Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[Gerald]

The US has publicly declared it will fight discrimination against gays and lesbians abroad by using foreign aid and diplomacy to encourage reform.US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of diplomats in Geneva that "gay rights are human rights".A memo from the Obama administration directs US government agencies to consider gay rights when making aid and asylum decisions.Similar policies already exist for gender equality and ethnic violence."It should never be a crime to be gay" Mrs Clinton said at the United Nations in Geneva, adding that a country's cultural or religious traditions was no excuse for discrimination. Her audience included representatives from countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence.Many ambassadors rushed out of the room as soon as Mrs Clinton finished speaking, the Associated Press news agency reported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937


Note: 7 December 2011 Last updated at 02:49 GMT

[Seth8530]

Ironic when a large portion of our country does not allow gay marriage

[Tribesman]

Ironic when a large portion of our country does not allow gay marriage
But are there parts of your country where being gay is still illegal?

[Skybird]

All gays are humans. But not all humans are gays. Minorities do not define or represent "the norm".

Somebody should explain that difference to some people, occasionally.

[1480]

All gays are humans. But not all humans are gays. Minorities do not define or represent "the norm".

Somebody should explain that difference to some people, occasionally.


The problem is that since they are not the majority, they have to be "protected".

[Skybird]

The problem is that since they are not the majority, they have to be "protected".

Since I had this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190205)recently, one of several possible quotes from that text in reply to you. We are obsessed with minorities being declared equal to majorties and norms, and we systemtically declare unvalid any difference being made between them. Total indifference is the result, making our social communities dissolving, unsubstantial, unpayable for, dysfunctional. You cannot accept the other, if you do not accept your own identity in all its difference to him.


Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways. If malice and vanity wear the coat of philanthropy, shall that pass? If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbadoes, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest: have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.' Rough and graceless would be such greeting, but truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, — else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines. I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company. Then, again, do not tell me, as a good man did to-day, of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be; but your miscellaneous popular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots; and the thousandfold Relief Societies; — though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.

(R.W. Emerson: Self-Reliance)


Takeda said this complete essay is one of his favourite pieces by Emerson. Same goes for me. It also shows me how much I have distanced myself from contemporary European Zeitgeist. And when reading it, I heared a faint echo of another book that I had read a very long time ago: "Citadelle" (The Wisdom of the Sands) by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The opening 3 or 4 pages cloud be given in reply in this thread, too.

[mookiemookie]

Since I had this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190205)recently, one of several possible quotes from that text in reply to you. We are obsessed with minorities being declared equal to majorties and norms, and we systemtically declare unvalid any difference being made between them. Total indifference is the result, making our social communities dissolving, unsubstantial, unpayable for, dysfunctional. You cannot accept the other, if you do not accept your own identity in all its difference to him.

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

[Skybird]

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.
I have said that many times before and so I cut it short.

Marriage and tax reliefs (that at least are intended for families creating and then raising children), is about the vital and important interest of the whole community: that couples form up that have babies together - which the future tax-payers and supporters of the society when the current generation of active workers and parents has become old. This interest is to be protected, and that even gets explicitly said in the constitution of some countries for example Germany. This intrerst poverrules onconditionally any interest formulated by subordinate groupos or minorities, because it touches upon the survivability of the whole community as a functional social and cultural entity.

As a single man, I accept this "discrimination" of myself, because I a.) see the need, and b.) do not feel discriminated at all.

What makes me feel discrminated are homosexual lobby groups demandign the same priviliges for themselves like for heterosexual couples, which would pout them above me, but without said homosexual couples being of the same benefit and value to society. Society or state must care for heterosexual couples forming up in sufficient numbers and having a sufficient number of babies. Gay or lesbian people in this regard are of zero interest for state or society, they have no social function that must be of concern for the state or society, and they do not fulfill any function for the community by their form of living together: they are as irrelevant as is me being befriended with somebody I know and having a beer with him/her. Single people like me, also must not be of special interest for community or state. Gays are free to live together if they want. Let them, I accept them the same freedom I claim for myself. Singlse like me are also free to stay alone if they want. Families given special priviliged protection do not discriminate myself. But gays demanding more for themselves than what I get, but not serving any further function going beyond that of singles like myself - these are discriminating people like me.

I want families being given special recognition, protection and all that. If non-families now get the same privileges, than these privileges get relativised until they are no privileges anymore.

As a former psychologist beign very critical to psychology and sociology, I am critical of certain trends in attempts of "gender mainstreaming" and rejecion of difference sbertween people in the name of mandatory collective excercises in uniformity and infantility. The claimed total arbitrariness of education models of children, I object to. Models that claim that children are better served by taking them away from intact fam ilies and putting them into Kindergarden already at the age of 1 year (goal in Germany) I call a deliberate crime again st the children and - sorry, Steve :) - a damn disgrace. I also deny the right for lesbian or gay couples to adopt foreign children, like singles like me also shouild not adopt froeign children. Children need both a father and a mother, because both persons fulfill different social role models and psychological functions. When someone dies, the partner may end up with raising the child al alone. But this is the result from accident - it is not to be declared as desirable, just to open the door for homosexual adoptation. I do not buy these social engineer's "studies" claiming that it does not make a difference wheter kids have two men or two women as parents, or a mixed couple or a single person. It makes differences.

Psychology, my own branch that is, is massively guilty of kneeling to the Zeitgeist and political demands in order to be given further reputation, influence and power py politics and said Zeitgeist. It needs that alliance, because in principle by itself psychology and sociology have much less substantial truth to offer than they claim for themselves in order to shine. I did not quit that field for no reasons, although there were a couple of more. But this was one of the primary reasons.

Intact families and babies are important for us. Gays, Lesbians couples, singles like me are not that important - not regarding the social issues and complex cultural implications touched upon by these things. After all, nature has dresigned human sdpecies to be a species reproducing by mixing up the genepool due to TWO sexes existing. And no matter what you try: homo sapiens primarily is a dual-sex design, and procreates and ensures the specie'S design by sex between a male and a female. That is the norm, that is how it is meant , and that is why we still exist today and did not go amiss several tens of thousands of years ago. And that is what makes a heterosexcual arriage forever more adorable and desirable, than a homosexual marriage. The first is "normal". The latter is an exeption that serves no communal function in securing the communities future and ongoing existence by making babies (that needs to be protected due to their weakness).

Me and cutting it short. Yeah, I know I know...

[mookiemookie]

but witho9ut being of the same benefit and vlaue to society.

You measure how deserving someone is of their human rights by their perceived worth to society, determined by how likely they are to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. Interesting.

And the idea is completely laughable. If marriages were all about babies, then the elderly and the sterile would be discriminated against in your world. And to postulate the fact that you should meet some "criteria" to be worthy of human rights is ridiculous on its face as it ignores the very concept of what human rights are.

But I've read your diatribes against this before, so it's be like banging my head into a wall to rehash all the problems with that idea, so I won't.

[Sea Demon]

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

Ugh. I don't know why people don't understand this. Nobody is being "denied any rights" by not allowing gays "marriage". Everyone and anyone is allowed to get married if they choose to do so. Just play by the rules and get married to someone from the opposite sex. Nobody has ever been able to prove to me that there is any form of discrimination going on with California's Prop 8 and such. There simply is none.

[mookiemookie]

Just play by the rules and get married to someone from the opposite sex.

That's an absolutely absurd argument. "Just quit being gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex, and there's no problem, hurr hurr!" It ignores what marriage is about, it ignores what human love and attraction is about. That is the very essence of denying someone their human rights.

How is allowing heterosexuals to marry each other, but not allowing homosexuals to marry each other not discrimination again?

Nobody has ever been able to prove to me...

Nobody will ever prove your politics wrong because you'll never open your mind enough to allow it.

[Skybird]

You measure how deserving someone is of their human rights by their perceived worth to society, determined by how likely they are to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. Interesting.

And the idea is completely laughable. If marriages were all about babies, then the elderly and the sterile would be discriminated against in your world. And to postulate the fact that you should meet some "criteria" to be worthy of human rights is ridiculous on its face as it ignores the very concept of what human rights are.

But I've read your diatribes against this before, so it's be like banging my head into a wall to rehash all the problems with that idea, so I won't.

The privilige of marriage is being given on basis of the most often scenario to be seen over centuies and millenias: that where boy and girl come together, there is often a baby - or more - sooner or later. There may not even be love involved. But since a long time, this is what happens most of the times you look at events: boy meets girl: baby. Natuzre wanmted it that way. And it happens more often this way, than any other scenario. Yes. Old peopole occasioanlly marry, too. Yes, there are sterile couples (best candidates for adoptations I say). Yes, babies become b ig and strong and leave the house. And still: this is the scenario that happens most of the time and is of the only real importance for the community: boy meets girls, having babies. No babies, no next generation. No next generation, civilisation dies. That simple.

Yes, I think that in some ways communal interestz overrule individual interest. Not always, but as a general rule of thumb and on several imporetant, vital issues, I indeed agree with Mr. Spock's famous quote. And occasionally I agree with Kirk'S not less famous reply as well.

BTW, I am absolutely serious when saying gays discriminate signles like me when claiming for themselves rights like heterosexual couples with singles like me being exlcuded from said rights. It is a injustice and a blatant violation of the human dignity of single people that they should enjoy less social respectability and benfits and protection than gays, lesbians and hetero couples. Do we do any damage top society just becasue we do not have babies or refuse to live in a homosexual relation? Or are we indirectly put under pressure to turn ourselves into homosexuals - and then getting access to said priviliges for - well, for what? For being gay? Or for having no babies?

Maybe we think it wrong from all beginning. Mybe we should sanctionise hetero couples raising children, and should but getting babies under a social ban, and penalty taxes. It cannot be tolerated that the social function of families is seen as more vital than that of social relations of gays and lesbians and singles.

I should ask the EU bureau for social engineering over this. The ideology of gender mainstreaming - the systematic denial of any differences between men and women and the declaration of the ultimate arbitrariness of sexual role models independant from biological sex: there is a whole pseudo-academical literature about it already - is not for nothing integral part of EU policies since the treaty of I think Amsterdam it was.

[Sea Demon]

That's an absolutely absurd argument. "Just quit being gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex, and there's no problem, hurr hurr!"

That's where you go wrong. Nobody's telling anybody to stop being gay. People are just saying that marriage is defined as it's always been. Everyone and anyone can participate......but you have to play by the rules. As a man, I am subject to the same rules. Can't marry another man, a goat, a car, or a stopwatch.

Nobody will ever prove your politics wrong because you'll never open your mind enough to allow it.I suggest you look in the mirror on this one. :O::haha:

If any "out and proud" gay person goes to get a marriage certificate with someone from the opposite sex and is denied....then I'll be convinced of your discrimination charges. Until then...it's just pure emotion coming from those insisting gay "marriage" MUST happen at all costs.

[MH]

So besides discrimination of single men/bible say no no and so on....what you people thing will be the effect of all this on society in the future?


I should ask the EU bureau for social engineering over this. The ideology of gender mainstreaming - the systematic denial of any differences between men and women and the declaration of the ultimate arbitrariness of sexual role models independant from biological sex: there is a whole pseudo-academical literature about it already - is not for nothing integral part of EU policies since the treaty of I think Amsterdam it was.
I'm against this "mainstreaming" as well but what is the big deal about gays?

[Skybird]

I'm against this "mainstreaming" as well but what is the big deal about gays?
I don't knopw. I do not make a big deal of gays. They make.

[MH]

I don't knopw. I do not make a big deal of gays. They make.

Yeah they do...they even have to parade in Jerusalem every year.
I would not care so much if it wasn't for damn traffic jams.:haha:
I mean common... get rooms lol

[Takeda Shingen]

Allowing homosexual couples to marry in no way infringes on the civil rights of others, so I say let them have it.

[soopaman2]

I think gay people are equal.
Do what you want. You want equality right?

So give up the parade garbage, and prancing through midtown Manhattan with backside (***)-less chaps.

You want to be equal at least try to conform to societal norms. People would be more embracing of it, were it not for the more flamboyant.

Go ahead call me an insensitive bigoted moron. I just don't want it in my face.

Unprotected class white males do not have parades, nor hate crime laws to protect us, here in PC America.

[Sailor Steve]

I tend to agree about the flamboyance, but back when they did try to conform to the societal norms they were treated like lepers and worse.

Don't want it in your face? Avoid the parades. I hate seeing two guys kissing on one of my favorite TV shows, so I find myself closing my eyes a lot. The show's too good otherwise to just not watch it.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think gay people are equal.
Do what you want. You want equality right?

So give up the parade garbage, and prancing through midtown Manhattan with backside (***)-less chaps.

You want to be equal at least try to conform to societal norms. People would be more embracing of it, were it not for the more flamboyant.

Go ahead call me an insensitive bigoted moron. I just don't want it in my face.

Every year, one of my local television stations breaks in with two painful hours of Saint Patrick's Day parade coverage, complete with lengthy diatribes by only the most hardcore Irish-Americans, detailing the struggles of Irish Catholics in America and how they used to protect churches. Now, if we are going to put the lid on celebrations of gay pride, we must also do the same things for Irish pride. I imagine that Columbus Day and Oktoberfest celebrations should also be reigned in. Fair is fair.

[soopaman2]

Every year, one of my local television stations breaks in with two painful hours of Saint Patrick's Day parade coverage, complete with lengthy diatribes by only the most hardcore Irish-Americans, detailing the struggles of Irish Catholics in America and how they used to protect churches. Now, if we are going to put the lid on celebrations of gay pride, we must also do the same things for Irish pride. I imagine that Columbus Day and Oktoberfest celebrations should also be reigned in. Fair is fair.

I suppose. Tradition is tradition.

I humbly retract. :oops:

[Takeda Shingen]

I suppose. Tradition is tradition.

I humbly retract. :oops:

Nah, your view is as valid as mine. And I do agree in that I find the leather and short-shorts kind of ridiculous. Of course, I also find Irish stepdance equally ridiculous, so to each their own.

[AVGWarhawk]

Every year, one of my local television stations breaks in with two painful hours of Saint Patrick's Day parade coverage, complete with lengthy diatribes by only the most hardcore Irish-Americans, detailing the struggles of Irish Catholics in America and how they used to protect churches. Now, if we are going to put the lid on celebrations of gay pride, we must also do the same things for Irish pride. I imagine that Columbus Day and Oktoberfest celebrations should also be reigned in. Fair is fair.


Change the channel. :up:

[soopaman2]

Nah, your view is as valid as mine. And I do agree in that I find the leather and short-shorts kind of ridiculous. Of course, I also find Irish stepdance equally ridiculous, so to each their own.

My post was kinda on the blunt side. I got no malice towards these people.

I guess my point was that alot of folks would have less a problem with it, if the loud minority among them didn't find the most extravagant ways to flaunt it.

I guess some are trolls, and all it does is hurt their cause.

[AVGWarhawk]

I guess my point was that alot of folks would have less a a problem with it, if the loud minority among them didn't find the most extravagant ways to flaunt it.

There are those that are flamboyant about it. Dupont Circle in DC comes to mind. Then there are those that lead a relatively subdued life. A lesbian couple comes to mind at our second church in Dayton MD. My nephew and his friend come to mind as well. Productive members of society.

[Sea Demon]

Every year, one of my local television stations breaks in with two painful hours of Saint Patrick's Day parade coverage, complete with lengthy diatribes by only the most hardcore Irish-Americans, detailing the struggles of Irish Catholics in America and how they used to protect churches. Now, if we are going to put the lid on celebrations of gay pride, we must also do the same things for Irish pride. I imagine that Columbus Day and Oktoberfest celebrations should also be reigned in. Fair is fair.

While in SFO and on Market Street about 8 years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of seeing one of these "homo pride" parades going by. I saw public nudity, and some other perversions I wouldn't post here. Ever heard of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"? Yuck! Simply put, I don't think Irish Catholics in their cultural heritage parades and these gay fests are comparable.

[soopaman2]

There are those that are flamboyant about it. Dupont Circle in DC comes to mind. Then there are those that lead a relatively subdued life. A lesbian couple comes to mind at our second church in Dayton MD. My nephew and his friend come to mind as well. Productive members of society.


Your friends are the respectable majority who catch a bad rap for the actions of trolls. I am sorry for them.

My cousin is from the deep south. He always said I would rather live next door to a gay than a Hmmmmm.

Use your imagination. Living next town over from a gang infested crap- pit I agree.

[1480]

Gay Pride parade is a cake walk, try our annual Bud Billiken parade. :smug:

[MH]

It should be more like this:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/17/RioCarnival_narrowweb__300x334,0.jpg

[Penguin]

I saw public nudity, and some other perversions [...]I don't think Irish Catholics in their cultural heritage parades and these gay fests are comparable.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9553/113839315bd61731154.jpg
(pic taken on St. Paddy's in Ireland)
yup, clearly not comparable!

and though you have a stricter moral code in the US regarding public displays of flesh, I really don't think that you won't find any women who flash their tits at SPD in Boston...

As other have said before: if you don't like the Dallas Cowboys, don't attend their parade.




(edit: lol @MH, this reminds me of the German saying: Two idiots, one thought)

[mookiemookie]

Then there's parades like the annual Fantasy Fest in Key West. There's some saggy old boobs covered by nothing but body paint on display there. Yeccch.

[Takeda Shingen]

While in SFO and on Market Street about 8 years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of seeing one of these "homo pride" parades going by. I saw public nudity, and some other perversions I wouldn't post here. Ever heard of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"? Yuck! Simply put, I don't think Irish Catholics in their cultural heritage parades and these gay fests are comparable.

If you want to go that route, I would ask you where your outrage is over, say, Mardi Gras and it's parent, Carnival?

[August]

Mybe we should sanctionise hetero couples raising children, and should but getting babies under a social ban, and penalty taxes.

Not that bad of an idea. Given a world population of 7 billion and climbing we need to stop rewarding people for having kids and start making them pay extra for the extra resources their offspring consume.

[August]

yup, clearly not comparable!

Well no they really aren't comparable unless you count momentary flashing of a breast to be the same as oral sex being performed right out there on the curb for everyone to see.

if you don't like the Dallas Cowboys, don't attend their parade

Point taken, but on the other hand would it be appropriate to have a tribute to the New England Patriots in the Dallas Cowboy parade? If gays want their own parade let them organize their own parade. They shouldn't be crashing that of others.

[Takeda Shingen]

Point taken, but on the other hand would it be appropriate to have a tribute to the New England Patriots in the Dallas Cowboy parade?

Are we asking most people or are we asking you? Those would probably be different answers. :D

[Penguin]

Well no they really aren't comparable unless you count momentary flashing of a breast to be the same as oral sex being performed right out there on the curb for everyone to see.



Point taken, but on the other hand would it be appropriate to have a tribute to the New England Patriots in the Dallas Cowboy parade? If gays want their own parade let them organize their own parade. They shouldn't be crashing that of others.

Well, as you probably know I come from the part of Germany where Carnival is quite big, in fact we call it the fifth season of the year. So people here like to party. On Carnival you can see (drunk) couples performing sex in the late hours, not in the parade, but in bus stops, house entrances or in pub's bathrooms. However this view is much less common than drunkards beating the crap out of each other. I think that oral sex performances at gay parades are also an exception in the US and are certainly not endorsed by the organizers of the parade, alone for legal reasons.

So it is no coincidence that Cologne, which has the biggest carnival here, with more than a million spectators, also has the biggest Christopher Street day parade with several hundred thousand spectators, many of them non-gay, who come there and enjoy the party atmosphere and the wagons. Another number: The Rosenmontagszug 2011 (main day of carnival) had 150 wagons, the CSD in 2011 had 100.

And the gays do organize their own event, of course in coordination with the city which does their organization part (road closures, cleaning, safety, etc.) However both events, Carival and the gay parade are also a big financial gain regarding tourism.

[Betonov]

You're talking about nudity like it's a bad thing, you never went winter streaking :DL

[soopaman2]

This is taking something way to far now. I watch football for brutal men, out strategizing the other brutal men. I could care less about the cheerleaders (they don't help the spread). I got a set of boobs in my house that I stare at all day, and after all these years still get yelled at for it!

I am sure you can find the fat naked chick parade and point it out here, but the point I was making when I started this crapstorm is....

Ready?

If you are fighting to be equal then why do you need a parade that does nothing but showcase your eccentrism?

Be equal, by just being gay and living your life. Not closing down traffic for half a day in New York City, because you want to wave a rainbow flag and wear a dress.

Just be gay. Be yourself. Be confident in what you are and 98% of us will accept you. But realize it makes some uncomfortable, and not rub peoples noses in it

[Sea Demon]

If you want to go that route, I would ask you where your outrage is over, say, Mardi Gras and it's parent, Carnival?

We can go that route. I do have a problem with any public sexual indecency displayed at Mardi Gras and Carnival as well. Get a room. But like someone else pointed out, there's a far cry from flashing some T&A for beads and two gross looking homos conducting oral sex on the sidewalk, or the other thing that grossed me out at the Market street display......public group m*****bation. :nope:

[Penguin]

the point I was making when I started this crapstorm is....

lol, you are clearly not long enough on here to call this quite civilized discussion here a crapstorm, just check out some earlier discussions in GT- no offense, man! :shucks:


If you are fighting to be equal then why do you need a parade that does nothing but showcase your eccentrism?

I hate ties, I find them ugly and disgusting, one of the most ridiculous and useless pieces of clothing that humans ever invented, but who am I to judge how other people dress? Guess there are also some people who find my clothing ugly.


Be equal, by just being gay and living your life. Not closing down traffic for half a day in New York City, because you want to wave a rainbow flag and wear a dress.

Isn't this the same about Puerto Rican Day in NY - closed streets, people waving flags and (chicks) wearing dresses? :03: Though I haven't seen this event live, got my wisdom from a Seinfeld episode :DL


Just be gay. Be yourself. Be confident in what you are and 98% of us will accept you. But realize it makes some uncomfortable, and not rub peoples noses in it

Well, this is a mixed thing. There is certainly an amount of showing: "hey, we don't want to live in closets and that's how we roll!"
Then there's also self-display; to have another American Fooball analogy: on the tv broadcasts the camera zooms much less onto the Joe Sixpacks applauding in the stadium than on the fat guys with their team colors on their naked bellies ;)

Personally I think the same if I meet someone and he tells me in the first sentence: "Hi, I'm Fred and I am gay." than about someone telling me "Hi I'm Jane and I'm a Buddhist/vegetarian/toilet cleaner/goldfish admirer/etc." : "Did I ask about this and wth does this have to do with anything?"

[Skybird]

Not that bad of an idea. Given a world population of 7 billion and climbing we need to stop rewarding people for having kids and start making them pay extra for the extra resources their offspring consume.
Wrong. We need to frezze the growth of populations in poor underdeveloped countries wehre despite the ongoing starvation and the erosion of the land due to too much cattle getting held and where endless natural disasters haunt the land and the people, they nevertheless insist on having 6, 8, 10, even 16 children. In the longer run, these numbers of several billions in the poor countries need to be redc ued. Eithger we find ways to do it humanely, or nature will care for it in it's own ways. In the developed nations we need to find a way to stabilise our society's age structure, else our Western nations go down the drain due to overaging populations, or they lose their identity and cultural nature due to excessive migration of foreigners who sooner or later no longer stay a minority, but take over from the former owners of the "homeland". From that stability (to be reached) then we can start to redesign our communities and economic structures to tailor them so that they stay functional even with smaller sizes and smaller workforces.

This insane concept of unlimited growth in each and every regard, needs to be skipped. Dynamically fluctuating stability and "Nachhaltigkeit" are much-much-much more important.

The Chinese had a strict one-child policy (still have?). It now backfires on them for various reasons different from mere population size. It has caused mssaive distortions in their society's age structure. I also recommend to study the excessive social distortions in Japanese society. It is a cultural and social drama they have in Japan. I read comments by sociological researchers saying the chnage in their sopcial structures caused by modenr socviety since WWII does more long-term damage to thecom munal integrity then WWII's loss of lives and overall destruction.

My old mentor and trainer, a Japanese, said the same. His family was scattered around the whole globe as well due to the distortions caused by the war, and then the modernisation of traditional society. Their whole middle class is desintegrating.

[Sea Demon]

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9553/113839315bd61731154.jpg
(pic taken on St. Paddy's in Ireland)
yup, clearly not comparable!


Yup. Absolutely not comparable. Where's the public nudity and sex acts? Where's the gross public bodily fluid discharges? Where are the BDSM acts? Where are the sex toy demos? Where is the public m*****bation? You can find all that at a "homo pride" parade in Frisco.

What I see here are three girls walking in skimpy outfits. I've seen girls dressed in less during a day at the beach.

[Morts]

two gross looking homos
A gay marriage thread is never complete without some good old fashioned bigotry :yeah:


:damn:
It really saddens me that there are still people as closed minded as you around.

[Sea Demon]

A gay marriage thread is never complete without some good old fashioned bigotry :yeah:


:damn:
It really saddens me that there are still people as closed minded as you around.

I invite you to look up "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" and see what I mean. That's the type I'm talking about. Yes, they are gross looking. And yes, they do gross things. And it is not being "open minded" to be accepting of them and their public displays. It's insanity.

Anybody normal, and with a vein of sanity wouldn't let their kids near this stuff or consider it normal. I'm proud to be considered "closed minded" if I have to accept crap like this as "normal".

[Morts]

I invite you to look up "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" and see what I mean. Yes, they are gross looking. And yes, they do gross things. And it is not being "open minded" to be accepting of them and their public displays. It's insanity.

Anybody normal, and with a vein of sanity wouldn't let their kids near this stuff or consider it normal. I'm proud to be "closed minded" if I have to accept crap like this as "normal".Im not talking about that, im talking about the objecting to gay marriage part a page or two back.

[mookiemookie]

Im not talking about that, im talking about the objecting to gay marriage part a page or two back.

But all gays are sexual deviant perverts on parade. Didn't you know that? That's why we can't allow them to marry.

They're sexual deviants and because of that, we need to deny them the chance to express their love, stability and monogamy in a committed relationship with the partner of their choice. It's a bulletproof argument. :roll: :lol:

[Sea Demon]

Im not talking about that, im talking about the objecting to gay marriage part a page or two back.


Oh well. Too bad. There are millions of people who just don't want marriage redefined in the name of same sex orientation or any other arrangements. Get over it.

[Sea Demon]

But all gays are sexual deviant perverts on parade. Didn't you know that? That's why we can't allow them to marry.

They're sexual deviants and because of that, we need to deny them the chance to express their love, stability and monogamy in a committed relationship with the partner of their choice. It's a bulletproof argument. :roll: :lol:

No, they can express their love all they want. They can be monogamous if they want. They can be with a partner of their choosing. And if they wish to be married, they can......if they play by the rules and do it with someone of the opposite sex.

[Takeda Shingen]

We can go that route. I do have a problem with any public sexual indecency displayed at Mardi Gras and Carnival as well. Get a room. But like someone else pointed out, there's a far cry from flashing some T&A for beads and two gross looking homos conducting oral sex on the sidewalk, or the other thing that grossed me out at the Market street display......public group m*****bation. :nope:

I've seen full coitus happening on the streets at Mardi Gras; much more at Carnival. Sorry, but it is just as crass as what you described. The homosexual community does not have a monopoly on indecency.

[Penguin]

Yup. Absolutely not comparable. Where's the public nudity and sex acts? Where's the gross public bodily fluid discharges? Where are the BDSM acts? Where are the sex toy demos? Where is the public m*****bation? You can find all that at a "homo pride" parade in Frisco.

What I see here are three girls walking in skimpy outfits. I've seen girls dressed in less during a day at the beach.

well, I wanted to play by the forum rules ;) - I am sure you find some other pics - doesn't have to be Carnival in Rio, hell in our last years Carnival procession we had a 30 feet nude statue of our chancellor on a wagon - no beautiful sight :D
My point is that the amount of skin displayed in my sample picture is about the same amount of "nudity" you can see at an average gay parade.

I still have to ask you, why you went to the event if you are offended by the display of sexuality. It is certainly pannounced when those events happen is SF, don't like it, don't be in The Castro when the gays parade, don't want your kids to see it, don't bring them, easy as this.

[Gerald]

GENEVA — The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world. In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/united-states-to-use-aid-to-promote-gay-rights-abroad.html?ref=world

[August]

The homosexual community does not have a monopoly on indecency.

No but their indecency is often deliberately flaunted in situations where such behavior is clearly inappropriate. Madigras and Carnival, especially at night, are adult events. I expect to see drunken people doing such things. Saint Patricks day parades on the other hand are family events where sex, regardless of orientation, is out of place.

[geetrue]

They're sexual deviants and because of that, we need to deny them the chance to express their love, stability and monogamy in a committed relationship with the partner of their choice. It's a bulletproof argument. :roll: :lol:

You do realize that some states even let gays adopt children? :cry:

The state of California nows requires teaching of gay friendly in 1st to 12th grade by the teachers even if they are not.

It's now a law ...

It's just a matter of time, but this is sooner than I thought.

I wonder if you could get amnesty fom another country and be allowed to live in America based on being gay?

[Sailor Steve]

Probably true, and the offending behavior, if it violates laws, should be punished. Like the comparisons between marijuana and alcohol, the comparison itself is fruitless, since it's the behavior that needs to be contained. And like those comparisons, it appears to me that comparisons are being made here for the purpose of finger-pointing and generalization.

Does the public display of offensive behavior mean that all gays are evil? Or does the belief that all gays are evil lead to looking for said behavior and singling it out? For some here it would seem so.

[Morts]

You do realize that some states even let gays adopt children? :cry:
So ? nothing wrong with that

[Madox58]

One of my best friends was Bi-sexual way back when it was NOT something you talked about.
He was a tiny bit 'fruity' in dress and presentation and I had many good fights in bad Bars standing up for him.
He died while I was in the Service and I could not carry him to his Grave.
Which I still regret to this day!
A very good female friend now is Bi-sexual and VERY open about it.
Often wanting to show me pictures of her and her friends.
(Sometimes I do look at them)

I don't judge them by thier sexuality. Never have, never will.
They proved to me that they were and are true friends.
They deserve all the rights I have no matter what.

To deny them thier rights in anyway opens the door to deny me my rights.
As a Biker? I know all about being denied rights and the fight you must make to insure you are not denied them.

I laugh at the so called 'parades'.
To judge all other-sexuals by those things is to judge all (Insert Race) by any Gang activity.

[mookiemookie]

You do realize that some states even let gays adopt children? :cry:

Yes, a lesbian couple that are friends of mine have an adopted little boy that's absolutely spoiled rotten with love and attention. A kid couldn't have better parents than them.

[Takeda Shingen]

No but their indecency is often deliberately flaunted in situations where such behavior is clearly inappropriate. Madigras and Carnival, especially at night, are adult events. I expect to see drunken people doing such things. Saint Patricks day parades on the other hand are family events where sex, regardless of orientation, is out of place.

I would not label the homosexual community by what is described in the posts above. To do so would be akin to placing all heterosexuals in the category that you would see at Mardi Gras or Carnival. Furthermore, I have never seen or heard of such a parade as mentioned above being touted as a family event, making the comparison with Mardi Gras an apt one. As such, the problem seems to be with decency, not sexual orientation. Otherwise, Saint Patricks Day parades become a salient comparison.

[Tribesman]

A gay marriage thread is never complete without some good old fashioned bigotry
I wonder if Demons outrage over gays is the usual case, he is really a poof but is still feeling Haggard about it?

[Takeda Shingen]

That's way over the line.

[Tribesman]

That's way over the line.
It is easily demonstrated that often very vocal opponents of gays turn out to be actually gay themselves.

[Takeda Shingen]

It is easily demonstrated that often very vocal opponents of gays turn out to be actually gay themselves.


The Radio Room forum is not the place for flaming, spewing, or otherwise mouthing off. We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc. We respect your freedom of speech, we ask that you respect our rules.

I doubt that your statement was intended as a compliment.

[MH]

Is gay then....a bad world...never mind just kidding.:O:

[Takeda Shingen]

Gay is not a bad word. Questioning someone's sexuality, however, is something that I don't think belongs on these forums. And, in case you have forgotten, I have been arguing for marriage rights for homosexual couples.

[Madox58]

I have been arguing for marriage rights for homosexual couples.

I agree!
There's no reason they should be denied the right to be as miserable as Non-Gay married people!
:haha:

[MH]

I agree!
There's no reason they should be denied the right to be as miserable as Non-Gay married people!
:haha:

:yep:

[yubba]

She tell that to Blago ?????

[1480]

She tell that to Blago ?????

Patty will be in need of a Rod, oh sorry, will be in need of Rod.

Carry on.

[Gerald]

http://youtu.be/MudnsExyV78

[CaptainHaplo]

Gays are humans - so they should have human rights.

The issue is - is marriage a "human right" that needs to be controlled by the government?

A person has the right to be with whomever they like - but people need to respect that society doesn't want to see or have their private business thrown in their face. Which is what occurs in todays world.

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

People who are not religious - can have a civil contract that does the same thing without the "union under God" part.

Either way, government shouldnt be involved in it regardless.

[Alex]

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/767087gays.jpg http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/4523/happysmileyface.png

[Morts]

Gays are humans - so they should have human rights.

The issue is - is marriage a "human right" that needs to be controlled by the government?

A person has the right to be with whomever they like - but people need to respect that society doesn't want to see or have their private business thrown in their face. Which is what occurs in todays world.

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

People who are not religious - can have a civil contract that does the same thing without the "union under God" part.

Either way, government shouldnt be involved in it regardless.
You could argue that marriage has become a universal thing.
This is starting to look a lot like the case where colt sued another company over the use of the "M4" name, but the court ruled that M4 had become a universal name for an AR15 so they couldnt do anything about it

[Tribesman]

Gays are humans - so they should have human rights.

The issue is - is marriage a "human right" that needs to be controlled by the government?

But the issue is human rights, it isn't about gay marriage at all.
That angle about gay marriage is just a red herring which has bugger all to do with the speech or the conference.

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

You got that backwards, marriage is a business contract which the church decided to get involved in.

[razark]

The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.
So, if a church was willing to marry gays, that would be a perfectly valid marriage?

[Betonov]

So, if a church was willing to marry gays, that would be a perfectly valid marriage?

If the church would be willing to marry gays, 3/4 of the gay-haters would become gay supporters and the laws would have been passed the first week making the marriage valid in no time.

[mookiemookie]

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

Martin Luther said regarding marriage: "So many lands, so many customs,' says the common proverb. For this reason, because weddings and the married estate are wordly affairs, it behooves those of us who are 'spirituals' ("clergy") or ministers of the church in no way to order or direct anything regarding marriage, but instead to allow every city and land to continue their own customs that are now in use." He saw it as a sacred contract, but one that should be governed by civil law.

And Tribesman is right. Marriage had nothing to do with any sort of church or ceremony outside of telling someone "I marry you" until the church decided to bring themselves into it.

[razark]

If the church would be willing to marry gays, 3/4 of the gay-haters would become gay supporters and the laws would have been passed the first week making the marriage valid in no time.
There are many different churches in the world. Some of them have no problems with gay marriage. If we're going to use a religious basis of marriage, we're just going to have to decide which religion we're basing it on first.

[yubba]

If the lord said that marriage is between a man and women and that man should not lay down with another man or with animals I guess that's pretty good for me. So what do the animal rights groups think about the governments move to repeal the beastiality law in the military ????
So, are they going to start putting sheep pens on subs now ????
What's the next step up from small animals, and if one's morality is ruled about getting one's freak on then there is a problem.

[Betonov]

The lord can kiss my ass. Nobody voted him into the office

[August]

The lord can kiss my ass. Nobody voted him into the office

Maybe not but he sure owns you.

You just can't keep away from any thread that even mentions him.

[Skybird]

Maybe not but he sure owns you.
Prove it. Until then, it just is a claim, and superstitious hear-say.

And since you raise the claim, the burden of evidence is up to you.

[August]

Prove it. Until then, it just is a claim, and superstitious hear-say. And since you raise the claim, the burden of evidence is up to you.

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.

[Scurvy]

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.

Or, as I like to say, God lives in their heads, rent-free.

I visit numerous forums and can't understand why so many atheists trend toward being militant.

Not saying that anyone I've seen here is, but there's a huge number that go out of their way to not only voice their opinion, but attempt to offend or belittle anyone who is a Christian.

[Skybird]

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.
What an egg-dance you already have started!

My demand that you shall prove your claim that I or anyone is owned by any deity, has been precisely aimed by me not at your claim about Betonov, but your claim on a god owning somebody. I even quoted you on that.

And you know it.

You just egg-dance.

And now, your evidence for your claim that people are owned by "God" , please. You raise the claim - the burden of evidence is up to you. All others, just live and care their business - they must not prove to you that you are wrong.

Or admit that you personally just believe that you are owned by said "God", and that it is your private, personal hobby to believe so, not to be generalised in content of statement.

It's a bit rich that you relgiuous people often accuse others of generlaisng their arelgious demands, but implying a right for such egneralsiation for yourself so often and with the bgreatest naturalness and non-chalance. It is this arrogance in public that displays an attitude of a natural right to just force others to witness ones own confessions constantly, that brings people like me or Betonov on the scene - not what you believe in private, in the stilness of your home or cabins.

I have no problem with people beieving something, as long as it is not inhumane or cruel. I have a problem with people constantly trying to tell me what they believe in, and trying to reform the public communal space according to their relgious demands, claiming public territory that simply is not theirs.

Betonov maybe was harsh in his word selection, and forum rules maybe even are in discouragement of such wording. On the other hand, it gets silently tolerated in other contexts as well. So why should religion get a special protective status, then - once again sorting it out and putting it above other themes in "respectability" that it claims to deserve, but cannot show why that should be so? we mock politicians. We use words against ideologies and cultural features. And so we do both with rtelgion, too.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190423
;)

[Armistead]

I tire of old biblical culture and laws being forced on others simply because we call it tradition. Women had no rights in the bible, they were owned by the husband or father and many of the laws dealt with women in cruel fashion. Biblically men took on many wives and concubines and in cases God stated he even provided more wives. These traditions continued for hundreds of years among jew and gentiles after Christ. These traditions were slowly done away with. Slavery was another accepted tradition that was only put away with by war and secular law.

We run our nation on a constitution, not old biblical law or commands, to deny two loving people a right to marry, raise children and share property is pure hate.

To say marriage between a man and a woman is what builds soceity is rather silly, 70% divorce, millions of kids not provided for, etc..."normal" marriage hardly holds any claim to morality. Seems it would be better to embrace marriage as a good thing for any two loving people.

Tired of all the gay parades, etc...give people equal rights and all that stuff would go away.

We have a gay couple in our neighborhood that have lived together for over 20 years here, they raised two wonderful kids. They're denied many rights themselves and for their kids. Can't understand why Christians would want to deny medical coverage for children if one spouse could provide for it

[August]

*wall of text*

Dude you are way off base. I imply none of what you're ranting about.

"Owned" in this case is like how an addictive drug "owns" it's user, not that a diety "owns" your fealty. As if I would suggest any such thing with you of all people.

Of course I should guess that it'd be a typical European response to think otherwise with your history of ownership by various kings and potentates. You guys tend to slip into Unruly Peasant Mode at the drop of a hat! :DL

[1480]

I tire of old biblical culture and laws being forced on others simply because we call it tradition. Women had no rights in the bible, they were owned by the husband or father and many of the laws dealt with women in cruel fashion. Biblically men took on many wives and concubines and in cases God stated he even provided more wives. These traditions continued for hundreds of years among jew and gentiles after Christ. These traditions were slowly done away with. Slavery was another accepted tradition that was only put away with by war and secular law.

We run our nation on a constitution, not old biblical law or commands, to deny two loving people a right to marry, raise children and share property is pure hate.

To say marriage between a man and a woman is what builds soceity is rather silly, 70% divorce, millions of kids not provided for, etc..."normal" marriage hardly holds any claim to morality. Seems it would be better to embrace marriage as a good thing for any two loving people.

Tired of all the gay parades, etc...give people equal rights and all that stuff would go away.

We have a gay couple in our neighborhood that have lived together for over 20 years here, they raised two wonderful kids. They're denied many rights themselves and for their kids. Can't understand why Christians would want to deny medical coverage for children if one spouse could provide for it

BUT it's the same secular laws that actually are prejudiced against them. No where in either the old or the new books actually profess to killing homosexuals but as I posted before Islam a whole another story.

The same secular laws that did not allow women or blacks to vote for many years. And as others who have posted before, the founders wanted to keep religion completely out of the picture. So, once again putting the cart before the horse.

[Platapus]

No where in either the old or the new books actually profess to killing homosexuals


Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

[Takeda Shingen]

Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

That's right. The Old Testament takes a very hard line, but Jesus himself had said nothing on the topic and the writings of the Evangelists are scant and much more loosely defined.

[Betonov]

Maybe not but he sure owns you.

No receipt, no deal :O:


And I'm not a militant atheist :x
I'm just sarcastic

[1480]

Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

Good catch, my bad. I did something extremely stupid in lumping both of them in together, when only the latter should apply to the argument.

[MH]

That's right. The Old Testament takes a very hard line, but Jesus himself had said nothing on the topic and the writings of the Evangelists are scant and much more loosely defined.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TGRbLi88g7I/AAAAAAAAAzA/StW3vCUyBDY/s400/Maybe+Jesus+Was+Gay+Flickr+WL.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TGRbLi88g7I/AAAAAAAAAzA/StW3vCUyBDY/s1600/Maybe+Jesus+Was+Gay+Flickr+WL.jpg)



:hmmm:

His teaching are kind of ........http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b9liRCECYV4/TXnN6UT1vnI/AAAAAAAAELc/nhhsSGHlsdE/s400/95780-cat_hello_kitty.jpg



........

[Fish]

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.
Amen to that!

Our finance minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Kees_de_Jager) is gay.
Nice guy.

Asking if he is a good finance minister,... I tell you in a few years.
Having good faith though. :up:

[soopaman2]

Gay marriage is not recognized by insurance companies. If you have coverage for your spouse, your gay lover is not covered.

Big reason for the call for equality, and the insurance lobbyists in congress is why this is a hotpoint, and not a no brainer.

It is not so much religious, but financial.

You all should know better.

Who will it hurt? Besides the shareholders?

[August]

It is not so much religious, but financial.

Nah it's all about the right to use the word "marriage". "Civil Unions" were proposed as a legal alternative but that was rejected.

[Skybird]

Our finance minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Kees_de_Jager) is gay.
Nice guy.



Our foreign minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Westerwelle)is gay.
Complete idiot.

So...?

I tend to think like this: don't taunt, don't flaunt.

A lot of social engineering, and providing flank cover for this social engineering project named gender mainstreaming as well, plays a role here. And the latter is by far not just about equal rights for women. It is the attempt to declare every difference in natural and psychologic design between male and female as nonexistent, and assuming social gender roles to be totally arbitrary and freely selectable, not being influenced by factors of real sex. The same effort you see in the criminalisation of terms like mother and father, which are to be repalced with parent 1 and 2, or in Europe the neutral word "das Elter" (neutral Artikel, and the word Eltern means plural but now gets vandalised and turned into a singular form that in German language simply does not exist).

There are so many clever Dicks at work who consider themselves as so very clever indeed. But you people will see in the forseeable future were this and other poltical correct follies will lead us. And that is not a survivable culture of strong people, but exactly the opposite.

Defined some British historian what "decadence" means regarding a civilisation: a civilisation has turned decadent when not only it no longer is capable to fight for itself and defend itself, but when it even cannot find an answer anymore of why it should want to defend its identity. Perfectly said! I wished I would know the name of that guy.

[soopaman2]

Nah it's all about the right to use the word "marriage". "Civil Unions" were proposed as a legal alternative but that was rejected.

So what is the harm in using marriage?

This is America, not Iran. Not Iraq, Not some bigoted society. America thrives on its diversity.

Why can they not enjoy the same LEGAL rights as us who marry hetero?

[August]

So what is the harm in using marriage?

This is America, not Iran. Not Iraq, Not some bigoted society. America thrives on its diversity.

Why can they not enjoy the same LEGAL rights as us who marry hetero?

Hey you were the one who claimed it was about money. An alternative that addresses that particular issue was proposed and rejected. That tells me it ain't about the money.

[Skybird]

So what is the harm in using marriage?

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition, a meaning that cannot arbitrarily be altered just because it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue. Our societies combine certain values and a certain ammount of more or less functional legal protection with it. The possibility that where man marries woman there will be children, has a major thing to do with that as well. And to form a general rule, a law of general validity, you base not on exceptions from the norm, but the majoirty group that represents the norm - in this case a norm that mother nature has meant when designing mammals as a group of species procreating by intercourse of TWO sexes. Homosexuality exist, within animal species and withon human species. So do Albinos. But Albinos are neither normal, as nature meant it when inventing the pigments, nor the norm. They are the exception. And their genetic blueprint that misses the correct coding for pigments, is not of equal importance for the whole species than those genes thast include the pigment information. So lesbian and gay couples and hetero singles like me are not of equal importance like heterosexual marriages to the communal interest of the social community as well. This does not mean you must discriminate them, but it is absurd to claim they were of the same cultural importance than mixed couples. They are not. It means nothing, nothing at all for the community, whether those two adult men or two women live together without formal treaty, with a treaty, or do not live together at all. Their existence as a couple will not create children. Their relation means as much as the difference of me drinking either coffee or tea, and meeting a lose friend for going to the cinema or watching the film alone. That'S why I say: don't taunt, don't flaunt.

The institution of this classical family concept has already been heavily damaged in the West, due to the modern job world and its demands, politicians trying ideologic games, and a general decline of customs, values, and educated culture.

Seeing how easily practicable egoism has turned the sense of responsibility in adults in our societies, how easily couples break apart nowadays, how easily two people marry today and divorce again just short time later after the first challenge or first problem of their "love affair", and how few babies get born although one would argue that a rich society should have more material resources to supply the raising and education of children than a poor society, tells something about the deformations in our Western culture.

Something swings back against us there.

[August]

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain culktural tradition, a meanign that cannot asrvbitraily altered just it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue. Our societies combine certain values and a certain ammount of more or lessd functional legal proection with it. The possibility that where man marries woman there will be children, has a major thing to do with that.

The institution of this classical family concept, has already been heavily damaged in the West, due to moder job world and its demands, politicians trying ideologic games, and a general decline of customs, values, and edcuated culture.

Seeing how egoist adults have turned, how easily couples break apart, how easily two people marry today and divorce again just short time later after the first challenge or first problem of their "love affair", and how few babies get born although one would arue that a rich society should have more material resaources to supply the raising and education of children than a poor society, tells something about the deformations in our Western culture.

Something swings back against us there.

Well said.

[Skybird]

Well said.
Ah, you were too early quoting me. I corrected the many typos and added some things. Sometimes even a careless quicktyper like me produces just too many typos - and then cannot understand his own sentences anymore. :)

[August]

Ah, you were too early quoting me. I corrected the many typos and added some things. Sometimes even a careless quicktyper like me produces just too many typos - and then cannot understand his own sentences anymore. :)

I thought you got the message across just fine with this:

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition, a meaning that cannot arbitrarily be altered just because it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue.

[Tribesman]

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition
The term is just a name and it changes and is redefined just as institutions and cultural traditions change.

[Takeda Shingen]

It used to be tradition that women and minorities were not able to vote. Traditions that infringe on the rights of others are not worth keeping.

[Platapus]

Used to be that interracial marriages were also illegal but that culture seemed to change just fine. That's the good thing about cultures, they can change to reflect different changes in the population's conceptualizations.

[Skybird]

Defending white policies of apartheid against blacks, has no point indeed.

Defending specially protected status of heterosexual marraiges, has.

Vital biological interests of a civilisdation are not an object of just chnaging attiotudes and "conceptualizations". They are vital factors that decide about extinction or survival.

And us hetero-sexual singles, who would be discriminated when our status compared to homo couples get marginalised although homo couples do not serve anything more valuable for the community than us singles - we still wait for anybody explaining why it is okay to equal homo sexual couples to hetereo marriages, but singles not.

Men tic different than women. They are not better or worse, they are different. Homos and Heteros have non-equal importances for a communal life and its interest to secure its future - by breeding. A homosexual society - would die within one generation. Because it would not have enough babies, if any at all. Especially when it were a tribe 20.000 years ago, when there were noi genetic science and laboratories to artifically create what nature had denied to homo couples.

It amazes me time and again how far people are willing to go in limiting limit their reasonable thinking and to change the meaning of words - just to appear as politically correct. Must be some Rudel-mentality.

I am not discriminating gays. I am willing to give and accept them as many rights (and responsibilities) as I claim for myself. - BUT NOT MORE. Families, children, and thus the institution of hetero marriages, is more important than them, or me.

This may not be politically correct for the confused mind. But it is right. And that is what counts.

[razark]

Vital biological interests ...
... breeding ... babies ... Families, children, and thus the institution of hetero marriages...
How is a homosexual marriage any different in this case from a heterosexual marriage where the couple is unable or unwilling to have children?

[Takeda Shingen]

The facts that conception is not exclusive to marriage and that human population has done nothing but rise exponentially throughout the course of recorded history invalidate the arguments of heterosexual marriage as necessity.

I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden. It removes no rights granted to heterosexual marriage. Government is unable to force religious institutions to permit homosexual marriage, so the protection of religious practice is an invalid argument. When it comes down to it, no one is harmed. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, and that the fetus should be protected. I disagree with this assertion, but I can accept the position as logical. If you hold that to be true, the elimination of the fetus is murder, and murder denies the most fundamental right (life) to the individual.

No such connection of logic can be made in the case of gay marriage. It always comes down to the fact that person X doesn't approve of the lifestyle. It is akin to people wanting to prevent people wearing cargo pants from driving vehicles; no reason behind it other than the fact that you just don't like cargo pants.

[Skybird]

How often do I need to repeat myself? I have answwered these issues repeatedly now - in this thread, and in several threads. Can't you people not store it in memory when just asking the same questions time and again as if it were the first time they get posted?

And Tak, I also made it clear that lifestyle and what happens in other people bedrooms is the last, the very last of my concerns.

Like I also adressed the differenc ebetweenm the overaging of Wetsern societies due to lack of babies, and the population explosion in poor countries which are the main reason, the absoplute, total, dominant, unquestionable main reason why global poöuation grows so terribly high.

I adressed razor'S question by pointing out that laws need to be formed on basis of a norm, which often is a majority issue. The norm is not that hetero couples are unable to have babies, but that they can have babies - and that this needs to be the diominant fsactor that the design of a law environment needs to consider.

Nowhere I ever mention religion. I refered to cultural tradition and the meaning of marriages over the centuries, tought. and that was an understanding dominated, hopelessly dominated by the overwhelming majority of cases, of this: 1 man + 1 woman = probably babies.

We need a stabilisation of our age structures and demographics in Western nations. The explosion of global population is not being caused in the West, but collapsing demographic structures can and do lead to problems that threaten our social security system, our ability to maintain advanced industries and hightech branches, to maintain a suffiently big workforce to care for these industries as well as caring for the old, and our ability to pay for more and more old that live longer and longer. Our societies are in danger to collapse under the growing discrepance between falling numbers of young tax-payers and cliombing numbers of old tax-receivers - just in casse nobody has realised that so far. It is one of the absolute top problems in Europe. Goobal explosion of population is caused in Africa and SE Asia for the most - the regions that are the most vulnerable to climate change, economic exploitation, natural disasters.

Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more - by reltivising the specially prpotected status, the social image of family when giving the same status and priviliges - last but not least fincial poriviliges!!! - to non-families as well?

But still discriminating against singles at the same time? Why is my tax buck being spend not for families, but also for a man and a man liing together? The family does somethign for me, ideally, and for the community, the gay couple does not. They just are there, and their marriage contributes nothign to the community, while they deliver another marginalisation to the family.

Families are mor eimprotant than gays and lesbians. Families are more important than singles.

And gays/lesbians are not one bit more important than singles. The contribution to the community of both homo couples and single'S lifeform is equal. And I say: equally low, compared to families.

[Platapus]

I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden.

By allowing them gays to marry, it will cheapen the sanctity of marriages of Kim Kardashian, Drew Barrymore, Pam Anderson, and of course our favourite Britney Spears.

:D

I am kinda of the mindset that if you don't like gay marriages, don't have one. :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

How often do I need to repeat myself? I have answwered these issues repeatedly now - in this thread, and in several threads. Can't you people not store it in memory when just asking the same questions time and again as if it were the first time they get posted?

And Tak, I also made it clear that lifestyle and what happens in other people bedrooms is the last, the very last of my concerns.

Like I also adressed the differenc ebetweenm the overaging of Wetsern societies due to lack of babies, and the population explosion in poor countries which are the main reason, the absoplute, total, dominant, unquestionable main reason why global poöuation grows so terribly high.

I adressed razor'S question by pointing out that laws need to be formed on basis of a norm, which often is a majority issue. The norm is not that hetero couples are unable to have babies, but that they can have babies - and that this needs to be the diominant fsactor that the design of a law environment needs to consider.

Nowhere I ever mention religion. I refered to cultural tradition and the meaning of marriages over the centuries, tought. and that was an understanding dominated, hopelessly dominated by the overwhelming majority of cases, of this: 1 man + 1 woman = probably babies.

We need a stabilisation of our age structures and demographics in Western nations. The explosion of global population is not being caused in the West, but collapsing demographic structures can and do lead to problems that threaten our social security system, our ability to maintain advanced industries and hightech branches, to maintain a suffiently big workforce to care for these industries as well as caring for the old, and our ability to pay for more and more old that live longer and longer. Our societies are in danger to collapse under the growing discrepance between falling numbers of young tax-payers and cliombing numbers of old tax-receivers - just in casse nobody has realised that so far. It is one of the absolute top problems in Europe. Goobal explosion of population is caused in Africa and SE Asia for the most - the regions that are the most vulnerable to climate change, economic exploitation, natural disasters.

Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more - by reltivising the specially prpotected status, the social image of family when giving the same status and priviliges - last but not least fincial poriviliges!!! - to non-families as well?

But still discriminating against singles at the same time? Why is my tax buck being spend not for families, but also for a man and a man liing together? The family does somethign for me, ideally, and for the community, the gay couple does not. They just are there, and their marriage contributes nothign to the community, while they deliver another marginalisation to the family.

Families are mor eimprotant than gays and lesbians. Families are more important than singles.

And gays/lesbians are not one bit more important than singles. The contribution to the community of both homo couples and single'S lifeform is equal. And I say: equally low, compared to families.

I read them the first time. Second time too. They just don't hold water. Babies are born out of wedlock all the time. Population grows exponentially. You've got this completely illogical notion that allowing gay marriage will turn everyone gay and that there will be no humans within 150 years. Or, as you closed with, gay marriage will destabalize western civilization. Sky, you should know better than this; you are a smarter man than I am. I mean that. Banning gay marriage has clearly not reduced the number of homosexuals in society.

Regarding norms it, as Platapus and I have pointed out, was the norm for women and minorities not to vote, as well as being the norm to prohibit interracial marraige. I will say it again--a norm that denies civil rights that pose no imposition on the majority is not a norm that should be enforced. Not you nor I will have our rights altered in any way should homosexual marriage be permitted.

[Betonov]

by reltivising the specially prpotected status, the social image of family when giving the same status and priviliges - last but not least fincial poriviliges!!! - to non-families as well?


In february it will be my 26th birthday and my parents are still together, still not married and never will be.

Now tell me that my parents, being a non-family in ''traditional'' wievs, shouldn't have been given the financial priviliges, that helped them bring me up and send me trough school.

[Tribesman]

Defending white policies of apartheid against blacks, has no point indeed.

Why not? it was a cultural tradition.

Vital biological interests of a civilisdation
Bollox

And us hetero-sexual singles, who would be discriminated
How?

It amazes me time and again how far people are willing to go in limiting limit their reasonable thinking and to change the meaning of words - just to appear as politically correct.
It no longer amazes me how some people refuse to actually think but just trot out the same pre conceptions mis conceptions and even outright falsehoods again and again.

I am not discriminating gays. I am willing to give and accept them as many rights (and responsibilities) as I claim for myself. - BUT NOT MORE.
I am not a racist but.......:har::har::har::har:
So as you don't want children and don't want a relationship that means others cannot have them.

Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more
Wow:doh:
But hold on, is this the same Sky who wants his special eugenics program where he wants to eliminate huge numbers of people from having any babies at all and only people who fit his personal special criteria shall be allowed to bear fruit?
Isn't it wonderful how someone who always insists that they are right and who will not develop and modify their views through the process of thought will write stuff which shoots down their own arguements:yeah:

How often do I need to repeat myself?
Repeating yourself is no good, you have to learn to think, and when your statements have been taken apart then repeating them just makes you look very silly.:woot:

[Skybird]

In february it will be my 26th birthday and my parents are still together, still not married and never will be.

Now tell me that my parents, being a non-family in ''traditional'' wievs, shouldn't have been given the financial priviliges, that helped them bring me up and send me trough school.

They should have, but a set of rules regulating such help needs to base on a formal frame that also makes abuse difficult, amongst other factors to be considered. That'S why the state demands a couplke to be married when the babies it creates should benefit from these priviliges. It is a pragmatic thing of that somehow you need to have rules that alloow you to deal well with the majority of cases, while at the same time motivating people to marry and have babies indeed. That is what tax beenfits and financial aids given to amrried people is about. To protect that social constellation and giving it a priviliged status of support and protection, is what "marriage" in modern West is about, or was about before the institution came under attack.

Separation of couples have been climbing since long. Social relations became more and more lose, it seems. More and mor epeople espoecially in cities stay alone, and more and more of them are not happy with that, but also point at theirt freedoms and wish to "enjoy" - often without taking responsibilities. Women want careers. We have a massive, a very threatening demographic probloem in the West, the age structure of our socieities shift towards a older age structure where the social stability of the communal life is in danger itself.

And really nobody sees a link between the systemtic devaluing of "family", and falling birth rates?

There havbe been chnages in modern socieites oin the trasditional role models, yes, I am aware of that. But I question the wisdom of many of these changes. I question the wisdom of celebrating it that now families cna skip the family life by mothers sending their 1 year old little children to kindergarden ( a study recently even proved that this does longterm damage to the child'S psychological and cognitive develoepement, it was in the news). I question the wisdom of women delaiyxng getting children until they are 40, for the sake of careers, when at the same time statistiscs show the rate of birth risks skyrocketting and more and more women saiyng they were unhappy with the life filled with a successful career. I question a policy of influencing population growth when that lesads to a decline of sdaid population and thus an overaging process sets in that sooner or later necessarily the babies that in 20 years or so will be expected to pay by their tzaxes for all the bullsh!t we are responsible for, while they cannot save for thewir future and have more and more problems to financially fopund a family themselves.

Family is the most important social cionstellation in a comunity like they emerged in the Wetsern sphere, and most other cultures as well. No other social constellation possible between people equals it in importance, and meaning for the survivability of a community. And us modern idiots deconstruct, relatiivse and ridicule it as much as possible - for reasons of poltiical correctness and this hobby of ours that we call egoism and party-for-me-somebody-else-cleans-the-kitchen-please?

We are insane.

[Skybird]

I read them the first time. Second time too. They just don't hold water. Babies are born out of wedlock all the time. Population grows exponentially.
Even in poor coutnries where they have 8, 10, 14 babies maynbe, most adults there form a couple relation between a man and a woman, often by something that is called marriage. Most babies in most parts of Europe get born in couple-related marriage-style relations. I explkained it earlier. The general rtule by which the state administers an iossue like for example the stgate'S suzpport for families, must base on somethignt hat can easdily be caught in a rule and that covers the majoprfity of the general cases in pragmatic reality, it also should encourage the social life form that is of interest for the community, due to the releavnce of its possibe consequences in the future. That'S why we encourage couples to marry, and we do that by offering incentives like financial aid, tax reliefs, legal options making certain financial apects of life easier. That is not just arbitrariness, or a wanted discrimination against others, but it serves a purpose. These incentives are meant to give a couple a status that is priviliged compared to that of just living together, may it be homos or heteros, or singles staying alone. If you make everything equal and deny any differences being made, you cannot offer incentives anymore and cannot give a priviliged status anymore.

You've got this completely illogical notion that allowing gay marriage will turn everyone gay and that there will be no humans within 150 years.
Who, me? No. I did not ade such an allegation, aölthjough I know that social role models can influence the sexual and gender developement of young people. For the same reason you find that many sexual festishes and obsessive perversions are rooted already in events of the childhood and adolescence of the subject. That are pretty old hats in psychoanalysis.

Or, as you closed with, gay marriage will destabalize western civilization. Sky, you should know better than this; you are a smarter man than I am. I mean that. Banning gay marriage has clearly not reduced the number of homosexuals in society.
I do not care for somebody being this or that as long as he keeps his laundry to wehre it belongs - in his own washer. And nowhere have I indicated I am after 2reducing the number of gays" in a society. Some gays are gay by genetics, threy cannot fight being what they are, it is useless. We even know that sometimes nature messes up pretty badly and then out the wrong psychological gender in the wrong body by natural sex. But these are accidents by nature, no intentional desiogn feature sof our species. Like there are car accidents - but that doe snot make car accidents any more desirable or "natural".

The effect of decreaisng birth rates and overaging and still shrinkling populations qwith all the saocial, the drmataic social, economical costs that causes, are a statistical fact, you need to question mathematics itself if you want to question them. We already see it happening in all Euzroppoean countries, and it already is refglkected in the cost explosions of certain parts pof the finajmcial budgets. Old people cost money, and when you have less and lesser younger ones working for loans that alow them to pay taxes to support theirown fa,milies, their own future securing, and the old, then you have a problem that holds enough explosives for a massive communal earthquake in the forseeable future.

Regarding norms it, as Platapus and I have pointed out, was the norm for women and minorities not to vote, as well as being the norm to prohibit interracial marraige. I will say it again--a norm that denies civil rights that pose no imposition on the majority is not a norm that should be enforced. Not you nor I will have our rights altered in any way should homosexual marriage be permitted.
Mankind has followe sdimple logic, experience andf the way nature has shown when making a marriage between a man and a women the dminant social core cell of social interactions. Imagine a society where you have only homo couples. These maybe could create babies thgenhj by genetic manipulation in the lab. But that is not natural, and not the way nature has meant our design to enable our survival as a community. And such a homo species in the dawn of its evolotional rise - would not have the skill to do genetics and thus would go exctinct within the first generation. Ob viuously this is not how nature has meant it, and that is why I reject to clal homosexuality a norm beside heterosexcuality that is equal in meaning and importance. Homosexcuality is a deviation from the way nature has enabled our species to procreate. We must not burn homosexuals at the stake - but we also must not think they are the general design feature of our specie'S genes. They are real, they exist, but they are a genetic irregularity, not the representation of a working genetic encodification of the human genom. It is not desirable to declare the "accidental" exception from the rule as something of equal importance as the general rule and of same value for the surviving of the community.

Last time I told this, I got attacked over claims that I was "psoiing" with it, but still: I knew two gay men at university. We got along very well. And guess what! Both said they hate CSD for by it the few freaks and nudists would giuve the many a bad name, and also both said they do not care for gay marriage and all that word war waged by some lobby'S spokesmen, instead they said, we just want to live our lives like everybody else, privately, being treated like the others, and no big show being made of us. Just leave us alone, in peace. They also indicate that by their impression the huge majority of the gays the knew or heared of, saw it the same way.

I once had a loved one, until fate struck. We knew from all beginning on we were meant for each other, from the first seconds on. But still - we were determined to share our lives and stay together. But we never would have married. Financial aspects and benefits we did not concern ourselves too much with. On children, we were not sure back then. But still. Two people can happily live together - and simply do not care for marriage status at all. So why this fuzz about it all? But where you give privilieges to social relations, it should be for said relation being of any posiive effect for the community that justiofies these priviliges. And for singles and working colleagues, dog owners and student mates, gay couples and pedestriansd in the park I just do not see that kind of communal profit. I am nothing speciual. A single or couple gay is nothing special. But a family is. and since family is in tro9h ble and birth rates as well, we need to sow incentives a bit. Not that silly and ifnantile like German family minmister has tried it two years ago - and spectacularly failed in increasing birth rates - but by a more deep-rooting change in misled, ill-going cultural developements.

What the heck is so difficult with that? I say : stop making a big issue of gays, leave them alone and let them live their lives peacefully like everybody else. Stop the show. Stop the posturing.

Don't taunt, don't flaunt. True for the gay issue. And for so many others as well. Live and let live.

[Takeda Shingen]

I am not saying that you are looking to 'cure' homosexuality, Sky. However, the core of your argument hinges on the belief that preventing homosexuals from marrying with cause birth rates to rise. This is simply not the case. Again, these people are already gay. They have not had children. They will not be having children. Continuing to prevent them from marrying does not and will not raise birth rates for any nation. Nothing changes that fact. Also, no rights are being taken from hetrosexual couples. The pact of marriage in which a heterosexual couple may enter for sake of species propagation (a very bleak view, if you ask me, but it is your view) remains unaffected for those partaking in it. No heterosexual families are broken up. No heteresexual couples are denied a marriage license.

[Tribesman]

And really nobody sees a link between the systemtic devaluing of "family", and falling birth rates?

No, can't see it.
But then as again your "systematic devaluing" doesn't really exist it would be hard to see.

you need to question mathematics itself if you want to question them
Not in the slightest, the only thing in question is the very questionable way in which Sky is taking numbers and making crazy claims about what they mean.

I once had a loved one, until fate struck.
And sadly this event might have been what tipped you over the edge into your well illustrated insanity.

What the heck is so difficult with that?
Very little of those arguement makes any sense, and what bits do make sense contradict the cores of your argument.

BTW was anyone just waiting for his "I knew two gays at school and they said.....":har::har::har::har::har:"

[Skybird]

I am not saying that you are looking to 'cure' homosexuality, Sky. However, the core of your argument hinges on the belief that preventing homosexuals from marrying with cause birth rates to rise.
No, thatz is a simplification. It is about protecting a status of an institution that exists probaaly not without reasons since centuries and millenias, first as a lose form of living together, later further institutionalised. And the likelihood of birthrates has something to do with the wide acceptance this model has found.

The damage gets done by relativising something that has an outstanding importance and value, making it less outstanding while it remaisn to be important. That way, be become more ignorrant of something important, even start to deny the relevance of said importance. The institution of family is under fire since deacdes, and thus it slowly declined, falls apart, gets marginalsied. Some want it due to their hate ion the churches doghma. Some want it because their left idoelogy demands them to form hman colel,ctives where an indepednently exiosting social community like a family is seen as a thread from individuality to the model of collective that leftist ideas in the end all want. Then there are those who think profit interests and a maximisation of mechniamkjs that tailor humans to the needs of the economy, overrule natural features of humans and demographics relevancies of ciommunity. ASnd then there are the gender-m,ainstreamers for whom the mother-role is an offence of women and for whom the denying of any psychological differences in both sexes is just a tool to push not only equal rights for women, but to declare total arbiotrariness of formiung gender idntiies in no longer males and females but just neutral humans that are not male or female by nature, but by social learning exclusively. In other words, it is about control and ideology.

and then we wonder why the frustration tolerance for problems in patrtnerships is declining, couples marry and separate carelessly, and people think about their own party-life and career first, raising families second - if at all? Mothers get offended by calling them not mothers anymore (since that now is sexual discrimination), males must behave as if they are not male, but as typically female as women are, any typöical charactersoics in bahviour between young boys and girls get more and more disalowed and supressed in education and school, a systemtic education towards uncompetitiveness takes over, an infantilisation should cure the egoism of the 80's juppies, and lacking fighting spirit even leads to competitive team sports and martial arts getting banned in some European schools occasionally...

Have we all lost our marbles?

[Tribesman]

No, thatz is a simplification. It is about protecting a status of an institution that exists probaaly not without reasons since centuries and millenias, first as a lose form of living together, later further institutionalised. And the likelihood of birthrates has something to do with the wide acceptance this model has found
What a pile of rubbish, the development of formalised marriage and the increasing roles and rulings from established authorities is over finances not birthrates.
The whole history of changes in western europe can be put down to business and nothing else, after all it is a business transaction, the objections and wranglings over parental consent would be a prime example as both the bride and groom are family assets and the union of the two families has financial and social implications on all involved and many more besides.

[Betonov]

You actually told me they shouldn't have :-? Now I'm offended :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

No, thatz is a simplification. It is about protecting a status of an institution that exists probaaly not without reasons since centuries and millenias, first as a lose form of living together, later further institutionalised. And the likelihood of birthrates has something to do with the wide acceptance this model has found.

Again, what rights are being retracted by allowing gay marriage? Who is losing their way of life?

The damage gets done by relativising something that has an outstanding importance and value, making it less outstanding while it remaisn to be important. That way, be become more ignorrant of something important, even start to deny the relevance of said importance. The institution of family is under fire since deacdes, and thus it slowly declined, falls apart, gets marginalsied. Some want it due to their hate ion the churches doghma. Some want it because their left idoelogy demands them to form hman colel,ctives where an indepednently exiosting social community like a family is seen as a thread from individuality to the model of collective that leftist ideas in the end all want. Then there are those who think profit interests and a maximisation of mechniamkjs that tailor humans to the needs of the economy, overrule natural features of humans and demographics relevancies of ciommunity. ASnd then there are the gender-m,ainstreamers for whom the mother-role is an offence of women and for whom the denying of any psychological differences in both sexes is just a tool to push not only equal rights for women, but to declare total arbiotrariness of formiung gender idntiies in no longer males and females but just neutral humans that are not male or female by nature, but by social learning exclusively. In other words, it is about control and ideology.

So now allowing gay marriage will eliminate all gender roles? It has been proven time and time again that homosexual parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents in raising their children. Those children are perfectly well-adjusted.

and then we wonder why the frustration tolerance for problems in patrtnerships is declining, couples marry and separate carelessly, and people think about their own party-life and career first, raising families second - if at all? Mothers get offended by calling them not mothers anymore (since that now is sexual discrimination), males must behave as if they are not male, but as typically female as women are, any typöical charactersoics in bahviour between young boys and girls get more and more disalowed and supressed in education and school, a systemtic education towards uncompetitiveness takes over, an infantilisation should cure the egoism of the 80's juppies, and lacking fighting spirit even leads to competitive team sports and martial arts getting banned in some European schools occasionally...

So you are now laying divorce rates on homosexual marriage as well?

Have we all lost our marbles?

No, not all of us.

[mookiemookie]

should cure the egoism of the 80's juppies, and lacking fighting spirit even leads to competitive team sports and martial arts getting banned in some European schools occasionally...


Ok, I can't really add much to what I've already said, and what Tak's & Tribesman have already said, but I will point out that you're completely rambling now. What sort of mental acrobatics do you need to go through to connect gay marriage to the banning of high school athletics. I think your argument has gone off the rails somewhere.

[MH]

Wow Sky you get creepy sometimes.
I'm with you about some of the "mainstreaming" but your logic is flawed somewhat unless you put all of this in the same basket-which you cant or dont have to.
You can't live just by some cold logic-you have to be human as well....

On the bright side let gays get married adopt children instead of pretending to be straight.
It may cause the genome to go extinct :D(i'm hypocrite lol)

[Armistead]

Sky seems to be clear, the more rights you deny gays the better off the world will be. I suspect a few million gay couples live together as married, the question is why deny them the benefits of marriage, property rights, medical rights, parental rights, etc...

Being single has nothing to do with it, you have the right to get married as would a gay single person.

[August]

...the question is why deny them the benefits of marriage, property rights, medical rights, parental rights, etc..

I don't think Sky or anyone else is trying to deny benefits to gay couples. All of that was offered freely, they just wanted to call it civil unions.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't think Sky or anyone else is trying to deny benefits to gay couples. All of that was offered freely, they just wanted to call it civil unions.

Did you actually read the argument? That is not what he was saying at all. And yet, you agreed with it couple of pages back.

[Skybird]

Again, what rights are being retracted by allowing gay marriage? Who is losing their way of life?

SIGH. :dead:

A privilege of somebody can be eroded in two ways. Either the privilige gets denied to the priviliged, which is a rejection, or the unprivileged gets the same privilige, that is a relativization.

You have noted that I talked of the latter, the relativisation, yes? I must ask this, because when reading the smae questosn again and again I must conclude that people simply do not read what I say.


So now allowing gay marriage will eliminate all gender roles?
Please show were I said that. In fact, what I indicated is that the politically correct debate about gay marriages is just one symptom, or one mission embedded in a greater cultural developement, of which gender mainstreaming also is a part, and the erosion of the priviliged status of the family institution. I also gave several reasons why the family is desired to be abandoned as a social model, from various lobbies, serving several different interests when destroying it.

It has been proven time and time again that homosexual parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents in raising their children. Those children are perfectly well-adjusted.
That is not that clear at all, and has been quesitoned already in the late 80s in materials short before I started to study. A gay man is not a mother, and a lesbian woman is not a father. If a female mother and a male father is missing in a children's life, certain gender role models are missing in his experience of family life. It is naive to assume that this always has no consequences in the developement of the childs character. Yes, when the father gets killed in a war or the mnother just leaves the father alone, the remaning parent can raise the kids, and it will survive, and must not necessarily turn into a mnaiac. But the materials I rember to have stumbled over -unsystemtically - in the past 20 years, often indicate that there are changes in the statistical patterns of probabilities for later "symptoms" in the subject's social and sexual life. And maybe you have taken note of that just two or three weeks ago a group of I trhink British scientists showed a study that presented evidence that little children being taken away from parents and put into a kindergarten at too young an age, at their schooldays were overrepresented in categories like social agression, concentration and attention deficits, and problems in learning behaviour.

Is it really that surprising when I claim that what you get out of the box depends on what you put into the box before? Yes, a kid can be risen withoiut a father or a mother. But that should be reserved for cases of "accidental tragedies". Losses, deaths, divorces. It should not be declared a norm that is arbiotrarily to be impklemented ion children thzat could also be given to intact families. The tragic expocetion of missing parentsa - is nothing to be desirable or to be declared as a natural normality that does not effect the psychologic constitution. It does.

And is that really that much a surprise?

Mind you, claiming the total arbitrariness of gender roles and the total disconnection fro biological and social factors as well, is in the interest of quite some opinion lobbies like those I mentioned in an earlier reply. Functional traditional family structures are an obstacle for quite some of these lobbying ideologists, due to the natural immunity, at least resistence, to foreign influence they enable the kid to develope. What lbbies liek those I mentioned do not want is the independent, strong indovidual that does not need said lobbies and refuses.

We live in an era of a giant re-educaiton program. A giant social engineering experiment.


So you are now laying divorce rates on homosexual marriage as well?
Could you precisely demonstrate where I should have said that in what wording? Where have I said that gay marriages cause a raise, or even the very existence of divorce rates?

I know I do a lot of typos, out of speedtyping and carelessness. But is my English wording and grammar really this bad as well..?

---

Okay, I understand that this is all just an excercise in futility. Bye everyone. No hard feelings, Tak.

[Takeda Shingen]

No hard feelings, Tak.

No hard feelings what-so-ever. You're on of my favorite people on SubSim. :up:

[soopaman2]

It is not about civil unions/Marraige...

It is about being "classified differently."
Usually religious reasons are cited in con arguments.

Aesops fables are as valid a source as the bible, q'ran or Torah... I seen no proof any of those books haters love to quote being any more true than Aesop, or the Twilight trilogy.

[CaptainHaplo]

Giving someone the same rights as another group - ie civil unions vs marriage - is about being "classified differently"?

What?

I thought it was about having equal rights. Now its about labels? Make up your mind.

[mookiemookie]

http://existentialpunk.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452358069e20105365e9e15970b-800wi

[August]

So what you're claiming is that marriages have refrigeration and Civil Unions do not? :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

So what you're claiming is that marriages have refrigeration and Civil Unions do not? :hmmm:

:haha:

All I have to add, is I'm glad there's nothing more important to worry about, like say, the economy or Iran. Must be getting close to election time.:yawn:

[Takeda Shingen]

:haha:

All I have to add, is I'm glad there's nothing more important to worry about, like say, the economy or Iran. Must be getting close to election time.:yawn:

So what you are saying is that you consider civil rights to be alongside the arts on the list of fluff that can be dealt with once we have 0% unemployment and world peace.

[August]

So what you are saying is that you consider civil rights to be alongside the arts on the list of fluff that can be dealt with once we have 0% unemployment and world peace.

So what you're saying is the choice is either one extreme or the other.

You seems to equal redefinition of the historical meaning of marriage (man-woman) with the right of people to speak or keep and bear arms.

So of course to you anyone who says that maybe we ought to concentrate on more important stuff right now is obviously a hater of freedom and the American way.

[mookiemookie]

So what you're claiming is that marriages have refrigeration and Civil Unions do not? :hmmm:

:haha: Ok, I'll give you that one. That was good.

[Takeda Shingen]

So what you're saying is the choice is either one extreme or the other.

You seems to equal redefinition of the historical meaning of marriage (man-woman) with the right of people to speak or keep and bear arms.

So of course to you anyone who says that maybe we ought to concentrate on more important stuff right now is obviously a hater of freedom and the American way.

Thank you for your opinion, member.

You know who uses the 'more important stuff' line? The Vatican. They use it every time that they are on the losing side of the issue but still don't want to change. "I hear your concern, but we have more pressing issues. We will consider it at a future time." That time never comes. There will always be a foreign policy issue. The economy will always be on the table. The line is a cop-out. But hey, what is intellectual honesty worth around here these days, right?

[August]

:haha: Ok, I'll give you that one. That was good.

You have to be old enough to recognize the "bubblah" type. :DL

Peace Brother.

[August]

Thank you for your opinion, member.

You know who uses the 'more important stuff' line? The Vatican. They use it every time that they are on the losing side of the issue but still don't want to change. "I hear your concern, but we have more pressing issues. We will consider it at a future time." That time never comes. There will always be a foreign policy issue. The economy will always be on the table. The line is a cop-out. But hey, what is intellectual honesty worth around here these days, right?

Last I checked Niki isn't "The Vatican". He hardly deserves being held responsible for what they may or may not have said about some other subject.

[Takeda Shingen]

Last I checked Niki isn't "The Vatican". He hardly deserves being held responsible for what they may or may not have said about some other subject.

Thank you for your opinion, member.

Your argument is a strawman. Nothing of the sort was implied.

[nikimcbee]

So what you are saying is that you consider civil rights to be alongside the arts on the list of fluff that can be dealt with once we have 0% unemployment and world peace.

Something like that.

[nikimcbee]

Thank you for your opinion, member.

Your argument is a strawman. Nothing of the sort was implied.

Tak is just upset coz I called " the arts" fluff, similar to a marshmallow, just more expensive.

[Takeda Shingen]

Tak is just upset coz I called " the arts" fluff, similar to a marshmallow, just more expensive.

Just pointing out the dishonesty, Niki. No need to get personal.

[mookiemookie]

You have to be old enough to recognize the "bubblah" type. :DL

Peace Brother.

Old enough, and enough time spent in Massachusetts and Rhode Island to know what a "bubblah" is. :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

Old enough, and enough time spent in Massachusetts and Rhode Island to know what a "bubblah" is. :up:

And for the rest of us, what is a bubblah?

[Madox58]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bubblah

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay, so it must not be just any type but the old fashioned ones. Learned something today. Thanks guys. :up:

[Madox58]

It started out as the 'Bubbler'.
Kohler invented it in the late 1880's.
I've only heard it refered to as such in the NE.
:haha:
Of course with the accent!

[August]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bubblah

:DL

This is hilarious!

NEer: 'Scuse me, wheah's the bubblah?
Non-NEer: The what?
NEer: The bubblah.
Non-NEer: I beg your pardon?
NEer: Ya know, the thing ya can get a drink from.
Non-NEer: *chuckling* You mean the water fountain?
NEer: Watuh fountain? Ya mean this dump has a watuh fountain?!
Non-NEer: I beg your pardon?

[Fish]

don't flaunt.


He doesn't.

[Sailor Steve]

The effect of decreaisng birth rates and overaging and still shrinkling populations qwith all the saocial, the drmataic social, economical costs that causes, are a statistical fact, you need to question mathematics itself if you want to question them.
Statistical fact? Germany's population may be declining, but the population of the United States has grown by seven million in the last two years.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Britain is also growing, though other European nations are not faring so well. I see that some of your opinion is based on local conditions, which do not seem to apply to our side of the pond.

[1480]

Statistical fact? Germany's population may be declining, but the population of the United States has grown by seven million in the last two years.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Britain is also growing, though other European nations are not faring so well. I see that some of your opinion is based on local conditions, which do not seem to apply to our side of the pond.

Well for every three births, only two people die, which is a net gain of 1 nearly every 24 seconds. That just rattles the gray matter.

But don't worry, when Kagen does not recuse herself from the individual mandate hearing, will soon see those numbers go down. :03:

Has anyone ever pondered a reason why the population is growing rapidly here as compared to some other countries and years ago.....medicine, trauma center Dr's and trying to get the best medical care a person get.

I've seen some people brought back from the dead at Cook county hospital, possibly one of the best trauma units in the country. Most of those became model citizens :har::har::har:..... and were their grammar school valedictorian.....members of the chess club...captains of the swim team. Sorry, rough two nights in a row, needed to vent.