SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - 'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

Page 8 of 14

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - 'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=178858)

Obelix

01-15-11 07:50 AM

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

MH	01-15-11 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1574680)

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

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

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

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

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

Do people want this as the future?

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

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

MH	01-15-11 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obelix (Post 1574685)

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

Platapus

01-15-11 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH (Post 1574697)

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

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

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

Now you know. :know:

Sailor Steve

01-15-11 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1574614)

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

But they all stem from the comfort one. The only reason anyone opposes this is that it bothers them.

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

Quote:

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

And you have yet to give one as to why anyone should be denied use same use of public acknowledgement as anyone else, just because they're "different".

Quote:

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

Overextension. I thought it was obvious that my reference was to the harm done, not the actual original meaning. My connection wasn't to the "religious", but to the "freedom", and to the fact that this change would cause no harm at all except to the sensibilities of certain factions who want their "truth" to be the only "truth". Within that context, I believe my comparison is not only valid but on the mark.

Quote:

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

For the simple reason that the only reason anyone opposes the change is that it offends them. THAT is a moral argument and nothing else.

Quote:

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

The only meaning any word has is that which we assign to it, else we would all speak one language. If you're not going to come up with something completely new, why do use a new word? If it's the same thing, why insist it be differently used?

Aramike

01-15-11 01:16 PM

Quote:

But they all stem from the comfort one. The only reason anyone opposes this is that it bothers them.

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

CaptainMattJ.

01-15-11 01:51 PM

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

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

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

Rilder

01-15-11 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1574858)

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

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

Sailor Steve

01-16-11 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1574858)

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

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

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

Sailor Steve

01-16-11 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1574883)

Tradition can go to hell, etc...

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

Also, you need to reread the rules on asterisks again.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq...._item_language

(very first paragraph)

Aramike

01-16-11 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rilder (Post 1574954)

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

Wow, the only way I can imagine the point flying higher over your head is if you kept digging.

Aramike

01-16-11 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1575295)

Again, you're arguing each point individual while ignoring that my entire point is the conglomeration of nuances surrounding this issue.

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

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

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

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

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

Sailor Steve

01-16-11 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1575316)

Again, you're arguing each point individual while ignoring that my entire point is the conglomeration of nuances surrounding this issue.

No, I understand your point. My point is I believe that your whole argument is based on the fact that you are offended by the concept. Everything you say stems from that. And it's discrimination based on your moral agenda - in my view, anyway.

Quote:

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

I both agree and disagree. The surface argument is over semantics, but I feel it goes much deeper than that. For me it looks like a way to forward discrimination by reducing the subject to the trivial.

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

Quote:

However, I can empathize so I suggest changing the term. Evidently, that's not good enough - considering that terms are defined by what most people interpret them to be it's mind-boggling the lack of compromise from those on your side.

I can't speak for "those on my side", but I support this view because I believe we support freedom, and that your side supports discrimination. What you propose isn't compromise, it's absolute victory for your view, preventing equal access and insisting those who disagree submit because "it's only words".

Quote:

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

Do you want it to be? Why bring it up? Why should Christmas be a national holiday?

Aramike

01-17-11 06:30 PM

Quote:

What you propose isn't compromise, it's absolute victory for your view, preventing equal access and insisting those who disagree submit because "it's only words".

It's totally a compromise! Have you not been paying attention? My view is centrist - it's neither on your side nor on the right.

And since when does the Constitution suggest that people have equal access to defining words to mean what they feel they should mean in the sense of equal rights?

Quote:

Do you want it to be? Why bring it up? Why should Christmas be a national holiday?

I keep bringing it up because you keep missing the point.

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

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

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

Sailor Steve

01-18-11 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1576531)

It's totally a compromise! Have you not been paying attention? My view is centrist - it's neither on your side nor on the right.

Your view is far Religious Right. Deny it all you want, you want to legislate your version of morality.

Quote:

And since when does the Constitution suggest that people have equal access to defining words to mean what they feel they should mean in the sense of equal rights?I keep bringing it up because you keep missing the point.

No, I get your point just fine. You dictate what's right, and if anyone thinks your discriminating, well, they just don't get your point.

Quote:

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

Then in the interest of equal rights I would ban all federal religious holidays.

Quote:

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

So you support unequal rights?

Quote:

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

You dragged us off into this 'Christmas' thing. The bottom line is that you are offended by the idea of gays marrying, and you'll do anything you can to stop it.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Page 8 of 14

« First

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page