradition, except that the polarizing factor is the term "marriage" itself.
The fact that the "preferred tradition" is pervasive is irrelevant. If law is based solely on tradition then that law needs to be examined more closely.

We ARE talking about something different here - why do we have to pretend it's the same when it clearly is not? This isn't separate but equal, as gays ALREADY have the same rights as HUMAN BEINGS that the rest of us do. This is about honoring something different but in an equal legislative fashion.
They do? Then why can't they get married?

Or do you suggest that churches be required to marry homosexuals as well?
Absolutely not! I believe in complete separation of Church and State. Churches should not be compelled to do anything. Of course one can always go to another Church. One can't go to another law.

[Aramike]

The fact that the "preferred tradition" is pervasive is irrelevant. If law is based solely on tradition then that law needs to be examined more closely.Who said it was based soley upon tradition? It is based upon tradition combined with the human biological imperative of the species combined with the natural tendency of more than 99% of the population, combined with that which makes the majority of people comfortable.

Take away any one of those and you still have three good arguments - arguments which could be settled with a simple adjustment of terminology.They do? Then why can't they get married?They CAN get married. Just not to their preferred sex.Absolutely not! I believe in complete separation of Church and State. Churches should not be compelled to do anything. Of course one can always go to another Church. One can't go to another law. I know you wouldn't suggest that.

Sure they can - make a law that respects the imperatives of those opposed to gay marriage while granting freedoms to homosexuals with respect to their unique preferences.

But make no mistake - gays ALREADY have exactly the same rights as the rest of us. They want different ones. I (a heterosexual man) have no right to marry another man, either.

This is not about an expansion of liberty - state sanctioned marriage DOES NOT CONSTITUTE a liberty as defined Constitutionally. However, the Constitution explicitly grants states rights and many states (including my own) have passed laws or State Constitutional amendments defining marriage. I believe that should be honored.

What we are discussing here is what I ultimately find to be a tradition motivated by human biological imperative. Many secular rights have been extended to marriage, primarily for the purpose of keeping an ordered society by honoring the tradition of the vast majority of its members (maintaining order is one of the key functions of government). Extending a term that traditionally stems from religious roots to apply to that which BY NATURE defies those roots does nothing to satisfy the imperative of keeping order, nor does it applies to a biological neccessity.

On the other hand, there is an injustice involved when one partner can't visit another in the hospital, for just one example.

So how does this get resolved? Change the damn terminology!

Because ultimately, gay marriage IS asking for something traditionally different from marriage, and terms ARE defined by tradition. Let those who want their traditions respected have such deference.

[Sailor Steve]

Who said it was based soley upon tradition? It is based upon tradition combined with the human biological imperative of the species combined with the natural tendency of more than 99% of the population, combined with that which makes the majority of people comfortable.
The majority of people have been comfortable with all sorts of evil over the millenia. I'm not saying that finding homosexuality distasteful is evil, but still folks condone all sorts of discriminatory practices because it's easier for them that way.

Take away any one of those and you still have three good arguments - arguments which could be settled with a simple adjustment of terminology.They CAN get married. Just not to their preferred sex.I know you wouldn't suggest that.

In some ways I could be called a homophobe. When a friend showed me Six Feet Under I thought the show was pretty good - right up to the point when they had a scene of one of the main characters kissing his boyfriend. I refused to watch it after that. However, I feel that Jefferson's argument for Religious Freedom applies here as well. What injury does it cause me if they want to get married? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact it means nothing at all except to someone's personal morals, which means that we're back to legislating morality.

[Aramike]

The majority of people have been comfortable with all sorts of evil over the millenia. I'm not saying that finding homosexuality distasteful is evil, but still folks condone all sorts of discriminatory practices because it's easier for them that way.So? How is the parallel?

We're talking about same thing, different terminology. All sorts of people have be comfortable with all sorts of good for generations as well. The point is moot. There are many arguments here, not just the comfort one.

The US federal government honors Christmas. Should it honor Ramadan as well? Culture, tradition, biology, the very REASON for secular law honoring marriage (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html), etc create a vast wall against infringing upon the term.

I have yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why the meaning of a time-honored traditional term should be changed to acoomodate the extreme minority while the same rights are being extended.

Ultimately, in that context, the question becomes "why"?In some ways I could be called a homophobe. When a friend showed me Six Feet Under I thought the show was pretty good - right up to the point when they had a scene of one of the main characters kissing his boyfriend. I refused to watch it after that. However, I feel that Jefferson's argument for Religious Freedom applies here as well. What injury does it cause me if they want to get married? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact it means nothing at all except to someone's personal morals, which means that we're back to legislating morality. Again, that only addresses part of the reasoning behind the secular respect given to marriage.

But let's go with it - how does religious freedom apply? Gays certainly aren't arguing for marriage rights based upon religion. But let's say they were. Jefferson clearly understood that not anything purporting itself to be religion in order to secure federal recognition should be allowed to do so - else we'd have people marrying trees, or at least it would be implied that he meant they should be allowed to do so.

Legislating morality and respecting cultural morality are two different things. Besides, how is giving someone the SAME EXACT THING but defining the term differently (as it WOULD be something different) legislating morality?

Words mean things. Right now, legally defined or not, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you're going to come up with something new, why not use a new word?

[Rilder]

Wow this thread got derailed badly.

Anyways just let gays get married and the people who think marriage can only be between a man and a woman can just learn to accept that marriage is between two people. :O:

[Obelix]

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? :06: What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper :nope:
I agree with you. We in Russia, too, such a law and I worked with this law do not agree.
They think about the rights of sexual minorities? And about my rights who thinks? I do not want to be in the passport of my children I was recorded as "parent two"! I want there I was recorded as the "father" and my wife just wants to be the mother of the children and not "parent one"! But nevertheless want to infringe on my rights and called my parents, although I am father! The father of two children.

[Skybird]

In the end, it is ol' mother Nature herself being racist and discriminating humans, for women not having penisses and men not having boobs and the abiulity to give birth to children themselves. Nature is a bitch, let'S correct her.

To some people it does not seem to come to mind that Nature did very well in arran ging some things the way they are. Or in a less sentimental meaning: maybe the reproduction via a hetero-sexual race design has advantages that made it the superior path of evolutional design for certain species. And there can be no doub t that this is how it is for us humans. That makes the social consequences from that "natural", and the norm, the rule, the standard. It'S is not about morals so much. It is about naturalness, and the norm this defines for a race and a civilisation. Morals just come later, on the grounds of the natural standard. We favour the protection and interest of families and heterosexual couples, becasue of their importance for the community, a social importance and function that neither singles nor homosexual couples can show up with. We have taboos on incest, for the biological fact that there is a significant raise in chances for genetic defects if sisters and brothers lie together, anmd over conti8nuing generations. Like incest is a biological degeneration, the equalising of status between hom and hetereosedxual couples in the society's hierarchy of interest and protection priorities is a degenration of vital social core functions.

There is no reason and no excuse for discriminating or attacking homosexuals, nor is there such an excuse for doinmg the same with singles. But there is also no reason to see both as equal in importance to heterosexual couples. Any man doubting this should check if he can naturally get pregnant and give birth to children. Any woman doubting this should check if she can reproduce naturally with just another woman.

Sorry all you politically correct equality fanatics, but that is how our nature is. Live with it. Homosexuality= no chance for natural reproduction, no survival of the social community. Heterosexuality=chance of natural reproduction, chnace of survival of social community. Period.

Or would anyone argue that mankind should turn to invitro-fertilization and abandon the ways of nature? In Australia there is a couple suing the state for the right to designt he sex of their next baby, because they have had three girls, they now demand the right (!!!) to design a male embryo. This is were genetics and their potential benefit of discovering serious deseases early, turn into abuse, paving the way for designer-babies.

Do people want this as the future?

I am for genetic diagnostics. I am against genetic designing of babies.

[Obelix]

Skybird
Bravo!
Russian satirist Mikhail Zadornov said about gay parades like this:
"Homosexuals - sick people and we should allow these people to parade? Then you need to allow parades asthmatic hypertensive patients and other patients!"

[MH]

In the end, it is ol' mother Nature herself being racist and discriminating humans, for women not having penisses and men not having boobs and the abiulity to give birth to children themselves. Nature is a bitch, let'S correct her.

To some people it does not seem to come to mind that Nature did very well in arran ging some things the way they are. Or in a less sentimental meaning: maybe the reproduction via a hetero-sexual race design has advantages that made it the superior path of evolutional design for certain species. And there can be no doub t that this is how it is for us humans. That makes the social consequences from that "natural", and the norm, the rule, the standard. It'S is not about morals so much. It is about naturalness, and the norm this defines for a race and a civilisation. Morals just come later, on the grounds of the natural standard. We favour the protection and interest of families and heterosexual couples, becasue of their importance for the community, a social importance and function that neither singles nor homosexual couples can show up with. We have taboos on incest, for the biological fact that there is a significant raise in chances for genetic defects if sisters and brothers lie together, anmd over conti8nuing generations. Like incest is a biological degeneration, the equalising of status between hom and hetereosedxual couples in the society's hierarchy of interest and protection priorities is a degenration of vital social core functions.

There is no reason and no excuse for discriminating or attacking homosexuals, nor is there such an excuse for doinmg the same with singles. But there is also no reason to see both as equal in importance to heterosexual couples. Any man doubting this should check if he can naturally get pregnant and give birth to children. Any woman doubting this should check if she can reproduce naturally with just another woman.

Sorry all you politically correct equality fanatics, but that is how our nature is. Live with it. Homosexuality= no chance for natural reproduction, no survival of the social community. Heterosexuality=chance of natural reproduction, chnace of survival of social community. Period.

Or would anyone argue that mankind should turn to invitro-fertilization and abandon the ways of nature? In Australia there is a couple suing the state for the right to designt he sex of their next baby, because they have had three girls, they now demand the right (!!!) to design a male embryo. This is were genetics and their potential benefit of discovering serious deseases early, turn into abuse, paving the way for designer-babies.

Do people want this as the future?

I am for genetic diagnostics. I am against genetic designing of babies.

Maybe its a next step in human evolution to control nature.
It may look not moral because we are still locked to certain way of thinking about whats right or wrong in part becouse of catholic church and bible.
As the the way humans live changes in last 100 years as it did not change in 1000 years so some social cults get trashed as well.
It doesnt necessary have to be an evil scheme that leads to the end of the world or corruption of humanity.

[MH]

Skybird
Bravo!
Russian satirist Mikhail Zadornov said about gay parades like this:
"Homosexuals - sick people and we should allow these people to parade? Then you need to allow parades asthmatic hypertensive patients and other patients!"
Best way is not to give a **** if they parade or not.
That is unless you think its contegus or intimidating for you.

[Platapus]

Best way is not to give a **** if they parade or not.
That is unless you think its contegus or intimidating for you.

That's just it, if the gays are allowed to parade in windy conditions, there is a good chance that innocent bystanders will get some of the gay on them blown by the wind.

Every notice when you see a gay parade, there is usually little wind?

Now you know. :know:

[Sailor Steve]

We're talking about same thing, different terminology. All sorts of people have be comfortable with all sorts of good for generations as well. The point is moot. There are many arguments here, not just the comfort one.
But they all stem from the comfort one. The only reason anyone opposes this is that it bothers them.

The US federal government honors Christmas. Should it honor Ramadan as well?[/quote]
Perhaps they shouldn't honor Christmas. No, I'm not actually suggesting that, but a truly reasoning person has to wonder why any enlightened government bases its working schedule around a religious belief.

I have yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why the meaning of a time-honored traditional term should be changed to acoomodate the extreme minority while the same rights are being extended.
And you have yet to give one as to why anyone should be denied use same use of public acknowledgement as anyone else, just because they're "different".

But let's go with it - how does religious freedom apply? Gays certainly aren't arguing for marriage rights based upon religion. But let's say they were. Jefferson clearly understood that not anything purporting itself to be religion in order to secure federal recognition should be allowed to do so - else we'd have people marrying trees, or at least it would be implied that he meant they should be allowed to do so.
Overextension. I thought it was obvious that my reference was to the harm done, not the actual original meaning. My connection wasn't to the "religious", but to the "freedom", and to the fact that this change would cause no harm at all except to the sensibilities of certain factions who want their "truth" to be the only "truth". Within that context, I believe my comparison is not only valid but on the mark.

Legislating morality and respecting cultural morality are two different things. Besides, how is giving someone the SAME EXACT THING but defining the term differently (as it WOULD be something different) legislating morality?
For the simple reason that the only reason anyone opposes the change is that it offends them. THAT is a moral argument and nothing else.

Words mean things. Right now, legally defined or not, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you're going to come up with something new, why not use a new word?
The only meaning any word has is that which we assign to it, else we would all speak one language. If you're not going to come up with something completely new, why do use a new word? If it's the same thing, why insist it be differently used?

[Aramike]

But they all stem from the comfort one. The only reason anyone opposes this is that it bothers them.We're going back and forth but I do want to address this - I have mentioned numerous times the biological imperative of the species.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Tradition can go to hell, and so can the oversensitive bull**** that society has become. If any one fcking person decides that something is offensive, the government rushes to make it politically correct. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (which is correct in ALL aspects) are called undocumented workers? WTF is that stupid crap. And saying that they deserve to get the boot out the back door to the country they came from is "racist". Its oversensitivity, corruption, and the greed thats inevitably going to turn this country into another 3rd world s**thole.

this may be minor, but the fact that they took so much notice to it proves my point. Sure gay couples and Caretakers may not be the "mother" or "father", but honestly its not a direct insult to them. the system wasnt designed with them in mind, and since its so MINOR as to be called a mother when your a homosexual on a stupid piece of paper that you take enough offense to it, then you need to learn that the world isnt going to treat you like your special, even though alot of gay people want to be treated special. Shut up and deal with it.

i acknowledge that gays are basically shunned even in this BS society today, but over a stupid piece of paper? Grow up and deal with it, how do you think kids in school feel when the increasingly violent bullying and CONSTANT harassment by your peers get to them? And in today's schools people feel that there should be equal treatment no matter who started what or who threw the first punch or even what the a$$hole did to provoke anything.

[Rilder]

We're going back and forth but I do want to address this - I have mentioned numerous times the biological imperative of the species.

Umm so in your eyes if we allow gays to marry the entire species will die out because somehow allowing gays to marry means that every Man and Woman will suddenly become gay? :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

We're going back and forth but I do want to address this - I have mentioned numerous times the biological imperative of the species.
And that brings you back to the question of heteros who can't have children children. Or choose not to. Should we have laws (as Augustus did) placing a tax on straight people who choose not to marry? How many couple actually marry for the specific purpose of having children? Most realize that will be a result, and many look forward to it. But that is not the specific reason they marry, nor is it the specific reason they have sex.

The "biological imperative" doesn't explain homosexuality in other species. It could also be argued that it must now take a back seat to other imperatives, such as impending overcrowding. Perhaps only gays should be allowed to marry.

[Sailor Steve]

Tradition can go to hell, etc...
Well, that little tantrum accomplished exactly nothing. Do you have anything to actually add to the discussion, or would you like to jump up and down and scream and shout some more?

Also, you need to reread the rules on asterisks again.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

(very first paragraph)

[Aramike]

Umm so in your eyes if we allow gays to marry the entire species will die out because somehow allowing gays to marry means that every Man and Woman will suddenly become gay? :rotfl2:Wow, the only way I can imagine the point flying higher over your head is if you kept digging.

[Aramike]

And that brings you back to the question of heteros who can't have children children. Or choose not to. Should we have laws (as Augustus did) placing a tax on straight people who choose not to marry? How many couple actually marry for the specific purpose of having children? Most realize that will be a result, and many look forward to it. But that is not the specific reason they marry, nor is it the specific reason they have sex.

The "biological imperative" doesn't explain homosexuality in other species. It could also be argued that it must now take a back seat to other imperatives, such as impending overcrowding. Perhaps only gays should be allowed to marry.Again, you're arguing each point individual while ignoring that my entire point is the conglomeration of nuances surrounding this issue.

Bottom line is our difference is nothing more than the word: you wish to redefine one, and I wish to respect the current definition and create a new one reflecting a new definition.

Spin it how you might, marriage in Constitutional law reflects specifically this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html, ergo prevailing opinion, well, prevails (as it should in a Constitutional democratic republic).

Constitutionally, I think that your ideas regarding gay marriage are not even in the spectrum of current Constitutional law, and the courts seem to agree. However, I can empathize so I suggest changing the term. Evidently, that's not good enough - considering that terms are defined by what most people interpret them to be it's mind-boggling the lack of compromise from those on your side.

Not in the least is the irony that they regularly use their own terms anyway - it's not simply "marriage", it's "gay marriage".

PS: Again, why shouldn't Ramadan be a national holiday?

[Sailor Steve]

Again, you're arguing each point individual while ignoring that my entire point is the conglomeration of nuances surrounding this issue.
No, I understand your point. My point is I believe that your whole argument is based on the fact that you are offended by the concept. Everything you say stems from that. And it's discrimination based on your moral agenda - in my view, anyway.

Bottom line is our difference is nothing more than the word: you wish to redefine one, and I wish to respect the current definition and create a new one reflecting a new definition.
I both agree and disagree. The surface argument is over semantics, but I feel it goes much deeper than that. For me it looks like a way to forward discrimination by reducing the subject to the trivial.

Constitutionally, I think that your ideas regarding gay marriage are not even in the spectrum of current Constitutional law, and the courts seem to agree.[/quote]
And the courts supported Dred Scott. Just because they seem to support something doesn't mean they're right. And site you linked to presents both sides fairly well, and concludes with the statement that the issue remains "unresolved". It doesn't state that you're right on this.

However, I can empathize so I suggest changing the term. Evidently, that's not good enough - considering that terms are defined by what most people interpret them to be it's mind-boggling the lack of compromise from those on your side.
I can't speak for "those on my side", but I support this view because I believe we support freedom, and that your side supports discrimination. What you propose isn't compromise, it's absolute victory for your view, preventing equal access and insisting those who disagree submit because "it's only words".

PS: Again, why shouldn't Ramadan be a national holiday?
Do you want it to be? Why bring it up? Why should Christmas be a national holiday?

[Aramike]

What you propose isn't compromise, it's absolute victory for your view, preventing equal access and insisting those who disagree submit because "it's only words". It's totally a compromise! Have you not been paying attention? My view is centrist - it's neither on your side nor on the right.

And since when does the Constitution suggest that people have equal access to defining words to mean what they feel they should mean in the sense of equal rights?Do you want it to be? Why bring it up? Why should Christmas be a national holiday? I keep bringing it up because you keep missing the point.

What if American Muslims wanted Ramadan celebrated as a federal holiday under equal rights?

Part of the Constitution that is often overlooked is the preamble which provides for domestic tranqulity. There are plenty of differences domestically that respect for tradition all but guarantees unequal rights.

PS: I don't suggest that Christmas be a national holiday, as it is a Federal one. There's a very important distinction here. The US does not have national holidays. And yes, it should remain a Federal holiday as it makes sense to respect the general workforce.

[Sailor Steve]

It's totally a compromise! Have you not been paying attention? My view is centrist - it's neither on your side nor on the right.
Your view is far Religious Right. Deny it all you want, you want to legislate your version of morality.

And since when does the Constitution suggest that people have equal access to defining words to mean what they feel they should mean in the sense of equal rights?I keep bringing it up because you keep missing the point.
No, I get your point just fine. You dictate what's right, and if anyone thinks your discriminating, well, they just don't get your point.

What if American Muslims wanted Ramadan celebrated as a federal holiday under equal rights?
Then in the interest of equal rights I would ban all federal religious holidays.

Part of the Constitution that is often overlooked is the preamble which provides for domestic tranqulity. There are plenty of differences domestically that respect for tradition all but guarantees unequal rights.
So you support unequal rights?

PS: I don't suggest that Christmas be a national holiday, as it is a Federal one. There's a very important distinction here. The US does not have national holidays. And yes, it should remain a Federal holiday as it makes sense to respect the general workforce.
You dragged us off into this 'Christmas' thing. The bottom line is that you are offended by the idea of gays marrying, and you'll do anything you can to stop it.

[Skybird]

Steve,

you give me the impression that both identity-forming by having a historically dominant own tradition that a present community heavily bases upon, as well as the meaning of terms and words like "blue" and "coffee", are free to be randomly choosen, and more or less arbitrary - in the name of everybody being equal and free to understand them as just everything he feels tempted to understand them as. This way of endlessly relativisíng things , leads not to freedom, but structural desintegration.

[Sailor Steve]

I see it as much simpler than that. No one is asking that "blue" be legally changed to "red", or that "coffee" be legally changed to "milk"

These people are asking to be allowed to marry. While others may not believe me at this point, personally I'm against it. That said, I have to ask myself why, and the only answer I can come up with is that it makes me nervous. I ask myself why that should be, and the answer is that I don't know.

So, bottom line: Why do I support this? For the simple reason that I cannot see any real harm it would do to make the change, and it would help a certain segment of society feel that they are more accepted.

When asked why they object to "the same thing with a different name", I have to ask: Why should they.

All the arguments made against it so far are vague, or compare it to some made-up alternative.

So I have one question for the opponents: Why are you against it? Is it really because it upsets tradition, or is that just a convenient argument? What real harm would it do you, or society in general?

I don't really have a side. I oppose the opposers for the simple reason that I don't buy their arguments. To me there seems to be something deeper going on.

[Aramike]

Your view is far Religious Right. Deny it all you want, you want to legislate your version of morality.Yeah, umm, no. The far religious right doesn't want any form of homosexual relationship. Come on, Steve, you're better than that.No, I get your point just fine. You dictate what's right, and if anyone thinks your discriminating, well, they just don't get your point.How trite.

No, I'm saying the SAME is fine, but because it IS something different than what a word currently means, call it something else. I both agree and disagree. The surface argument is over semantics, but I feel it goes much deeper than that. For me it looks like a way to forward discrimination by reducing the subject to the trivial.Did you bother to consider that all I care about regarding this is the trivial, as I believe the traditions of the majority should be respected while the rights of the minority should not be infringed upon?Then in the interest of equal rights I would ban all federal religious holidays.Which would make no sense whatsoever.So you support unequal rights?I'll say it for the 1000th time - I support equal rights. But call a duck a duck.

And besides, gays currently have equal rights.

[Skybird]

Steve, you figured that people are against gay marriage because of a vague feeling of uncomfort, and you asked us, and thus: me, if we can be sure that this is not our main drive. I cannot speak for others, but just for me:

and what exactly in my replies in various threads oin the issue makes you beloieve I lacked the precision in my argument so that I could be motivated by just vague uncomfort about gay marriage? Haven't I explained the argument often enough, and precisely enough? It is about the intended special status of children-producing couples: and this is "family" and this is the social institution the community depends on: to come up with later tax payers, paying the bills. I aloso mentioned that it is discirmination when families have understandably speciaöl sdtatus and proetction by the state, now gay marriages get the same additonal special status - and singles not. Single contribute as much and as little to the communal interest, like gay couples.

I also mentioned the basic evcolutional genetic design of our species and how nature established an undeniable mechniasm that should enable us to surivice be heterosexual reproduction.

The sopcial insitution already is under massive fire. Some want it gettin g minimised so that women shall prove earlier how very equal they are in getting back to work as early as possible again. Some want industrial demands and the job world's interests being prioritised. Some want to save money spend on families. Some want to bring children as young as possible under influence of state-run education programs where they get fed with the wanted ideas and images of man, in Germany this is often the latest garbage from our phantastic super-pedagogues and their extreme lefty ideas, supported from their ideologic supporters in politics. And there already is a wide gap between what the German constitution demands us to do in special protection of families, and what the state actually does: families are the social group with the highest risk in our society to become poor. And it certainly is a work- and money-intense endavour for a couple to raise children and enable them a fair launch into the future.

And you think I am led by just some vague discomfort aboiut gays? I see additional setbacks for families if their special status and protection that the constitution demands for them gets watered even more - by relativising it against the demand of gays. Aren'T gays allowed to live together? Aren'T singles allowed to stay alone? But why give the latter two the same materiual and financial benefits that are meant to suppoort the raising of kids and to encourage couples to produce babies? For the society, the gay couple here, the single person there, is totally unimportant. Whteher thay live together or stay alone, is of no interest for society. It has no material, future-related meaning for society. It produc es no future tax-payers. Giving gays the same tax revenues like hetero couples that may produce babies, is just a waste of money - becasue gays do not give back anything for compensation. Same is true for singles - why discriminate singles now by relativising fam ilies when giving gays the same specially protected status like families? Both siongles and gay couples make no difference for anybody.

I repeatedly said that while gays are not the norm that defines the fate of our species - saying it fact-oriented they exist and are a reality, but are an aberation from our specific reproduction design - nevertheless we must not discriminate them for being different. But we also must not accept them spcial status. Do we give Albinos a special status? No. Singles? No. But gays? Same was true for DADT - what was wrong with it? Do heterosexual people asked for their sexcual preference? No. Do they run aroudn and constantly outing themselves as being hetero? Usually not. And why would anybody care? Why are we expected to pay special attention to gays outing themselves? Why should they even want that? Isn'T the way people live in private, and what they do behind their doors, just this: their porivate business?

Why making all this big tamtam about gays? It rteminds me of the demand of Islam being given special status amongst all cultures and religions, and being treated spoecially amongst all relgious groupos in Germaqny, and being given special legislation, and schools should adopt to its demand (its true, my federal state just released a written guide for teachers how they should give special attention and special treatement to the religious demands of Muslim students, and all school if necvessary should chnage around them, if they demand it). No Christians, not Jews, not Buddhist, not atheists, not Hinus demand this.

Just leave gays alone, let them live how they want, like I want it for myself as a single, too. I do not withhold anything from them that I claim for myself. I do not see them being given what I do not get myself. I accept and support the constitutionally rules special status of families, and I claim the term "family" is not arbitrary, but stems from a certain, ylclearly defines tradtion that has proven its value - and need - since many thosuand years. That it needs to be changed now, in no way has been shown.

So let gays live like they want, loke any other citizen. Just deny them any special status that they do not dceserve but do demand - for nothing else but being gay. As if that is or should be of any concern for the community, or would be a merit in itself. If it were, then I would be a hero with special merits, too - for being single.

And this, Steve, is anything but just a vague feeling of discomfort.

[Platapus]

Well put Steve. :yeah:

No one has ever been able to make a logical argument on how homosexual marriage can adversely affect the concept or tradition of heterosexual marriage.

I like the concept of asking not "why" but "why not". It has that comfortable "freedom" ring to it. :yep:

[Tchocky]

I like the concept of asking not "why" but "why not". It has that comfortable "freedom" ring to it. :yep:

Bloody Americans :O:

[Skybird]

Well put Steve. :yeah:

No one has ever been able to make a logical argument on how homosexual marriage can adversely affect the concept or tradition of heterosexual marriage.

By relativisation. Read again. If lead suddenly costs as much as gold, then gold is not any special or precious anymore.

I like the concept of asking not "why" but "why not". It has that comfortable "freedom" ring to it. :yep:

Ah yes, this American desire for total lack of obligation or structure, but instead the rule of the strongest/loudest/wealthiest. :yeah:

Yours and our soceity suffer dearly, and will suffer even more in the future, from overaging, and we all will pay the bill from that - in money, money and more money. Money that many of us may not be able to come up with, in the future, Stichwort Altersarmut.

And you guys keep arguing on why families and thus: heterosexual couples as the basis for any social and communal survival should not be protected and encouraged!

To me a clear indicator that once again the unescapable karma of unsentimental demographics is either understimated, or ignored.

[Gammelpreusse]

By relativisation. Read again. If lead suddenly costs as much as gold, then gold is not any special or precious anymore.

err, since when is emotional attachment dependent on formalized institution? Love=Gold? wtf?
Did you actually ever fall to love?



Yours and our soceity suffer dearly, and will suffer even more in the future, from overaging, and we all will pay the bill from that - in money, money and more money. Money that many of us may not be able to come up with, in the future, Stichwort Altersarmut.

And you guys keep arguing on why families and thus: heterosexual couples as the basis for any social and communal survival should not be protected and encouraged!

To me a clear indicator that once again the unescapable karma of unsentimental demographics is either understimated, or ignored.You still have to explain how a couple won't find themselves attractive, or wishing to have children, because of the concept of gay marriage. That's like saying eating the same food as animals do will make people boycott eating. And even if that were true, it would be a very sad affair for couples if they decided only to have children and live together because others are not allowed to. Or may you think homosexuals will eventually look for partners of the other sex so that they can marry an d have children?

What study, what observation are you basing your arguments upon?

Simple question, are you unwilling to marry and have children because gays may marry, too? Or do you simply fear your social standing and the prestige coming with that will suffer if homosexuals marry?

[Skybird]

err, since when is emotional attachment dependent on formalized institution?
Since never. It isn't. You can be emotionally attached as much as you want. Even without being "institutionally formalised". ;)


Did you actually ever fall to love?

Rest assured, yes.

You still have to explain how a couple won't find themselves attractive, or wishing to have children, because of the concept of gay marriage. That's like saying eating the same food as animals do will make people boycott eating. And even if that were true, it would be a very sad affair for couples if they decided only to have children and live together because others are not allowed to. Or may you think homosexuals will eventually look for partners of the other sex so that they can marry an d have children?
No, I must not, because the point you raise I did not even touch and am not intersted in. I am about an institution called "!family" and teh social, vital function it serves for the community, the state, and the secruing of the future for that community. Plus the fact that for this reason, and the reason that children are the most defenseless part in this chain, this insiution is under explcit special protection of the state, according to the German constitution. And I said that this special status is realtivised if it suddenly is being granted to singles like me or gay and lesbian couples, or colleagues at work. This special recognition serves a purpose that neither singles nor gay couple fulfill.

Since it is hetero couples producing babies, their treaming up deserves special support, and since a fundamental orientation of law must base on general principles, this does not differ between young couples having babies and couples that are old or couples whose children already have left home or couples that do n ot plan to have children. It is the general principle that counts. However, you know as well as I do, that additional financial reliefs for children (Kinbdergeld) are only payed out if indeed there are children.

Both things have been systemtically erdoded over the past 20, 30 years. Now the gay movement relativises it even more.

And marriage, you asked me. When she still was alive, we planned to stay together, we were soul mates from the very first minute on, and I mean that: we recognised each other in the very first minute we met, immediately. But we did not plan to marry, since we did not wish to give the church a word in our private issues (we both were anti-church) and did not feel we need formal recognition by state authority, and at that time, financial benefits also were pointless for us.

It's a long time ago.

[Gammelpreusse]

Since never. It isn't. You can be emotionally attached as much as you want. Even without being "institutionally formalised". ;)


Rest assured, yes.


No, I must not, because the point you raise I did not even touch and am not intersted in. I am about an institution called "!family" and teh social, vital function it serves for the community, the state, and the secruing of the future for that community. Plus the fact that for this reason, and the reason that children are the most defenseless part in this chain, this insiution is under explcit special protection of the state, according to the German constitution. And I said that this special status is realtivised if it suddenly is being granted to singles like me or gay and lesbian couples, or colleagues at work. This special recognition serves a purpose that neither singles nor gay couple fulfill.

Since it is hetero couples producing babies, their treaming up deserves special support, and since a fundamental orientation of law must base on general principles, this does not differ between young couples having babies and couples that are old or couples whose children already have left home or couples that do n ot plan to have children. It is the general principle that counts. However, you know as well as I do, that additional financial reliefs for children (Kinbdergeld) are only payed out if indeed there are children.

Both things have been systemtically erdoded over the past 20, 30 years. Now the gay movement relativises it even more.

And marriage, you asked me. When she still was alive, we planned to stay together, we were soul mates from the very first minute on, and I mean that: we recognized each other in the very first minute we met, immediately. But we did not plan to marry, since we did not wish to give the church a word in our private issues (we both were anti-church) and did not feel we need formal recognition by state authority, and at that time, financial benefits also were pointless for us.

It's a long time ago.


Sorry, then we have completely opposite definitions of "family". For me, family is the natural byproduct of a relationship and consequent offspring, based on instinct and mutual bonding, support for each other being a result of that. For you it appears to be a state institution with a formal functionality within this state, only workable under special protection of the law. More or less a state approved concept bar any personal attitude involved.

This definition, in my mind, sounds scary. Even more so as this so called "special support" by the state for families is rather young in historic terms, nevertheless worked for centuries before that. In fact, this country saw more offspring and population growth long before any official support for children was even ever thought about. As such the connection between state sponsored family support and the institution of family and population growth is far fetched, if not completely illusionary to begin with. Once again, it is an attempt to root our modern symptoms instead of root causes to be found in entirely different areas (some of which I already laid out in former posting, though you tended to ignore these)

As we are at it, I wonder how animals do it, after all they do not have state sponsorship and protection for family, either. This smells much more of an ideological POV based on culture and historic convenience then actual common sense and practical thinking, combined with an actual search for causes. It's more witch hunt based on phenomena incomprehensible for the common man on the street, a scapegoat hunting. Besides, Germany and many other European countries faced a shrinking population for a couple decades now, long before any talks about gay marriage came into being in the first place. So the intellectual deduction in this area is sorely missing from your points and reminds me more of Bush's obsession with WMDs in Iraq then reality.

If you want to protect an institution invented by the christian church with centuries of tradition in Europe and Germany or the philosophical/bürgerliche concept of "family", which in it's modern form is only a 100 years old, , say so, but do not abuse the children argument for that.

[Skybird]

Sorry, then we have completely opposite definitions of "family". For me, family is the natural byproduct of a relationship and consequent offspring, based on instinct and mutual bonding, support for each other being a result of that. For you it appears to be a state institution with a formal functionality within this state, only workable under special protection of the law. More or less a state approved concept bar any personal attitude involved.


This part and definition I do not touch upon. I just remind you that we - you are German, yes? - have the article 6 of the Basic Law, that puts children, families and mothers, all three of them get individually mentioned, under special protection of the state, saying that they deserve special caretaking of the whole community. And I explained why this is so: that it is becaseu children are the futrure economic and financial basis of the social community withiut whom the community cannot surevive and the old cannot been taken care of, and that therefore couples producing the children serve a vital, inevitable role for ther social community that is not matched by craviong for attention by singles, or gay couples.

There are simple, plain, economic as well as human motives that made the creators of the Grundgesetzut setting up thisd article 6. Emotions and romanticism have little to do with it. Sentiments and emtoions - are ypour poroivate business, not the states or the communities. And you are free to have empotional relations whatever you want, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. All this is of zero concern for the communial overall interest. It makes no difference whether I stay single, or become gay and have a partner. What makes the difference for the communal future wellbeing, is babies - or no babies.

Why do you guys make it so complicated - over confused sentiments only?

[Gammelpreusse]

This part and definition I do not touch upon. I just remind you that we - you are German, yes? - have the article 6 of the Basic Law, that puts children, families and mothers, all three of them get individually mentioned, under special protection of the state, saying that they deserve special caretaking of the whole community. And I explained why this is so: that it is becaseu children are the futrure economic and financial basis of the social community withiut whom the community cannot surevive and the old cannot been taken care of, and that therefore couples producing the children serve a vital, inevitable role for ther social community that is not matched by craviong for attention by singles, or gay couples.

There are simple, plain, economic as well as human motives that made the creators of the Grundgesetzut setting up thisd article 6. Emotions and romanticism have little to do with it. Sentiments and emtoions - are ypour poroivate business, not the states or the communities. And you are free to have empotional relations whatever you want, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. All this is of zero concern for the communial overall interest. It makes no difference whether I stay single, or become gay and have a partner. What makes the difference for the communal future wellbeing, is babies - or no babies.

Why do you guys make it so complicated - over confused sentiments only?

Last time I checked, as German as you can be. And I am ware of this article. However, Your argumentation as of yet did not show up a single basic point that actually proves how exactly gay marriage removes this protection, neither exactly how gay marriage has any influence on the number of babies or people wanting to marry in the first place. All that comes out of your postings are vague fears and suspicions with, so far at least, no scientific or rational basis.

If you have anything more substantial to add in this regard, I am more then willing to listen. I am uncomfortable with homosexuality myself, to be honest. But I am pretty sure relying on gut feeling alone here is not the proper course of action. Else we'd also have to deport all dentists.

[Skybird]

Last time I checked, as German as you can be. And I am ware of this article. However, Your argumentation as of yet did not show up a single basic point that actually proves how exactly gay marriage removes this protection, neither exactly how gay marriage has any influence on the number of babies or people wanting to marry in the first place. All that comes out of your postings are vague fears and suspicions with, so far at least, no scientific or rational basis.

If you have anything more substantial to add in this regard, I am more then willing to listen. I am uncomfortable with homosexuality myself, to be honest. But I am pretty sure relying on gut feeling alone here is not the proper course of action. Else we'd also have to deport all dentists.

:dead: How often must I repeat it? RELATIVISATION. A special status is being watred if the same special status is given to more than the orginially intended target group. Like gold is defined by its rarety, the less rare it is or the more the same moneys iy payed for lead or glas stones, the more invayluable gold becomes- becasue then it is nothing special anymore. Legalizing gay marriages is last but not least a fincial thingk, becasue it effects taxe benefits gays then enjoy that only were meant for family support, originally. And this lessens the signficvance of the special status families should have. It also is a discrimination of single like me, becasue then families enjoy these tacx benefitsa, gay couples enjoy these tax benefits - but single must pay more than gay couples and enjoy no tax benefits? Why? What importance do have gay couples over singles for the community that justifies them to enjoy superior status and superior tax duties?

The only tax relief I think gays shall enjoy is a tax relief I demand for everybody, gays, singles, hetero couples, families, and that is abandoning the inherticance tax, becasue it is a double taxing of property (at least double, if not more), and a partial compulsory expropriation. Additonally, quite some figures on the left side of the political spectrum use it to impress their clients and by that effectively turn it into an "envy tax". People should have any freedom and right to decidce by themselves whiom they give what of their property, without being punished with varying tax levels according to the genetic relation to the receivers. If people think they owe to the state or two the community, they are free to decide that certain shares of their welah after their death should be distributed to them. What the state does when making it obligatory, is highway robbery, if not body-stripping.

I am uncomfortable with homosexuality myself, to be honest.
Hm. Why? Must it be your business if they do not actively bother you? Youi could as well be uncomfortable with me drinking Japanese green tea. As long as I do not spit it in your face, or push it down your throat at every occasion and whenever we meat that you MUST love green tea yourself - what'S the problem? Just let me peacefully enjoy my tea while I let you drink what you want, and we'll be fine.

[Gammelpreusse]

:dead: How often must I repeat it? RELATIVISATION. A special status is being watred if the same special status is given to more than the orginially intended target group. Like gold is defined by its rarety, the less rare it is or the more the same moneys iy payed for lead or glas stones, the more invayluable gold becomes- becasue then it is nothing special anymore. Legalizing gay marriages is last but not least a fincial thingk, becasue it effects taxe benefits gays then enjoy that only were meant for family support, originally. And this lessens the signficvance of the special status families should have. It also is a discrimination of single like me, becasue then families enjoy these tacx benefitsa, gay couples enjoy these tax benefits - but single must pay more than gay couples and enjoy no tax benefits? Why? What importance do have gay couples over singles for the community that justifies them to enjoy superior status and superior tax duties?

The only tax relief I think gays shall enjoy is a tax relief I demand for everybody, gays, singles, hetero couples, families, and that is abandoning the inherticance tax, becasue it is a double taxing of property (at least double, if not more), and a partial compulsory expropriation. Additonally, quite some figures on the left side of the political spectrum use it to impress their clients and by that effectively turn it into an "envy tax". People should have any freedom and right to decidce by themselves whiom they give what of their property, without being punished with varying tax levels according to the genetic relation to the receivers. If people think they owe to the state or two the community, they are free to decide that certain shares of their welah after their death should be distributed to them. What the state does when making it obligatory, is highway robbery, if not body-stripping.


You can repeat that often as you want. Relativism simply does not fit here. It's a non argument, completely pulled out of the water, without any kind of logical connection to reality. Love is not a matter of relativism, it simply is, and marriage is a conclusion out of that emotion. Children also are the result of love, not marriage. Marriage simply is a formalized agreement to this relationship without an impact on the real world behavior patters of a couple but a monetary one. And if we go the monetary route, I can start giving you sh*tload of a list of issues having a greater effect on children in this regard. And a far greater number of measures to improve childbirth without going the "no gay marriage" argument. What you want is to give out suncream to fight climate change. How often do I have to repeat that? You can't contest that argument by going in circles and pulling out Article 6 as some kind of magical spell without making any real world cause and effect analysis, especially given the fact that this law was made during a time when homosexuality was also still considered a crime.

And I won't even start on the ever growing number of married heterosexual couples out there that neither have children nor have any plans to have them in the future. The logical conclusion of your argumentation here would have a deep impact on the future treatment of these people as well.


Hm. Why? Must it be your business if they do not actively bother you? Youi could as well be uncomfortable with me drinking Japanese green tea. As long as I do not spit it in your face, or push it down your throat at every occasion and whenever we meat that you MUST love green tea yourself - what'S the problem? Just let me peacefully enjoy my tea while I let you drink what you want, and we'll be fine.It appears you finally get the whole underlying point. As long as you can't give me a well founded, researched argument why gay marriage actually infringes upon your own well being, it simply is not your problem.

[Sailor Steve]

article 6 of the Basic Law, that puts children, families and mothers, all three of them get individually mentioned, under special protection of the state, saying that they deserve special caretaking of the whole community.
That is a good argument, and a good idea, but there is a disconnection to the actual institution of Marriage. Married couples don't necessarily have children, and unmarried women have children all the time. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities. It is true that giving them the same priviledge and calling it something else doesn't really hurt them, but again, what harm does calling it marriage do to you or to society in general?

The argument has been made here that it would somehow destroy, or at least diminish, the institution of marriage, but the argument has also been made the the 'institution' is in pretty sad shape already, and it has nothing to do with gays. In order to preserve families should we outlaw divorce? Not practical or possible. Again, how does gay marriage have any influence on the value of children?


What makes the difference for the communal future wellbeing, is babies - or no babies.
And the act of making babies, and their existence, has little to do with marriage. It can be argued that marriage is vital to their well-being, but singles, unmarried couples, and, yes, gay couples raise children all the time. Gay parents may not be to everyone's liking, but that has been shown to be better than a orphanage.

[Lord Justice]

Have to ask sir SS, with much observation toward tom petty quote, sig. (wont back down) then do you retreat ? or might I put it, withdraw? I have witnessed on occasion if you sir, are proven wrong, or outmatched you simply push on and dont respond, (on occasion) would that be backing down even if tempered? I see no shame to back down or walk away, sometimes it can be most advantageous, thus I find your sig quote like mine most err mixed and intresting. :cool:

[Sailor Steve]

I've been wrong on many ocassions, and every time I've apologised and admitted my error. In fact I go into every argument with the attitude that I might be wrong this time too, and very few things annoy me more than people who "know" that they're right (witness my reaction to posters here whose sole contributions are confined to rants against the "other side"). The only thing I won't back down from is my conviction that no one holds a monopoly on the truth, and those who act as if they do are the most dangerous people alive.

As to Tom Petty? I just liked the quote.

[Lord Justice]

I've been wrong on many ocassions, and every time I've apologised and admitted my error. In fact I go into every argument with the attitude that I might be wrong this time too, and very few things annoy me more than people who "know" that they're right (witness my reaction to posters here whose sole contributions are confined to rants against the "other side"). The only thing I won't back down from is my conviction that no one holds a monopoly on the truth, and those who act as if they do are the most dangerous people alive.

As to Tom Petty? I just liked the quote.Indeed, I am fond of it too, thank you, well said, and truth be told at times I march with you on your right flank! depending of course wich angle you direct. :03:

[Skybird]

You can repeat that often as you want. Relativism simply does not fit here. It's a non argument, completely pulled out of the water, without any kind of logical connection to reality.

OIh, it is logical, perfectly. You cannot define any quality like "better" or "slower" in without refering to any kind of standard, or its opposite: "worse", "faster". You cannot explain what "up" means when there is no "down", it becomes pointless. And the value of an institution is not set per se, but is defined by comparing its relative value to other institutions or items, and if the comparison shows that there is no difference between them in value, then the one cannot be superior in recognition/value than the other. That is so logical that one needs to actively wishging not to admit it in order to say it is not true. And the point is, that I insist on allowing families and heterosexual couples that special status. It is being eroded already muc h enough.

Love is not a matter of relativism, it simply is, and marriage is a conclusion out of that emotion.


Do we shall count for how many centuries and millenia it was much different and love was rfeplaced by finacial interests and economic conerns. Marriage in the first is an economic community, and was born from this, it was about "Arbeitsteilung", and peope being broiught togtehr often were married withoiut love having much to do with it.

But admitted, today we enjoy the luxuary to mostly marry for emotional reasons. But these emoptions aree not caused by marriage, and they are being felt no matter whether you are married or not. in this meaning, love has little to do with my argument. It is about the social function of the institution of marriage. Can you please try to fginally understand this diufference? I have indicated that so many times now.

A law code needs to serve as an orientation for the most cases taking place, that'S why it rules for example that the maximum speed inside cities is such and suc h, no matter that occaisonally there is a medical emergency that reocmmends to drive faster. Laws need to prioritize , and they need to weigh interests of the few versus interests of the many. Also, bureaucratic effort should be minimised, by avoiding and endless chain of exceptions from the rules (ideally). So, it is found that homosexual couples cannot produce babies, neither can singles do that, but that where there are heterosexual couples you have by far the highest hit chance for babies becoming the result - sometimes wanted, sometimes unwanted and by surprise. The consequences are far-leading and reach 18, 20, 25 years into the future. Ergo: you recognise that heterosexual relations between - loving or non-loving - partners living in relations are the norm, and possibly could see the prouction of babies, or have had babies. This is what makes heterosexual couples superior in importance to singles and gay couples. You grant them tax reliefs and certain privileges to encourage especially ypoung people to chose this way of living (so that not the state has to pay for the education of children). You additonally grant financial bonusses when there are children, and pay a bonus per baby-head. The babies grow. The get jobs. They pay taxes, they fill the jobs the own economy demands to be manned.

Thjat's why the family understood and defined as it was comon for long long times, is the social core cell of our social communities, thjat is what makes it so vital for all, and more important than any other form of partnerships.

Yes, I know, not all couples have had children or will have children. But the chance is always there, even by accident. And children never get produced by singles and gay couples. The evolutional role model for human families
is one female, one male, optional children. Like incest sooner or later creates dmatic disadvanatges for the communty by damaging its gene-pool, so it got tabood (?) , so the general understanding in most cultures of the past 3000 years has been that marriage means not brother and sister like the pharaoes did, and means not two men or two women like it is wanted now, but this: one male (doing the heavy work on the field when the women is prganant, and meeting the dangeporus animals in the kungle when hunting), one female doing the work inside the home, and during prgannacy tghe lighter work, else the sees a higher risk for giving biorth too ealry or to a dead baby. Arbeitsteilung.

Marriage in the first has economic motives. And registered poartnerships there alredy are, what they demand when calling for marriage status is economic advanatges like normal couples have them, and families. It's about material reasons for the most! Me and my girl back then, we had no material reasons to worry about, at least back then. Marriage was no issue for us, therefore, being married or not did not effect our emotional relation.

But being married certainly makes certain child-related necessities mandatory. Which is in the interest of the child, the weakest player in all this. It may also help coupels that are in a crisis to live thporugh it and stay together, trying to find solutions, instead of just easily walking away.

That many mothers raise their chiuldren alone, and are too young, is a deformation. And it costs the community money, much money - more money then we can afford, burdened with debts and demands that we already are. Other reasons also play a role, like said earlier in this and other comparing threads, it also is about political ideologies and they views of humans and females as needing to prove them as something like "male females" in jobs and careers. That'S why there are even initiaves by some totally insane hysterics to make it a punsihable crime to call a female witha child a "mother", because that is sexual discrimination and an offense, being a mother. When being confronted with BS like this I want to stop being polite and giving arguments, but want to stand up and yell as loiud as I can "Scheiße!" Everything has limits. Even patience and tolerance for what is beyond insane.

Children also are the result of love, not marriage. Marriage simply is a formalized agreement to this relationship without an impact on the real world behavior patters of a couple but a monetary one. And if we go the monetary route, I can start giving you sh*tload of a list of issues having a greater effect on children in this regard.
Yes, I agree. And still children and family are what has the most important meaning for the communal wellbeing, and the future of our society. My argument is from the perspective of the communty and its survival intertests, and alwas has been that. This communal interest is what defines heterosexual copuples and mothers and children and families are worthy to be given special protection and special statius by the state. In fact article 6 says somewhere that all members of community (not just authorities) should give a special support to them, whioch means: a form of support and rfecognitiuon that is not vbeing vien just to everybody, but to them, and them alone. If just everybody gets the same support and recogntiioon, mthzen what is left that is special in support for families, mothers and children that sets it aparts and is an additional gain for them in support? And here we are at "relativisation" again, and how relativising reduces the signficance of the one by making the other more significant, by that reducing the relative difference.

I even do not go into different psychologic influences by male fathers and female mothers. Having been psdychologist myseld and having last satistics on these things more than 13 years ago, I just summarised it in an ealrier according thread and do not want to type it all again. Use the search button. I just leave iot this time to say that childe education by mother and father together (as long as tghey are not conflicting parties) is the preferrabvle solution to raising children by just one parent. Therefore I oppose adoptation of foreign children by singles and strangers, or homosexual couples. Which also may not be needed because infertility is growing and many heterosexcual couples cannot have babies for this reason or due to accidents or diseases. A female women and female mother still is something different, psychologically and sociologically, than a homosexual man, and a male man is not the same like a lesbian woman, psychologically and sociologically. On sociologists claiming the opposite, I have a very critical sdtand, even more becasue I still remember that psychology also has, for hiostoric reasons, a strong tendency to lign up with the demands of politcs for communal control and appeasemnt - by proving those views of man that currently are wnated, are opportune, and are en vogue. There is a reason why I kicked psychology. Too much opportunism in there, and too much hot air (with the latest smells from the latest ideologic debates). Psychology and sociology are no a sciences, but just pseudo-sciences (Popper). Sometimes they are right, but their claims should be digested critically and with healthy scepticism. Especially the younger these claims are, and the more influenced from the modern distorted Zeitgeist.

[Gammelpreusse]

Skybird, this is getting really tiresome.
This debate runs like this

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: no, its blue

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: Nope, defnition of blue is this, that, laid down here and there

Skybird: The Sky is red, can't you see that?

Gammel: Nope, I can't, neither scientifically nor in the public sense of that word

Skybird: The Sky is read, how often to i have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gammel: Please lay out why you think so

Skybird: The Sky is red because I see it that way

Gammel: And your scientific basis?

Skybird: The Sky is red, because it always was red and always will be red

Gammel: *Headdesk* :dead:

Let's put that to rest.

[Morts]

Skybird, this is getting really tiresome.
This debate runs like this

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: no, its blue

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: Nope, defnition of blue is this, that, laid down here and there

Skybird: The Sky is red, can't you see that?

Gammel: Nope, I can't, neither scientifically nor in the public sense of that word

Skybird: The Sky is read, how often to i have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gammel: Please lay out why you think so

Skybird: The Sky is red because I see it that way

Gammel: And your scientific basis?

Skybird: The Sky is red, because it always was red and always will be red

Gammel: *Headdesk* :dead:

Let's put that to rest.
took you a while to figure that out :O:

[Skybird]

Gammelpreusse, you obviously want me to keep running around the house. But while I have led out with all reasonability my argument and also pointed out the meaning and importance of demographics and statistic (on finance policy, in this case), you just fail to explain yourself.

So I say take a round or two around the house yourself now. ;)

Underhanded rethorics like your latest entry, certainly do not help your "cause".

[Gammelpreusse]

Gammelpreusse, you obviously want me to keep running around the house. But while I have led out with all reasonability my argument and also pointed out the meaning and importance of demographics and statistic (on finance policy, in this case), you just fail to explain yourself.

So I say take a round or two around the house yourself now. ;)

Underhanded rethorics like your latest entry, certainly do not help your "cause".

*headdesk*x2

seriously, let's just leave it as it is

[Aramike]

Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities.Why?

Actually, I don't mind children being raised by gays - so long as there are no heterosexual couples willing to do so. I trust nature's judgement to a certain extent. Medical conditions aside, nature has deemed that only a man and woman can reproduce. Furthermore, it drives us in the communal, family sense leading to the concept of "parenting", which is naturally impossible for gays.

I think some of you are either intentionally misreading Skybird's point, or you simply have blinders on and cannot understand it. Essentially, from what I read, he's simply extrapolating society as an extension of human nature. To him (and I tend to agree) it makes sense to reward CONCEPTUAL communal units that possess potential for the continuance of society - hence, marriage. (Note: I say "coneptual" because marriage is generally based upon the PERCEIVED ability to produce offspring - not whether that ability actually exists.)

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

[Skybird]

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?
Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not? Some people dress their dogs in cloathings, bury dogs on cemetaries for dogs, and even leave their property to their pets in case they live shorter than their pets. :88)

In fact in Switzerland - that is the same Switzerland that was the first state in Europe to bring up this ugly issue of no longer discrminating women by calling them mothers - there is a strong political initiative that wants to abandon a so far existing law that puts incest under punishement. I'm not sure but I think at the time I type this, it is either in the final stage of preparation, or is already being decided. Ther argument is that the law is only rarely used, and cases of incest could be handled by laws against absue of minors and rape. What is ignored here is that incest also can take place between consenting adults.

Due to the genetic risks and the expensive consequences for the community if ill babies get born from such "relations", there is good reason why cultures of all eras and around the globe have tabooed incest. They dominate by far in numbers, and very clearly so. Even where we know from history that royal families practiced it, it was not a common practice amongst ordinary people, but an exception at the very top of the social hierarchy.

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues.

[antikristuseke]

Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not?

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

[Sailor Steve]

Why?
Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?
The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

[Aramike]

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man. (That is, unless you define a gay man as something other than a man, which would require the term "gay" before it, hence the different term in the first place, logically invalidating your argument.)The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up. An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

Ultimately, if you're going to make the idea that the potential to have natural biological children is NOT a factor, I find it odd that you would dismiss the survivabilty of said children as an argument - I mean, really? Because doing so only lends plausibility to the argument that procreation is a factor in marriage. Or are you merely interested in invalidating any argument that is not your own on the merits that you don't agree with it (something you accused me of)?

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage". But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest? Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

[Aramike]

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.What about your sister?

[Aramike]

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues. This position is likely to be considered one of the most extreme many have ever read here ...

... and I couldn't agree with it more. Well done! This is an excellently articulated point of the value of traditional culturalism. Indeed, as a species we have risen far beyond our most basic instincts but Skybird's point is that some of those baser drives have deep, intrinsic value.

I find it amazing that so-called progressives who are deeply driven to return to a more naturalistic state share the same political leanings as those most invested in defying such a state.

[Skybird]

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.
Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?
Because your arguments don't express the actual reasons you opopse this. Is 'tradition' really your main reason? If so, it's a shallow one.

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man.
Except for the one we're talking about, which you would deny.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.
No, it is my explanation for the origin of the taboo, not why I think it should exist.

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?
I'm ambivalent on the subject. You brought it up as a comparison, and a bad one.

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage".
I don't term it as "gay marriage". I merely state that I see no reason why gay should be prevented from marrying each other.

But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest?
You, not "we", introduced incest in an attempt to divert the argument to something I supposedly couldn't answer. I had nothing to with it. It's a classical attack method, even used by the Pharisees with the coin trick. Please stick to the subject.


Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?
Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.
Again you attempt to divert this to the personal. So far all of your objections have been based on tradition. Is there any single real reason why this is a bad thing?

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?
Why is that even a question? Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.

"Why shouldn't they take a lesser alternative and like it?" isn't an argument at all.

[Skybird]

Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.


Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

[MH]

Here is my small theory lol.
From evolutional point of view if you let gays to marry and adopt children you actually are helping in of getting rid of the gay's DNA which he will not pass for future generation.
See so easy.

[Gammelpreusse]

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

Look, Skybird, I stopped this debate on my part because a falling mountain would crack on your Dickschädel. I was running this debate to learn other viewpoints and possible solutions for future problems. Instead I encountered what appears to be a 1950ies stuck reactionary who sees the sky falling when gays marry and constructs a society doing away with itself out of that, quite similar to what you wrote in this Muslim thread. Now the internet does curious things to people, so I will like to think you are quite different in the real world. You are most certainly welcome with your other worldly views in this thread, where gay marriage equals marrying a dog or incest, but please leave my name out of that from now on, this is becoming too dirty and morally ambiguous for my taste to be a part of. I for once am glad the dark ages are over.

[Sailor Steve]

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?
Cut to the chase. Describe the tax interests. Describe the mathematics. No huge text blocks, no preaching, no talking down to people. Just explain exactly how gays marrying each other will do what you say.

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently?
And no more personal attacks either.

Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

Exactly what have you said that is solid?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!
You're not the only one arguing the same case. Or do you think all arguments are directed solely at you?

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.
That's not an argument, it's in intentional insult. Let's have no more of those either, shall we?

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.
And I haven't said that you have. In fact, I haven't addressed you at all. My argument has been with Mike.




Now, lets cut the crap. All of it. As I've said several times, I don't agree with allowing gays to marry. That said, I do support it, for a couple of reasons.

1. Why should it be allowed? Because they want it, and I don't see any potential harm.

2. I believe that our natural rights include doing anything we want, except where it harms someone else or where it infringes anyone else's right to do the same. We create governments to protect those rights, and we make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Any law beyond that moves into the purpose of controlling others, which we supposedly create governments to prevent.

So, is allowing gays to marry going to harm anyone else? I don't see it. If you can show that it will maybe I'll agree with you. And if it's not, what is the reason for opposing it, if not moral.

Now, what are your reasons for opposing this? Not justifications for your position, but actual reasons why you, yourself, personally, don't want this to happen.

[razark]

Skybird-

If there were no financial incentives to marriage of any kind, would you still be opposed to gays getting married?

[antikristuseke]

Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised. ;)

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.

[Skybird]

Cut to the chase. Describe the tax interests.
etc
etc
etc
etc

;););) I ALREADY DID THAT - REPEATEDLY...!!! ;););)

Knock knock knock - sombody's at home...?

Look, if there is a couple and becomes old dies, then the community looses two heads, so they must have had 2 children to compensate for their death in order for the population to stay constant. Actually, because some kids by desease or accident or crime die before having two kids of their own, there must be a little overcompensation per couple/women, that's why you can read that statistically for most societies you need 2.1 or 2.3 bybies per woman, I do not remember exactly right now, to compensate for the death of the parents if you want to have a population at a constant level. Simple? Simple, very.

If you have a couple that naturally produces babies by itself, this helps to compensate for deaths in the population, but if couples in mean have less than 2.1 babies, the population shrinks, and if couples have more than 2.1 babies, the population grows (assuming no change in living conditions and medical availability etc etc). That means: too few births, fewer tax payers in the future.Simple? Simple, very.

Our societies are overaging, we lack young people,. Two conclusions: too few babies get born in our societies. Simple? Yes, very simple. And: in the future, few and fewer taxpayers must pay for more and more old people. Simple? Very simple.

We talk no global numbers in total world population here, becasue our tax system and national survival depends on national popultion and taxpayers, not global population. America does not get taxes from people from India, Germany does not get taxes from Bangladesh. Still simple, isn'T it!?

Homosexual couples do not produce babies. Simple, yes? Now the hundred thousand dollar question - do they produce future tax payers? Do they help to produce future workers and academical specialists and future payers of national fincial burdens - like your social wellfare or pension when you have become old? No, they don't - isn't this a surprise!?

Who does more contributions for the community future, then? Hetero couples, or homo couples? Surprise, it is the hetero couple! Simple, isn't it?
What contributiuons does the society get from the homo couples, regadring ensuring the communities future survival? Wowh, it is a fantastic nothing! No babies produced, no future tax payer, no future worker, no futre academical expert. no nothing. So here we have reached the point where it seems to become not as simple anymore for some, or is it?!

What form of living together thus is of more vital interest and value for the community, then? The homo or the hetero relationship? You guessed it by now - it is the hetero relationship. It can make a diffrence for the community's futurte, while the homo rerlationshiop never does.

Is this about morals? NBo - it is aboiut stinking money? Is it about science? No, it is about demographic statistics, and simple mathematics! Traraaaa!

When we have an exploding world population, but suffering a shortage in births in the developed world, does the first mean the latter is irrelavent? No, it just means that the wrong countries that cannot afford it get too many babies, and the developed countries get too little. Is this racist to say? No, it is elemental mathematics and conclusive logic.

When you look at our own society now, America or Germany. What does it tell you when the social upper class shrinks, is overaging, and has a birth rate of let'S say around 1.6 babies, and the social lower class, constantly being pushed up in numbers by migratzion of educationally unqualified - and in case of Muslim people for the most integration-unwilling - migrants, and you read for your nation'S census the different ethnic subgroups of this segment of the population have birth rates between somehwere of 2.8 and 5.6 babies - what do these two things - which by trend I quote correctly - tell you? It means the group of people having good job chances and chances to make it into any kind of social elites or specialised jobs, is shrinking, which translates the group of future tax payers is shrinking, while the group of people having no or small chances for education and jobs - translates into netto receivers and not paqying compensating taxes - is growing. We now have the 1 million dollar question: how does this end...?

I take it for granted that you know the established correlation between social environment factors lice family situation and income, living place etc, and success in education and job/career chances. The smaller your social status and income, the smaller is the statistical chance for your children to surpass your status and income/social group when they have grown up.

It's really nerve-killing that one must so explcitly time and again explain thse very elemental very basic things. Even more so when it was done in several threads already, at least was summarised. For example here I refrred to the work of Gunnar Heihnsiohn, an explicite and well-reputated academic experts for reasearch done on demographical statistical analysis

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171110&highlight=Gunnar+Heihnsohn

I have just run a Google search, and found that while in Germany we have both a national law code ruling on family issues, and an article in the constitution constitution claiming the priviliged status of mothers, children and families, you inAmerica have apparently no such constitutional ruling, and no nation-wide one law on family issues, but you have family issues ruled on basis of individual versions of family laws in the different states (if my short survey at google gave me a correct impression). But at least these laws of yours - also seem to indicate a specially protected status of mothers, and families in most states.

Where reality does not match the laws in your or my country, this does not mean that the laws have been rendered overaged or pointless, and their content invalid. It means that the distortion being caused, is massive.

I do not need morals to argue against the equal status of gay marriage, I do not need it at all. And I haven't even tried it in this thread. I do not even need any science, I just need elemental statistc, and some reasonable guessing.

Gays and lesbians do not procreate, and thus their meaning as a partnership from a communal standpoint, is zero. Non-existent. Meaningless. Unimportant. Conclusion: no tax equality for gay/lesbian living together, and families/hetero couples. Note that finacial benefits being given to the latter, do vary and very well differ between couples raising children, and couples who does no (still not, or no more).

I could however argue in moral or better: historical terms on the issue of gay marriages. I admit then I still would be against it, because the institution of marriage in my understanding of history still is caused and based upon the understanding of family in a hetereosexual constellation, actually or potentially.

You are free to love somebody and live together with that person or have two different appartements. You may agree on consensual sex and techniques, and you may live like you want. All this is of no importance for society, lioke it also does not effect society whether oyu have good relaitons with your working collegaues or not. It does not matter for society. But havingf enough fa,milies producing sufficient ammount of babies and raising them, babies from the matching social background - that is of vital interest for society, it is decisive.

And that is what decides this useless debate. And again, I must not even use or argue in moral terms to conclude on that. It is about numbers, and numbers alone. You may like that, or not, you may find it shabby to say so, or cold-hearted, contradicting your demand for total freedom and total "equality" - it does not matter, not for reality and not for society . What matters are the numbers, numbers are it, nothing else. And it seems to me that in general, people in all the world know this since many millenia. Somebody earlier in this thread said that when it is siuch an old tradition, it is time to chnage it.

But maybe the tradition became so old, because it is so vital, so healthy, so well-proven?!

[Skybird]

That was my last post in here, I do not waste any more time for explaining the very logical and very obvious once again, or why relativising the importance of families by giving gay marriage the same status regarding taxes and prestige automatically and necessarily must come at family'S cost. He who has not understood it by now, will not understand it when I repeat it once again - or he is intended to not understand it anyway, no matter what is being said. :dead:

[Skybird]

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

[MH]

Lets just say that some of those couples adopt children.
It would mean that they produce future tax payers right?
Lets say that some of those adopted children would have to be taken care by state otherwise-doesn't that free some tax payer money?
Lets say they adopt an Indian kid and bring him to Germany-wouldn't that contribute to German population as whole and create potential future tax payer?
I don't know what benefits exactly receive married couples in Germany(here the benefits are minimal)but the above should smooth the calculations a bit.

[antikristuseke]

Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

Regardless this is irrelevant and a dog can not really express his or her consent, beside,s it is another species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Skybird]

Lets just say that some of those couples adopt children.
It would mean that they produce future tax payers right?
Lets say that some of those adopted children would have to be taken care by state otherwise-doesn't that free some tax payer money?
Lets say they adopt an Indian kid and bring him to Germany-wouldn't that contribute to German population as whole and create potential future tax payer?
I don't know what benefits exactly receive married couples in Germany(here the benefits are minimal)but the above should smooth the calculations a bit.
You can consider all that, yes. You can consider mass-transportsof poor brown-eyed Indian babies to Europe by the many millions, yes, and you can consider gay couples to adopt children. Lets bring 2 billion poor people into the West, to bring Earth a bit nore into balance, maybe that will heal the Earth axis precession that makes it wobble around evry 24000 years. You can also consider to bottle the rain we have to much and bring it to Spain and Almeria where they have too little, and you can consider to heat you house wioth the methane you produce frokm you digestion, and you can consider in vitro fertilization to be equal in preferrability to natural preganncy. You can even consider to run surgery to give women a penis and to giove males two breasts, in the name of gender correctness, or you can consider males carrying out a baby under the lft or right axle, as was shown to be possible I think by a medical team of surgenons some years ago. You can consider a burkha to be a bikini of different style and you can consider smoking to be a social support measure to secure for jobs (in the tobacco industry).

You can consider all that, yes. Whether it make sense to do so, is something completely different.

Stop the discrimination of singles! Singles have rights, too! Singles also are humans! We need an Indian baby adoptation quota! And a Chinese one! And an Indonesian one! And a Nigerian one! And a Bangladeshi one! People just love to adopt foreign babies from the other side of the planet!

-----

Man, get your feet back on the ground. Get realistic. I think you try to compensate for lacking argument by driving your utopic mind game way too far and to absurd extremes.

And in case you never have noted it: most people, of all races and skin colour, most people around the globe prefer to stay amongst people like themselves. Think of it and morally judge it any way you want, but it is a simple truth that describes most people on this planet. Most blacks don'T want to adopt white babies, most whites do not want to adopt brown babies and most yellow people would not like to raise Aboriginee babies. That's just human nature.

[Skybird]

Regardless this is irrelevant and a dog can not really express his or her consent, beside,s it is another species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.It is a relief to see that you have the arguments so well under control. But I still recommend you do not try that dog. It may even start action on you without you taking the initiave with your pants. Occasionally it happens that such a dog hangs on your leg like being attached with glue, not even waiting for you to get undressed.

That may not be a verbal expression of consent, but it surely is an invitation for action. ;)

[antikristuseke]

You brought up marrying dogs, not me. But here is why dogs are not relevant to this discussion: 1) another species 2)a non sapient species 3) a non sapient species we can not effectively communicate with outside of the most basic of commands.

While a dog in heat may hump your leg they are unable to give you informed consent, unlike a homosexual male or female human for example.

[MH]

You can consider all that, yes. You can consider mass-transportsof poor brown-eyed Indian babies to Europe by the many millions, yes, and you can consider gay couples to adopt children. Lets bring 2 billion poor people into the West, to bring Earth a bit nore into balance, maybe that will heal the Earth axis precession that makes it wobble around evry 24000 years. You can also consider to bottle the rain we have to much and bring it to Spain and Almeria where they have too little, and you can consider to heat you house wioth the methane you produce frokm you digestion, and you can consider in vitro fertilization to be equal in preferrability to natural preganncy. You can even consider to run surgery to give women a penis and to giove males two breasts, in the name of gender correctness, or you can consider males carrying out a baby under the lft or right axle, as was shown to be possible I think by a medical team of surgenons some years ago. You can consider a burkha to be a bikini of different style and you can consider smoking to be a social support measure to secure for jobs (in the tobacco industry).

You can consider all that, yes. Whether it make sense to do so, is something completely different.

Stop the discrimination of singles! Singles have rights, too! Singles also are humans! We need an Indian baby adoptation quota! And a Chinese one! And an Indonesian one! And a Nigerian one! And a Bangladeshi one! People just love to adopt foreign babies from the other side of the planet!

-----

Man, get your feet back on the ground. Get realistic. I think you try to compensate for lacking argument by driving your utopic mind game way too far and to absurd extremes.

And in case you never have noted it: most people, of all races and skin colour, most people around the globe prefer to stay amongst people like themselves. Think of it and morally judge it any way you want, but it is a simple truth that describes most people on this planet. Most blacks don'T want to adopt white babies, most whites do not want to adopt brown babies and most yellow people would not like to raise Aboriginee babies. That's just human nature.

Ok Ok i just tried to give some contra arguments.


Still i don't think you would like to live in society that its run strictly by numbers or someones rights are define by numbers even tho i see a lot of potential in applying such system here-real problem solver for Israeli demographics.
Im not against guy marriage or for it-simply don't care but it was interesting to know your reasons.

[Sailor Steve]

Knock knock knock - sombody's at home...?
And the personal attacks continue. Do you ever consider any remote possibility that you might be wrong about anything? You preach, you talk down to everyone as if they were children, and when they don't sit up and pay attention you start throwing insults. Witness your superior demeanor in post #160. No one can discuss with you - we are all expected to sit and obey.

Look, if there is a couple...

All of your arguments about babies are true, but they are also valid reasons to prohibit anyone from marrying unless they can prove that they can and will have children. By your "logic" we should set a time limit on how long couples can stay married without having children. Your numbers are good, but they are hardly a reason to keep two people who love each other from marrying.

We talk no global numbers in total world population here, becasue our tax system and national survival depends on national popultion and taxpayers, not global population. America does not get taxes from people from India, Germany does not get taxes from Bangladesh. Still simple, isn'T it!?
Quite simple. You are advocating that we force everyone to marry as soon as possible and make more taxpayers. Did I get that wrong?

Homosexual couples do not produce babies. Simple, yes? Now the hundred thousand dollar question - do they produce future tax payers? Do they help to produce future workers and academical specialists and future payers of national fincial burdens - like your social wellfare or pension when you have become old? No, they don't - isn't this a surprise!?
Yep, I was right! Do I get a pat on the head from the Professor?

[razark]

Who does more contributions for the community future, then? Hetero couples, or homo couples? Surprise, it is the hetero couple! Simple, isn't it?
No, it's really not that simple.

What benefit does society gain from a hetero couple that refuses, or is incapable of, reproduction? The exact same benefit that it gets from one of your socially useless homosexual couples.

What benefit does society gain from a homosexual couple that raises a child?* The exact same benefit that it gets from one of your magical heterosexual couples.


What harm does a married homosexual couple do? None. Two homosexual men are not going to decide that because they can't get married, they are going to go out and find two women to breed with. Two heterosexual men are not going to decide that, since gay marriage is legal, they are going to marry each other, instead of women.

That argument just doesn't hold water.


*Contrary to your beliefs, homosexuals are capable of producing, and many already have produced, viable biological offspring. Many of these end up being raised by a homosexual couple. Amazing how biology actually works, ain't it?

[Skybird]

And the personal attacks continue. Do you ever consider any remote possibility that you might be wrong about anything?
When somebody tells me that for example the result of a simple mathematical calculation is a question of morals, or is open for majoirty vote, or somebody else tells several time3s in a row refuses to take note of what I just laid out and demands me to explain it one more time, acting as if I never had explained it at all; then: no, I absolutely refuse to consider that. On other issues you can see me being more cautious and considering chances and probabilities of alternative thoughts. But not on this issue here.


All of your arguments about babies are true, but they are also valid reasons to prohibit anyone from marrying unless they can prove that they can and will have children. By your "logic" we should set a time limit on how long couples can stay married without having children. Your numbers are good, but they are hardly a reason to keep two people who love each other from marrying.
And like some others you must now step to extreme constuc tions and absurd exaggerations to make a point. I make a simple link between hetereosexulaity, and the chance that this produces babies, and that the institution of "family" is basing on this simple biological fact. Within the socialised framework of rerlations between humans, hetereosecual relationsshhops simply are the norm for two adults living together when they are a love, and due to the interest this is of for the community, this example serves as the rolemodel the basic design of social laws regarding the status of human relations are basing on. Like many details in our environment also are dersigned ojn other statistical norms, for example that functional designj for the most is not foc ussed on left handers, but right haqnders, becaseu the are the by far dominant group. And that design is done for the most with the healthy person in mind, not with the leg-amputated or paralysed. Speed limits are set although there might be exceptionnel situation when it is recommendfable to drive much faster. ETc Etc. Tax laws and laws in general also based on the statistical norm, becasue the people represernting the statistical n orm are the most likely to be effected by it.

I have argued whyt the ultimate importance is in protexcting the family status as something special that overrules that of homosexual people, or singles like me. Can you tell me a reason why homosexual couples should gain tax benefits that I am excluded from as a single?

Such traditions like the special status of family in societies have gained their reputaiton over long time, over generations, centuries and millenia. I focusse don the one aspect that currently is a very important one, finanes, but it would be naive to assume it is the only one. These cultgural and histgoric reasons, some of which even hjavbe a basis in our biological evoltuion, also are reasons why we generalise from "family" on "hetereosexual relations". In the end, in a natural way, homsexual couples will never reproduce without needing artificial, foreignb help, in laboratories it would not be "natural reproduction", and taking a third person for temporary time into the boat to benefit from his/her biological assiatnc e in getting a abbvy, is parasytic behavior that cannot be seen the sayme way like making a baby with somebody you love, and by making love to that person. Two women cannot do it. To men cannot do it. Bypassing this biological fact in the laboratory, from a standpoint of nature always is something like a cheat, to put it that way. It is not the evolutional design for our species that nature meant to enable our species self-maintaining survival. We can do it, scientifically. But must we do it so often that we make it the new "norm"? What does the majority gain from that? To me, for the most it sounds like chnaging for the sake of just changing things.

The institution of family last but not least also is relgiously motivated, and even me as an atheist must take into account that religious rules are important for many people, andn that it has influenced the culture and history that formed the place I live in and made it what it is, in good and in bad. The bible gives a clear understanding of what "marriage" is. As far as I know, Judaism does so as well. Islam does also not legitimise gay and lesbian marriages. It is not known in Buddhism and Nidnusim as well. That covers already most people in the world, and all five major world religions. Since I see the relgious tradition being in support of the cause I want to see real.sied - the special status of "family" being procted and generally accepted - , I have noi intention to argue with relgion about the defintion of marriage. Itr says that marriage includes always one man and one woman, and I can imagine the reason, and I will not start a quarrel with any religion about this understanding of marriage. Why should I?

In the end, I really think that this gay marriage thing is about money and tax reliefs they demand when being equal in status to hetero couples, what already reduces the moral claim of the issue, since singles then would indeed by discmrinated against gays/lesbians. I accept financial reliefs only for normal marriages, and additional finacial aid only for couples with children (like it is being handled indeed, you do not get certain funds just for being married, but for every child of yours).

It also is about a political gay movement that has gone on stampede, now wanmting to misisonanse all world for what it conders to be poltiically correct. I take pleasure and satisfaction from resisting to such movements for the simple reason that I like to see such movements fumbling.

Quite simple. You are advocating that we force everyone to marry as soon as possible and make more taxpayers. Did I get that wrong?
Yes you did get it wrong, and you know it. Which means you know it is not like this, but you just try to sneak in for the cheap rethorical score here.

Oh dear, now you got me to write in here again. Well. but this is my last day in this thread for sure, and I go to bed now. My current new sig answers most of the other things being raised by the other people in here.

[MH]

............It also is about a political gay movement that has gone on stampede, now wanmting to misisonanse all world for what it conders to be poltiically correct. I take pleasure and satisfaction from resisting to such movements for the simple reason that I like to see such movements fumbling...........


OK thats something i do agree with totally.
Those movements are sometimes a bit too extreme at drawing any type of attention to justify their existence.
And they get the attention needed.

[Aramike]

Because your arguments don't express the actual reasons you opopse this. Is 'tradition' really your main reason? If so, it's a shallow one.No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.Except for the one we're talking about, which you would deny.Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.

How are those different rights again?No, it is my explanation for the origin of the taboo, not why I think it should exist.

I'm ambivalent on the subject. You brought it up as a comparison, and a bad one.Bad one? Because, why, you said so?

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?I don't term it as "gay marriage". I merely state that I see no reason why gay should be prevented from marrying each other.So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?You, not "we", introduced incest in an attempt to divert the argument to something I supposedly couldn't answer. I had nothing to with it. It's a classical attack method, even used by the Pharisees with the coin trick. Please stick to the subject.Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.Again you attempt to divert this to the personal. So far all of your objections have been based on tradition. Is there any single real reason why this is a bad thing?Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way. I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions. To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.

Why is that even a question? Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss.Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement."Why shouldn't they take a lesser alternative and like it?" isn't an argument at all. Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.

[Sailor Steve]

No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.
How exactly is this tyranny? Is it forcing anyone to do anything? Well, except for accepting something they don't like. It hurts no one and denies them nothing.

Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?
I thought that was your position. Oh, no, he can marry who you say he can. What was that about tyranny?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.
Then why can't they marry each other?

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.
Why not?

How are those different rights again?
You say he has a right to marry her, but no right to marry him. Those are two different rights, out of your own keyboard.

Bad one? Because, why, you said so?
Because you're trying to drag in all sorts of external comparisons which have no bearing on the question at hand.

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?
I'm not the one saying that some can marry whom they want and others can't.

So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?
I guess you didn't bother to read my explanation of how I actually feel about this, and why I take the stance I do. I'm not trying to force you into anything. I mostly question why you are so openly hostile to this. I'm not for it, but I see that it hurts no one. So what are your personal reasons?

Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.
Except of course all the people who have posted differently.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.
No, it's the old arguing trick of changing the subject. "But what about this?" "How do explain this, then?" Yes, it's an attempted parallel, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.


No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.
Yes, you would. If the fact that they can't concieve children is an arguing point, it then directly applies to anyone who can't do the same.

Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.
And that takes us back to my question: Is your opposition to gays marrying each other really because of the affect it would have on the dictionary? If so, then it looks to me like a pretty odd reason. If not, then what is your personal stake in all this?

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way.
I took the "You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve" that way. If you didn't mean it that way, then there's no problem.

I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?
As I've said several times, in my heart I'm against it myself. But I question my heart, and everything else. You say I'm getting worked up, but the truth is I have strong reactions when I see people be openly hostile to any concept.

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions.
And I can say (and have said) exactly the same thing from the opposite side. I see the simple solution in allowing gays to marry each other, and you seem to virulently hate the idea.

To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.
Skybird often makes excellent points. Unfortunately he then refuses to acknowledge anyone else's and insists that he, and only he, is right, and to disagree with him is the action of a recalcitrant child.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means.
Again I ask, is the reason for your opposition based solely on the dictionary? That sounds wrong to me.

All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement.Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?
We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Creating legislation based on moral preference is a very different thing, and reeks of attempts at control, which truly is tyranny.

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".
"You can marry whom you want, except where I say you can't."

That is definitely "lesser".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.
Again, you want to control peoples' lives based on the dictionary? Again, that seems to me to be a cover for keeping a certain segment of society "in their place".

And again, my reason for supporting this is that I see no possible harm in allowing it. It doesn't hurt anyone.

[Skybird]

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are. I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.

[krashkart]

Are homosexual people less than human? :06:

[Takeda Shingen]

Are homosexual people less than human? :06:

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

[Schroeder]

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.
I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?
However I think that homosexuals should be able to marry as this also regulates many more things like the right to inhere things from a deceased partner, or the right to get financial support from a partner. Just those family raising benefits should not be granted (but they shouldn't be granted to childless couples either).

[Takeda Shingen]

I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?

Which reduces to the point rewarding individuals for producing children as opposed to rewarding homosexuality.

[krashkart]

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.


Ah. Well that explains it. Reality does not equate to how things should be done yesterday.

[Skybird]

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

I am surprised to see such a monumental simplification from you.

Threat from the 3rd world hordes: would only be an iossue if actually hugh hordes of 3rd world babies get transported to the 1st world, or huge ammounts of people from there moving here, outbreeding the natives in the 1st world. With regard to certain miogration grouips, I pointed out that indeed their reproucftion rates are 2, 3 and 4 times higher than that of native social upper classes that are not even maintaining their population size. However, my argument is not to to defend against the hordes of the 3rd world, but to defend against a further social minimising of families, by relativising it'S special sdtauzs byx giving the same sttaus to homosexual couples. I also saids that homosexual people have all freedom to live tigether, and that now much of the fight is about gaining tax status of families (to save money that way that families would spend on children, while homosexuals keep it for themnselves). Before we can hope to make the needed middle and upper social classes getting more abies so that we have the sufficient number of tax payers int he future (our biug problem unfolding currently), family and marriage needs to become perceived as a desirable, honourable endavour again. And this can only be achieved not by paqying boni, but by fostering a cultural climate that educates people to pay more respect to the institution of family, and founding a family, again. This is the main reason why I am strictly againmst relativisng and by that: reducing the socially payed respect to families even more, by giving others who do not contribute to the community'S interest like kid-raising families do. So I am against treating homo couples and single mlike me the same way hetrereo couples get treated. I want hetero couples to be given a special recognition and status that I neither claim for singles like myself, nor accept for homo couples.

Third world issues have nothing to do with it. It effects the financial and demographic developement in our countries only in so far as migration is concerned, and different migration subgroup form difefrent social classes that differ in their reproduzction rate, chnaging the overall balance between netto payers and netto receivers agfainst the first and in faovur of the latter. This is what the statistics of federal offices in Germany indicate since long time. This is what controversial Thilo Sarrazin's book is about: financial developement of tax income and tax spendings, and statistics of demographics.

We need less babies from social classes being netto receivers, and we need more babies form social classes being netto payers. From this perspective it'S avbout tax payers, not individual people's romance. Individual'S love stories are of no concern for the community, nor should it stick it'S nose into private people's business. Statistics and demographic trends effect all community, and make statements over all people, or a "mean/avergae" citizen. They do not describe or match individuals, but the total community. That is their very purpose!

Tax-wise, population levels in the third world are of no interest for us in our nations over here. How to pay our future bills - that is what our politics must focus on. They fail since long, spend more than can be affored, did not form rsserves for bad timers, but accumulated current and even potential future debts (the pensions that will be needed to pay in ther future when current employees leave the job due to their age).

[Gammelpreusse]

I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?
However I think that homosexuals should be able to marry as this also regulates many more things like the right to inhere things from a deceased partner, or the right to get financial support from a partner. Just those family raising benefits should not be granted (but they shouldn't be granted to childless couples either).

First, some sanity appears to have found the way back into here.

In regards to your post, the problem in this is that
a) all those benefits have not resulted in any success in regards to child numbers and
b) that married couples without any will to have children are getting the same kind of benefits. And argueable there are far more married couples out there without children then potential homosexual couples. As such that argument does not make sense unless you reduce the benefits to just those that really have children. But as it is already obvious these benefits are not coming with success, this is a mood point anyways. It's a typical example of a"how the perfect world should work" versus "how the world actually works" debate with only focusing on certain points without checking the basics of these points. The mere potential of married heterosexual couples having children does not work, as potential does not equal reality.

That means, instead of focusing the debate in a constructive manner in how to increase child birth it is becoming a destructive debate in which basic human longings are swept aside for a "greater" goal, even if this goal is based on morally dubious and socially shaky fundamentals. Also, it involves the attitude that the individual in his aspirations and way of life is put under the collective good for everybody. In this human lives and emotions are reduced to maths and numbers, quite similar to what we have seen in the economy in the last decades. It also runs against the ideals of humanism, which is at the core of the Federal Republic of Germany and majorly responsible for the success and respect this country enjoys these days.

My problem with this debate is that it puts people not only under pressure to not work against society or being punished (live and let live), but actually goes a step further in that they have to work for society to not get punished. This is easily extendable to other groups and life styles (and already is in regards to the Muslim debate, in which the current tone is not about how to improve the obviously problematic situation of integration, but focused on rants and open hostility towards Muslim groups as a danger to society) and crosses a line that puts society on a course of conflict and may result in violence and oppression when run through all it's logical conclusions. A popular catch phrase could be appropriate here; "the road to hell is plastered with good intentions".

[Skybird]

That means, instead of focusing the debate in a constructive manner in how to increase child birth

Career interests and gender equality policies have led to the decline of desire in people to have children. Many just see it as uncomfortable, as unproductive to their hobbies and time intersts. Egoism collides with founding a family. Our cult of individualism of actio and being entertained and parytying, our ideals of how tobe the ideal profi in the office, tights crfiterions for beign "perfect", all this collides with founding a family. And of course one must be able to afford it raising children. I am strictly against producing babies - and let the community pay for them completely.

Our cultural environment and climate is such, that the above descriptions get fostered, at the cost of the recognition of the achievements somebody gains by founding a family. The socail status, the social respect for families thus has fallen in the past decades. Itnow leads to exrteemes where some people even consider it to be a discrmination of female gender and an offense of women, to clal them "mother". They should be seen as equal, successful career-competioners instead. This would illustrate that the political agenda of gender equality and that women can be strong and successful in their job. this is the wanted image of women these days. Even b etter nwhen at the samer time they meet the standards produced by insutry and avertisement: not only being strong andf successful, but also being independent (anti-family that is by nature), beautiful, sexy, not prey of men but making men the prey.

I agree that only material motivations alonhe will not make women get more babies. They need the possibility of uniting job and family life. Couples also mujst see or feel, must be raised in the awareness thnat family life gets more respected and prioritised again, and that it gets appreicated by community. It is a social-motivational- cultural feedback. Paying more Kindergeld is not eniough, a reshifting of values that put back more importance ion families and children is necessary. What has been destroyed in families' repuatation and social recongition, must be restored.

And that you cannot acchieve by lowering their status as it is socially perceived, even more - by lifiutng non-families to their status and giving others the same ammount of recognition and feedback on their importance. This is why I am so angry about reltiviisng families'S status and recognition - by claiming the sdame recogntiiona nd statzus for homosexual couples. And once again my question then: why not the same status and recogntiion being given to singles? Nobody has answered me this question now what makes homo relations so much more valuable and recognisable then singles although their meaning and importance for the social community and its future is identical. Am I of less worth than homsexuals living in "marriage"...?

No matter how I look at it: financially. Demographically. Historically. Morally. In communal interest and significance. I see not a single reason why gays/lesbioans should be undertstood as marrying the same way like heterosexual copuples do, and how the term "marriage" is meant. I only see reasons speaking against it. I focus on just the demographical and tax-future-finance-aspect of it, I do not even argue here with morals and history. But even if one would argue with morals and history, I would just see reasons against it. While no damage gets done by refusing the equality of hetero and homo marriages, and is no discrmination at all. At least as long as we can agree that it is no discrimination of white people that they are not black-skinned.

[Takeda Shingen]

I am surprised to see such a monumental simplification from you.

Threat from the 3rd world hordes: would only be an iossue if actually hugh hordes of 3rd world babies get transported to the 1st world, or huge ammounts of people from there moving here, outbreeding the natives in the 1st world. With regard to certain miogration grouips, I pointed out that indeed their reproucftion rates are 2, 3 and 4 times higher than that of native social upper classes that are not even maintaining their population size. However, my argument is not to to defend against the hordes of the 3rd world, but to defend against a further social minimising of families, by relativising it'S special sdtauzs byx giving the same sttaus to homosexual couples. I also saids that homosexual people have all freedom to live tigether, and that now much of the fight is about gaining tax status of families (to save money that way that families would spend on children, while homosexuals keep it for themnselves). Before we can hope to make the needed middle and upper social classes getting more abies so that we have the sufficient number of tax payers int he future (our biug problem unfolding currently), family and marriage needs to become perceived as a desirable, honourable endavour again. And this can only be achieved not by paqying boni, but by fostering a cultural climate that educates people to pay more respect to the institution of family, and founding a family, again. This is the main reason why I am strictly againmst relativisng and by that: reducing the socially payed respect to families even more, by giving others who do not contribute to the community'S interest like kid-raising families do. So I am against treating homo couples and single mlike me the same way hetrereo couples get treated. I want hetero couples to be given a special recognition and status that I neither claim for singles like myself, nor accept for homo couples.

Third world issues have nothing to do with it. It effects the financial and demographic developement in our countries only in so far as migration is concerned, and different migration subgroup form difefrent social classes that differ in their reproduzction rate, chnaging the overall balance between netto payers and netto receivers agfainst the first and in faovur of the latter. This is what the statistics of federal offices in Germany indicate since long time. This is what controversial Thilo Sarrazin's book is about: financial developement of tax income and tax spendings, and statistics of demographics.

We need less babies from social classes being netto receivers, and we need more babies form social classes being netto payers. From this perspective it'S avbout tax payers, not individual people's romance. Individual'S love stories are of no concern for the community, nor should it stick it'S nose into private people's business. Statistics and demographic trends effect all community, and make statements over all people, or a "mean/avergae" citizen. They do not describe or match individuals, but the total community. That is their very purpose!

Tax-wise, population levels in the third world are of no interest for us in our nations over here. How to pay our future bills - that is what our politics must focus on. They fail since long, spend more than can be affored, did not form rsserves for bad timers, but accumulated current and even potential future debts (the pensions that will be needed to pay in ther future when current employees leave the job due to their age).

So in other words, it's about class, not race. Very well, I shall ammend my comment: Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to the more desireable societal classes. You can call it oversimplification if you prefer, but that is the kernel at the heart of your argument.

[Skybird]

So in other words, it's about class, not race. Very well, I shall ammend my comment: Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to the more desireable societal classes. You can call it oversimplification if you prefer, but that is the kernel at the heart of your argument.

:dead:

Amongst other factors, it also is about the different birth rates in different social classes.

It is about the general decline in recognition and social appreciation for families in general. You may have noticed that amoingst migration subcommunities you see a correlation between not only between social class and birth rate/education success/job-career success, but also between the cultural background of said migration subcommunity, and birth rate. Those having more babies than us Westerners ver yoften come from countries where - for whatever the reason - family and children are held in higher appreciation, than in our countries in modern time. The more successful in integration these women become, the more they tend to adopt to our values and social models and standards and demand Western rights for themselves that maybe in their home cultures they had been excluded from* - and the less children they become. This correlation is also statiscially proven, I have read it repeatedly both about Europe as well as America.


* this can indicate that in a society they have been supressed and limited to the m other role, but it must not be - nor always is - like that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sky, I like you, but if you don't want to own it, then don't say it.

[Skybird]

I mean what I say and I say what I mean (ignoring many typos and the occasional lingual mishap I sometimes fall victim to with this foreign language). Either you - and others - summarise or adress me correctly in word and/or context, or you don't.

[Gammelpreusse]

I agree that only material motivations alonhe will not make women get more babies. They need the possibility of uniting job and family life.

That is the essence of it. Everything else is just personal feeling on your side and pretty much irrelevant to solution findings. I personally could not care less if some women consider it offensive to be called mother or not, that is their own feeling and attitude and if they want to feel that way, their loss, but let's not make this your or my problem, because it is not. Nevertheless, people want to be together, they want social security and they want people to rely on. Those are basic instincts completely independent of any given social norms or institutions. Marriage developed out of this drive, it was not the other way around.

Besides, we need women in jobs. Germany can't allow women the luxury to sit around at home all day and paying them for that, thus taking way half the populations work force. And as they want to get out and live actual lifes, even better, there comes together what needs to come together.

But again, to give a potential solution to this problem and others:
Provide enough free Kindertagesstätten and all day schools, and you have solved huge problems systematic to this society with one swoop without having to target minority groups as scapegoats to self inflicted problems. It also removes huge parts of the problem of weak social classes education and immigrant integration. Just going back and trying to strengthen families 19th century style in the modern environment of work, social state security and entertainment is like fighting WW1 with Napoleon style tactics.

[Sailor Steve]

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.
I wouldn't have thought that you would use any religion to back up your arguments. Is the concept arbitrary? Is it not? I don't know. As I've said, you have some points.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".
Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.
I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.
No, I don't accuse you for sticking to your guns. Your points are good ones. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. For my part, I've only said why I personally don't oppose this.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.
The truth is, as I said, I'm not trying to convince or change you. I'm just stating my feelings on the subject.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.
Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it. Again, on that point, I see you as the enemy of freedom. And you ignored my constant claim that all I ever defended was the right to erect a building. Bringing that up again and saying I "entangled" myself is the same as shouting "I won that time", when you did no such thing.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are.
And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.
To that I say that you don't know me at all. You read into my words what you want to, and ignore anything I say to the contrary. Once again, I have said that your points are valid, and I've explained as carefully as I can why I feel the way I do, but you drop right back into the old discussion of what you think my concept of freedom is. You're arguing against what you want me to have said, not what I actually said.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.
You say that, and I don't believe it. I'm not accusing you, I'm merely expressing my distrust of anyone's motives in general. It looks to me like there's more here than meets the eye, and as always I could easily be wrong.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.
And to my mind it's only discrimination if it actually causes harm, and again I don't see how any hetero person, or the "institution" of marriage would be harmed by this.

[Skybird]

That is the essence of it. Everything else is just personal feeling on your side and pretty much irrelevant to solution findings. I personally could not care less if some women consider it offensive to be called mother or not, that is their own feeling and attitude and if they want to feel that way, their loss, but let's not make this your or my problem, because it is not. Nevertheless, people want to be together, they want social security and they want people to rely on. Those are basic instincts completely independent of any given social norms or institutions. Marriage developed out of this drive, it was not the other way around.

Besides, we need women in jobs. Germany can't allow women the luxury to sit around at home all day and paying them for that, thus taking way half the populations work force. And as they want to get out and live actual lifes, even better, there comes together what needs to come together.

But again, to give a potential solution to this problem and others:
Provide enough free Kindertagesstätten and all day schools, and you have solved huge problems systematic to this society with one swoop without having to target minority groups as scapegoats to self inflicted problems. It also removes huge parts of the problem of weak social classes education and immigrant integration. Just going back and trying to strengthen families 19th century style in the modern environment of work, social state security and entertainment is like fighting WW1 with Napoleon style tactics.

That is exactly what I am not for. Kinderhorte from 2nd year of age on. Allday-schools. Gesamtschulen. I have had and still have several teacher sin my family and social circles of frie3nds, and all of them leave no good hair on Gesamtschulen, and "modern" school pedagogics à la Allemagne. Tasking children out of families from early childhood on only exposes them to the social conformity machinery mainly of the left, sicnbe it is mainly the left influencing the pedagogics in Germany: anti-authoritarian to the max, all-forgiving, and by rules of PISA and the Kultusministerkonferenz: lowering performance standards to allow better notes for lower performance and more social engineering experiments. No, all this crap I do not want. I want a stronger reorientation in schools to the Leistungsprinzip again, I want less tolerance for foreign cultural demands, but more insisting on that ion order to get good grades, you have to e3arn them, and if your social background of a foreign culture is hindering you in that, then you better pack your things and leave.

And when I said that "families" need to gain more social recognition again, then I do mean intat families by that, encouraging women to be mothers in the first, and job competitors proving the3 political demand tzo demonstrate gender equality only in the secongs. Because running a family life is a tough job already. When I say they should have the chnace to unite job and family, then I do not mean that family should be cut short by poasrking kids in instituitions, but to raise an awarene3ss in society and the job world that a mother primarily and for some time - is a mother, and is to be r3esp3ected and supported in that role. Only parents available to a child can support it when there are difficulties at school and in learning. Fathers that are never at home and mothers spending just some time on the fly with their children, are not it. I do not want the traditional limitation of women to household and children like in the 50s, but more understanding and flexibility from economy and industry so that they can cut shorter their time at work, to spend it outside their employment.

Whjat you express, is a further dec onstruction of "family" and the social recongition, appreciation and respect for it, you indicate clearly: job first. I am exactly the other way around: more priority for family life, more attractiveness beeing raised for it, more respectability.

A spirit of socialist collectives is not what I have on mind.

And this, probabkly not many women indeed feel offended when being called "mother". But there is a certain political movement, an agenda that is not just limited to the left, but embraces conservatrives like von der Leyen as well as activists like Alie Schwarzer, that want to make society thinking that a women that is not fully competitive with men in jobs, is something like a halved human being onyl. And the seed has carried rich fruits, and spreads evben further so far. As long as we cannot make women of middle and upper class, with higher access to educational chances and job chances for their children, change their mind to make them think that for not too few years children are prioprity over job and that this is something worth it and adorable, we will contne to see low class families having many children, and upper class families not havcing sufficient children, which means our society will be less and lesser able to survie the growing gap between its spendings for social issues and pensions of the many people growing old, and the shrinking tax income priduced by the few and fewer people who are young. Takeda is niot wrong in what he summarises ma with. But he is not complete in his summary of my arguments. But yes, having sufficiently potent future taxpayers is what it is about.

On recruiting migrants for jobs, it is an interesting argument that I have read some weeks ago: that stripping other ****ries, espoecially emerging powers that still are considered to be3 weak and inferior, of their needed specialists and well-trained experts, is an expoitation at the cost of these countries that compare to the industrial and econonmic exploitation during the age of imperialism and colonialism. These countries cannot grow any better if there people are enocuraged to move to the West - because then no brain is left to develope their home countries.

Germany, on the other ahnd, have to learn to accept lower works for themselves again, too, instead of leaving it to the Gastarbeiter.

Finally the German economy must become more indepedent from exports and low wage policies. We too have an immense structural problem, it just is well hidden becasue we did so well during the past crisis. Just the longterm costs for this welldoing - so far are not beeing realised or reflected.Like America we have immnse structural problems, just of a very< different kind than America - but as threatening and severe. And an endless continuation of low wage policies will not solve the problem, but critically sharpen it. EU and Euro not even mentioned here.

[Skybird]

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.
Leasing mothers as "breeders". Third party inseminators. Laboratory assistants.


I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Not only is the term "marriage" not so arbitrary that it can just include homosexual partnerhips, but raising these to the same level of social acceptance and recognition as well as tax benefits and financial revenues obviously relativises this status given and accepted and ruled for families. Plus it is damage in being a discrimination against singles. The special status of one group is only special as long as it is exycluded from other groups.

I added histgorxy and relgion only for the sake of completeness, to show that also in history acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages as equal are an exception from the rule, and that the big world relgions also speak out against it. While I do not much argue with them or moral issues, I would have these two things on my side as well, if I would.


Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it.

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.


And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.
You may see it like that. But I do not accept everything to be arbitrary in defintion of terms, and logical consusions that are not being shown wrong I refuse to give up. I try to form my opinions in that way so that later on I need to correct them as little and as rarely as possible. Somwetimes that is not possible, I feel. Then I refuse to form an opinion on something and to take a stand and defend it. But if I arrange my thoughts in such a way so that I do not see them often in need to correct them, I take that as a compliment for my thinking.

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case. And if indeed I have laid out many arguments and points that totally excluded morals, then I rate this as false talking about me and putting something in my mouth, and simplifying it and distoritng it. And after ten years in this forum I am a bit allergic against that. I assume in your favour that you maybe were not thinking about me in the main when writing that reply, however much of what your communication partner at that time had written also was not "just moral judgements".

[Skybird]

Leaving it here, third attempt. :DL

[Gerald]

Leaving it here, third attempt. :DL Are you sure, :DL

[Sailor Steve]

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.
Thanks. That's the best laugh I've had all week. Your selective memory is a wonderful thing.

I entered that argument with a simple contention: that unless some existing law was broken the muslims had a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning commission said they could. You turned it into a diatribe on Islam in general, using Popper to prove points that had nothing to do with that thread. Basically you shifted the argument to your pet point, started in on my "absolutism", and when I explained that my statement wasn't a stopping, but a starting point, went into pages-long diatribes about how I wanted to hand over everything we hold dear to the great-evil-of-our-time.

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all. Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

So yes, you won. You proved absolutely that you are a master at changing the topic to what you want it to be, creating a straw-man argument that you can then destroy and claim victory, and carefully not mentioning the original topic.

That sounds just like your new sig.

[Sailor Steve]

I chose to address this separately.

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case.
That's true, and I apologize. I guess I am incapable of seeing how the arguments made can actually be the starting ground for opposition. It seems to me that there must be something deeper going on, and if there isn't then it's my fault for not recognizing it.

[Skybird]

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all.
Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.

Instead one waited, until it was too late. You follow that pattern on a similiar inhumane, totalitarian and supremacist, deeply racist ideology.

Islamic representatives time and again tell the world that they want to take over the West. Highest politicians, presidents, clerics let you know. Famous Islamic institgutions of highest rank, and univesity scholars tell their followers what to do regarding the West. It is also a message form the Quran. Can'T you just take people and ideologies by their words for which they are fully responsible, even more so when history has shown them right, right, right? And when the basic ideology on which they found, call for it? What makes you know Islam better than Islam knows itself?

Instead you now defend the freedom of speech of that Nazism that has costed your country tens of thousands of dead and that has caused one of the biggest crimes in man's history and the biggest mass killing known. For the same cinfused reason you defend other ultraextremist organisation'S freedom of speech as well, the KKK, and more. If that Nazism still is not enough to let you limit its freedoms, then it is clear that not only you will not resist to Islam either, even more so since it is not striking openly, but by silent infiltration, demograophic chnage ovcer deacdes and brain washing.

Those not learning from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.
At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper. Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it". Sorry, that is neither to be taken serious, nor is it to be described as anything different than "naive" and "suicidal". And that's why Popper had a go at it in "The Open Society": it does damage to society.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it. Instead you keep on telling me, even here, that you always take into account that you could be wrong - but that does not lead you to any consequences. To me it sounds like an alibi to actually not defend freedom where you say you are for freedom. And the circle closes and we are back to that freedom dilemma that you still have not solved, although it is a fundamental problem, and in your argument: illustrates a hopeless inner contradiction.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong. Many people think like you think. That'S why Popper'S freedom paradoxon has found entrance into literature, under the title of freedom paradoxon or freedom dilemma. Because it proves that you are wrong - by falsification. And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest - which also destroys freedom: that freedom that holds justice not for just the rich and the strong and the loudest yelling, but for all (that do not seek to destroy freedom).

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.

[Sailor Steve]

Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.
So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper.
Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.

Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it".
And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it.
And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong.
And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?

Many people think like you think.
You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.
And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.

And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?

[razark]

And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest

That "unlimited freedom" thing? No one is suggesting it except you. The only ones I've seen mention "unlimited freedom" are you and Popper. Unlimited freedom would indeed lead to anarchy, etc. That's why our freedom is very much limited. My freedom to do what I want ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. Their freedom to do what they want ends when it infringes on mine. As has been stated elsewhere, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Building a mosque does nothing to infringe on your freedom. Not allowing someone to build on land they own does infringe on their right.

[Skybird]

So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

Thw writing was on the wall many years before 1939. In case of Islam, the writing is on the wall sionce more than a thousand years. You could have known what Hitler was about when reading "Mein Kampf" and observing the evcents in Germany and how germany chnaged. You can know what Islam is about when reading the Quran and the Hadith, or watching the fate of those places that got conquered (Islam represents the longest lasting most successful military and ideological conquest project known in all man's history). You can also know about Islam when looking at its history, and whether or not there is a huge discrpeance between Muhammad'S teachings and example, and the historic events caused by Islam.

You just do not want to know, Steve. Instead in a way you just claim indirectly to know Islam better than Islam reveals itself as by the word of Allah himself.


Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.[/quote)
And once again you do not get it. Yopu accuse me of destroying freedom when limiting it for the enmy so that he cannot destroiy freedom. Youz alternmtaive to mine: accepting destruction of freedom in the name of freedom.

When freedom has been destroyed, of what worth is your oh so noble intention then, eh? You will not start to defend it before it is too late and you have no more freedom left to defenmd freedom. See, that is what the paradoxon of freedom is about. Are you really so nut that you do not understand this?

[quote]And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.
I waltz around your idealism? You have no idelaism, Steve. You have a suicidial illusion that creates the space and opportunity to see being destroyed what you claim to stand up for. That is not the same.


And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.
Oh , I have, a hundred times, it's just not what you want to hear, becasue you deal in absolutes. I refused a hundred times now that limiting some freedoms for the enemy of freedom in order to prevent him from successfully destrioying freedom saves more freedom and beenfits the freedom of those wisahing for freedom, but that leaving the other to destory freedom, totally destroys freedom. If you think that makes me the same like the one wishing to destroy freedom, then you are nuts, totally nuts. And you also have lost any grounds and reasons by which you could defend any wars that have been fought in attempts to overthrow tyranny.

Once again you hopelessly entangle yourself over this. What's wrong with you? You have been falsified by that freedom paradoxon/dilemma. If you can solve that dilemma, Steve, then youz would be the first man on Earth able to do that, and with s soltuion to that dilemma, I would will to convert to your thinking. Until then I call you suicidal, and nuts. Not to mention: unrealistical, nbecasue even in your country limitations of freedom for the benefit of freedom in general are everyday rule.

And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?
So many times you need until you can show how your ideal could make a chnage in reality witrhout destroying freedom. Because only then me and others would be willing to listen to you. As long as you assist the desatroyers of freedom and call that freedom as an ideal, you are dangerous, and must be stopped, because if you would have your way, that wpould be the end of freedom - becasue there are so many people wanting to destroy it in the world.

Ideals - are not good enough, and intentions mean not much more. It is the deed and its consequence that decides the value of your choice - not how you meant it to be.


You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.
I have understood you perfectly already back then. It's just that your thinkling is so self-contradictory that it does not only not convince at all, but instead even alarms me. I will not spare you to remind you of how self-contradictory you are in your understanding of freedom.

And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.
I have, even in explicit reply to such demands. And if I recall it correctly you were one of those who nevertheless ignored to take note of that - and demanded me, as if nothing had happoened, that I should explain it. And now I should do it once again.

Well, that is a bit too far leading to do it ONCE again. I just say this again,m as IU have said many times before: most of Islamic values are incompatible with Western values (inclduing your freeedom, Steve, Islam would make short bloody process of what you understand freedom to be). Thus I do not believe in a modernisation of Islam , since that would elad to somethign that is not basing on God'S will anymore, and when it is not based on the Quran and in conformity with it, it cannot be "Islam". Any conception of integration has to take this into account, and it also is the reason why Muslim integration fails in every Wetsern nation where it is being tried since over 40 years. Islam does not want to integrate. Islam wants to make others submit instead.

My advise is the same as I have said many times now: migrants either fully integrate in their target nations, or thexy pack their things and leave, going back to where they came from. Inmtegration of Muslims means necessartily that they become apostates and leave Islam and and muhammed's Quran behind.


And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?
I have. I said it is a mockery, I linked to the terroiost background of the hatefiulled figure initiating it and that many of you Americans mistake to be a wellmeaning moderate where instead he preaches for the fall of America when he is outside your ciuntry, and I said that damn thing should not be built. Hiowever, the issue we started to fight over, was not that mosque, and dertailed threads are common ion this forum. We two engaged explicitly over your derailed concept of "absolute freedom or no freedom at all".

This is useless. Tell me when you can solve that freedom paradoxon, then you will find me listening fully interested. Else... well...

Actually what I always call the freedom paradoxon is more correctly entitled the tolerance paradoxon. But the meaning is the same.
To recall it:


Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

However, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


Show this to be wrong or show how you can practice your differing concept of freedom/tolerance without allowing the other to destroy your freedom when he abuses your tolerance. You whole idea of freedom stands or falls with your ability to do either the one or the other of these two. If you can, then we talk again. If you cannot, then I have nothing more to say.

[Sailor Steve]

You just do not want to know, Steve. Instead in a way you just claim indirectly to know Islam better than Islam reveals itself as by the word of Allah himself.
I claim nothing at all. I merely try to talk, and you continue to preach.

And once again you do not get it. Yopu accuse me of destroying freedom when limiting it for the enmy so that he cannot destroiy freedom. Youz alternmtaive to mine: accepting destruction of freedom in the name of freedom.
I don't get it. Please explain to my how you are not the enemy? You still won't answer that.

When freedom has been destroyed, of what worth is your oh so noble intention then, eh? You will not start to defend it before it is too late and you have no more freedom left to defenmd freedom. See, that is what the paradoxon of freedom is about. Are you really so nut that you do not understand this?
And again you dance with your straw man. You ignore me when I agree with you, and when I try to turn it into a real conversation you drop right back into your "I know what's best for you" games.

I waltz around your idealism? You have no idelaism, Steve. You have a suicidial illusion that creates the space and opportunity to see being destroyed what you claim to stand up for. That is not the same.
You don't know what I have. All you know is what you think I have. If I try to explain myself you just turn it right back to what you want it to be.

Oh , I have, a hundred times, it's just not what you want to hear, becasue you deal in absolutes.
Bull. You have never once answered my charge. Instead you jump right back into saying I don't understand the true enemy.

I refused a hundred times now that limiting some freedoms for the enemy of freedom in order to prevent him from successfully destrioying freedom saves more freedom and beenfits the freedom of those wisahing for freedom, but that leaving the other to destory freedom, totally destroys freedom. If you think that makes me the same like the one wishing to destroy freedom, then you are nuts, totally nuts. And you also have lost any grounds and reasons by which you could defend any wars that have been fought in attempts to overthrow tyranny.
And there you go again, back into the diatribe. Oh, wait, you did say that I was nuts, totally nuts. But you still won't talk to me.

Once again you hopelessly entangle yourself over this. What's wrong with you? You have been falsified by that freedom paradoxon/dilemma.
Only in your fixed, lock-step mind.

If you can solve that dilemma, Steve, then youz would be the first man on Earth able to do that, and with s soltuion to that dilemma, I would will to convert to your thinking. Until then I call you suicidal, and nuts. Not to mention: unrealistical, nbecasue even in your country limitations of freedom for the benefit of freedom in general are everyday rule.
You misunderstand. I don't want to convert you to my thinking. I just want to have a real discussion.

So many times you need until you can show how your ideal could make a chnage in reality witrhout destroying freedom. Because only then me and others would be willing to listen to you. As long as you assist the desatroyers of freedom and call that freedom as an ideal, you are dangerous, and must be stopped, because if you would have your way, that wpould be the end of freedom - becasue there are so many people wanting to destroy it in the world.
What??? I say I know that it's just an ideal, and I say that I know that it's not absolute, and I say that I know that there are always limits, and you ignore that and jump on my "ideals" again. And again you ignore everything I say just so you can argue some more.

Ideals - are not good enough, and intentions mean not much more. It is the deed and its consequence that decides the value of your choice - not how you meant it to be.
And I've said that. And you've ignored me and what I've said and argued with what you have want me to have said. You're not even listening, are you.

I have understood you perfectly already back then.
Obviously and painfully not.

It's just that your thinkling is so self-contradictory that it does not only not convince at all, but instead even alarms me. I will not spare you to remind you of how self-contradictory you are in your understanding of freedom.
And you're not thinking at all. You're preaching again, just like any religious fanatic. Once again - I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Everything you've said about me is based on one simple statement. And as I've repeatedly said, and you've repeatedly ignored, I know that that statement is an ideal, and I know it's only a starting point, a statement of belief, and I know that nothing is ever that black-and-white. On the other hand, you seem to be exactly than in your Crusade.

One of my problems, or graces, depending on how you look at it, is that I cannot trust anyone who "knows" that they are right. If there is no possibility in your world that you might be wrong, then there is nothing for you to learn, and you are dangerous as well.

We two engaged explicitly over your derailed concept of "absolute freedom or no freedom at all".
No, you engaged, or rather attacked. And "absolute freedom or no freedom at all" is not what I said. In fact, as I've tried to tell you repeatedly, what I believe is very much different. You would rather argue with what you say I believe than listen to what I really believe.

This is useless. Tell me when you can solve that freedom paradoxon, then you will find me listening fully interested. Else... well...
I have no paradox at all. I believe in freedom. I believe in fighting for it. There are always problems, and nothing is ever black and white. But you have to start somewhere, and I choose to start with the concept that either you have it or you don't. And I go from there, but you refuse to see anything but the simple statement, and you attack that without ever trying to find out what I really believe. The paradox is all in your head.

I may be nuts, but you're dangerous.

Actually what I always call the freedom paradoxon is more correctly entitled the tolerance paradoxon. But the meaning is the same.
Is that what you truly believe?
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
It "must"? Someone better than I could have a lengthy debate on that concept, and it sounds good (which is probably why you fell for it) but as soon as anyone says it "must" without showing why, then it is his logic which is already faulty, not mine.

As for extending tolerance to those who are intolerant, I believe, as TR said, in speaking softly but carrying a very big stick. Because the opposite is also true - if you show only intolerance then you have already destroyed society.

However, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
That I can agree with. The reason I call you the enemy is that that section also describes you. No, I don't trust them, and I stand ready to fight them even as I try to show them what the world could be if they would listen. Again, it's that "big stick" thing.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Sounds good on paper, but knowing where to draw the line is the hard part, and you obviously believe that the line should be drawn on their throats. You may be right, but I don't like your tone of pretending to "know" you're right, and that's where we part ways.

And there's the problem that it's all his opinion, and he may be wrong. We must be watchful, and ready to defend ourselves at all costs, but to give up any notion of freedom at all is to destroy what we claim to protect, and at that point we don't have a way of life left to protect.

And if that closed, circular reasoning is what Popper has to offer, and what you base your beliefs on, then you need to find a new prophet. That one seems to be making it up as he goes along.

Show this to be wrong or show how you can practice your differing concept of freedom/tolerance without allowing the other to destroy your freedom when he abuses your tolerance. You whole idea of freedom stands or falls with your ability to do either the one or the other of these two. If you can, then we talk again. If you cannot, then I have nothing more to say.

I hope you have nothing more to say, because so far all you've done is preach hate. As I said, your "debate" on this subject sounds like religious fanaticism, and that makes you your own enemy.

That "unlimited freedom" thing? No one is suggesting it except you. The only ones I've seen mention "unlimited freedom" are you and Popper. Unlimited freedom would indeed lead to anarchy, etc. That's why our freedom is very much limited. My freedom to do what I want ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. Their freedom to do what they want ends when it infringes on mine. As has been stated elsewhere, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Building a mosque does nothing to infringe on your freedom. Not allowing someone to build on land they own does infringe on their right.
Thank you for understanding what I've been saying. Not for agreeing with me, because unlike some I don't claim to have the monopoly on truth, and I like to hear other opinions. But at least you noticed that I have never, ever, advocated "unlimited freedom".

[Skybird]

Thanks for once again ignoring that I answered your question several times now.

I conclude from that that it shall be the "else..." option then.

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks for once again ignoring that I answered your question several times now.
Which one? I'm still trying to talk, and you're still lecturing. What has changed?

[Gerald]

Which one? I'm still trying to talk, and you're still lecturing. What has changed? Nothing have changed,"I will stand my ground, and I won't back down" good sig!