First, I am not talking baout the planet's population, but I talked of "our society". As you may have taken from pulbications and the media, Wetsern society take incr4easing stress from over-aging, and native mothers having less than 2.1 children, significantly less.

Second, only with regard to "our society", my remarks on how families make a positive difference for the society's future make sense.

Third, this implies of course that it is not only the social low class creating children, what is the case with he majoirty of immigrants, because the statistics that certain such groups and the social low class create offsprings that have little chances to ever attribute to the nation's net income, but in fact will cause more costs than incomes for the nation, cannot be denied anymore, I described that in a whole thread some weeks ago by translating an essay by scientist Gunnar Heihnsohn. At the same time we have the dramatic trend that the higher the sopcial class is in our soceities, the smaller the avergae children per couple. We need no more low class offsprings - we need academic families having more children. Only this will, amongst others, create the tax income we will need in the future.

I am aware of not every hetero cople having children - but hetero couples are the only couple constellations that could have children, and still: many have at least one child. On e the one hand I want to outline the basic logic only and thus did not go into details like "has a couple children indeed or not?", on the other hand one could argue that within the group of hetero couples now opening this can of worms of endlessly defining subcategories and excemptions rom rules, only increases the number of rules we have, and bureaucracy, and threatens to overshadow what it really is about: to recignise that the family is the most vital social core cell of a community, that it is a thosuand tikes more important than gay marriages or signles like I am, and that a society depends on creatong a social climate hwere this fact is not endlessly relatives and thus: endangered, damaging our own future survival perspective as a nation and a national community. We do not need gay couples in this national community. we also need not more and more social low class improtant from other ****ries that are kicking the bills of our social insurance systems upwards. We need more children from educated, even academic families.

The planet has more than 6 billion people. That is 4-5 times as much as I estaimate the planet can bear over longer times. Global population is not our problem. Our problem is that there are too many people in poor countries, giving too many births to children that will remain poor, and that there are decreasing, over-aging populations in the high developed countries, producing less and lesser offsprings from middle and upper class families with education perpsectives and academic background.

Gay marriages do nothing to even adress these crushing problems. They only help to relative the status and reputation of families even more, increaisng our troubles that way instead of at least having a nheutral effect, not to mention: improving the situation.

This is no discrimination what I say. It is simply sovber thinking on facts from reality that cannot be denied. the problemI outline is much more pressing than the what singles like me or homo relations want in public attention or legal recognition. Singles like me and homosexual relations simply do not contribute anything to the formula on birth rates. That is all, but for itself that also is a pressing problem - much more pressing than gay rights, or singles' desires.

On the question of adoptation by gays, I am strictly against it, not only because it does nothing to adress the problem of birth rates, but also for psychological reasons and cultural reasons. While exceptions already exist were homosexual coiuples raise children one of the partner had from earlier marriage, it should remain to be an exception, last but not least in the interest of a child. As a spychologist (es) I objct to some study things being done that politivally correct found what they were intended toi find; that there is no difference for children'S future wheh they have hetero or homo parents. Earlier studies from the 70s and 80s showed something different: a statistically higher probabitly for them becoming depressive, and staying isolationistic. That has probably something to do with the social constellation at home (after all two women or two men are somethign different than one women and one man, becaseu the first two lack the social rolemodeol of a mother/a dad, and it would be nive,mif not incompertent to assume that this does not alter the social reality the child lives in, and effects it), but also with the fact that children of gay parents at school and in their social envrionment mjst be expected to be treated differently by the other children: that is how children are, they can behave cruel and not even knowing it.

Hetero parenting is absolutely to be preferred. Not single mothers. Not homo couples. No singles. this is also to let the child raise in an envrionment where it takes it as normal that a mother and a father form the normal constellation of family, not single parents, or homosexual couples. and this is needed to help to anchor in a society's awareness that it is thr status of family life that should be given special protection and status. why that is to be preferred, I have explained earlier.

we need not only to have laws recognising the priority of family life. we also need a social and cultural climate in which family lkife is specailly protected, and given more status and prestige again. I do not like at all that young people so easily create children nowadays, and then easymindedly sepaarte again, and by this the number of sikngle mothers raising children has been explsively risien over the past years. The statistics show us clearly that thesechildren have best chances to fall thorugh the social roster later on, and will not gain jobs and education and chances that enable them to contribute to the tax income level of the state, but will suck off bucks fromt he social safety net. There is a significant linking between single paretns raisj gn a kid, and later social/financial handicaps of that kid. Also, there is a strong link between number of parents present, and poverty risk for that family. Single mothers are an extreme risk group.

On history, "marriage" indeed often was just somethignlike an economy and cooperation contract - between a man and a woman. the term also has a cultural-relgious relevenace and trdition, basing on the christian-judaic understanding, which again is that marriage includes one man and one woman with the prospect of having babies later on. It is not just any term that can be taken out of any hostoric and cultural context, in fact it is a term that is heavily embedded in a cultural and historic conetext. Without that context it makes little sense to call a marriage a marriage. and I personally can accept this and not another understanding quite well, it has proven it's worth, and started to raise troubles not before it'S worth was put into question and got relativised in recent decades. As a society needing to not forget itS vital interests for ensuring it's communal survival in the future, we have won nothing from signle mothers and gay rights so far. Even more, they have risen additional problems for us, as I outlined .

It is dangerous when political correctness even gets pushed when it is obviously in intended ignorration of reality's needs. Because needs are needs - they are not negotiable.

Yay ban people of a certain religion and stop low class people breeding.
Did Sky by any chance get his superior gymnasium sureness at the same establishments as Herman Aubin or Max Heim.
Everyday in every way sky puts up some more Mein Kampf....:down:

So I wonder what his solution is to low class offspring, forced sterilisation or just mass murder?

If wester society can not sustain itself, then it deserves to die out, simple as that. Gay marriage has nothing to do with that, all it actually has to do with is equality under the law. Refusing that is discrimination, it maybe practical, even necessary, but it is discrimination none the less. I would dislike you less if you were honest about these things, but right now you come off as trying to justify your own bigotry.

There is such a thing a necessary evil, I don't think it applies in this case, but the concept is out there.

Do you also believe that women who are barren or men who are sterile should not be permitted to marry? They also don't add anything to the "biological securing your society". How about couples who choose not to have kids? Should they also be forbidden to marry as they don't add anything either?

See:

It is not more or less discriminatory than I am discriminated for not giving the same tax releifs because I am single.

There is no discrimination in what I point at. There is only a privilege that I accept being given to families, due to their higher importance for the community. as a matter of fact, families make a difference for the community. Gay couples do not - not at all. so they are to be treated like all other non-hetero-married people. Gays deserve no special status and no special rights just because they are gays. They also deserve not to be discriminated. And what I say - is no discrimination. I also do not feel discriminated myself because I, as a single, am not given the tax reliefs and special aids that a family may be given. But I feel discriminated by gays getting the same status and benefits like families, while I do not. ;) Since I accept and understand why I am not getting the same status like families, I demand the same things being denied to gays and lesbians too. Because in the outlined regards they contribute the same ammount to the community like I do - none at all.

Anyhow, my argument is clear and known now, and nobody of you two was able to counter it. I have the statistics of demography on my side, and I claim that I also have common sense on my side. I can also claimthat quite some gays see it also like I do, this I know becaseu I knew gays at university, and as I have said in earlier threads: they were pissed by things like CST which they themselves called a parade of idiotic freaks giving gays a bad name, and they were pissed about the the idea of gay marriages given the same status like families, too.

The whole debate is not about reason and necessity, it is about ideological dogmatism, and of course our old two friends, these two damn rotten things called "endlessly good intention" and "political correctness". Must I explain in detail were people can shove these two?

Let'S leave gays and lesbian peacefully to themselves, and do not give them any disadvantages but also: no advantages in social life and jobs because they are what they are. but do not do more damage to the institution of families, and accept that it deserves and needs our special protection and recognition of its vital rolet that makes it outstanding amongst all forms of human interrelations. It already is fighting for its existence, and this fight already has done vital damage to our societies. There is a reason why there are so many dysfunctional families, so many single mothers, and academical mums having none or just one child were at least 2.1 would be needed to maintain a society's healthy mixture of ages, and future population level.

Since this is not the first such debate and I do not want to endlessly talk in circles again, I leave it here.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
So when there are lies, damn lies and statistics we know where to find Sky.

Its my football and no-one can play anymore because I don't want to:yeah:
Still footballs a rubbish game now anyway because muslims and blacks ruined it for real civilised europeans......by their views they show themselves don't they, so sure of their intellect that they cannot even see what they are saying.

I have to disagree with you. I work for a lesbian couple and they just had their first child (a boy) last November thanks to IVI and are planing their second.

Why should they not receive the same protections as a Man+Woman+child group?

See what I said on adoptation, I am against it...
If nature wanted two men or two women raising children, it would have given them the biological traits to produces children by themselves. Instead, nature has choosen to make us and mammals in general a species of two different sexes that differ physically as well as emotionally and psychologically; while making homosexuality (not rare amongst mamals) an exotic exception from the rule, but not the rule itself. In this statistical regard, homosexuality is not "normal" and not as of equal "quality" like heterosexuality. Let's bet who knows it better what is good for humans: political activists driven by ideology, or dear mother nature running a program of "best design survives longest, all others not as long". I put my money on the latter. ;)

Wait you object because older studies say one thing and the more recent studies show another? And you prefer the older results. How do you know that the results of the older studies were not "politically motivated"?

Is it my imagination, or did Skybird's argument boil down to "Gay marriage bad because we need to out-breed the third world"?

There is a huge difference between producing a child, and actually raising a child. If you truly believe we go strictly by natures laws, men would just go out and just impregnate as many females as possible and not be part of any family unit. Some of them do just that. Deadbeats.

Prove the opposite. I needed to do quite a bit on child psychology (mandatory courses that were), and I reserve the bright to use healthy rason and common sense as well. I also know how wonderfully statistics can manipulate data according nto the desired result, and that opschology takes place in a setting that is dominated by political and economic intentions to "prove" this or that image we have on the nature of man. tjhat way it gets porven today that kids living by their mothers do not suffer from their ,pthers giving them out of hand at more and more younger age, becaseu it is a poltically wanted program that mothers must go to work - to prove the dogma of euqlaity between sexes in job and office. I mean, it is so much maniopulation in that.

but I tell you another finding, also an older one, but that's how it is. That is the statistical finding that - like kids from homosexual parents - kids who lost one parent due top death or divorce and get raised by just one mum or one daddy, also develope a higher risk of developing depressions from their thirties on, and becoming isolationistic in their socila interactions, and partly dysfunctional in the9ir sexual behavior, one of the results of the latter can be the inability to maintain sexual relations to the other sex, or developing sexual perversions and extreme fetishes. Interesting, isn't it. Kids who have two same-sex parents tend to develope the same way - statistically, that means: by trend - like kids beinf raised by just one parent.

Next time you visit your nparents, tell me if you think that you have learned and was influenced exatly the same way by both. I know it better already. I can assure you that your father has given you other traits and experiences and feelings for your way through life, than you mother has. and both also communicated to you (verbally, emotionally, by attitude) in different ways. A gay man is not like a female mother, and a lesbian woman is not a male father. If you really beleive that there is nothing that gets lost and that makes a difference if you have no male father and no female mother, than I cannot help you.

And this now also ends my participation in discussing homosexual IVI. If anyone has doubts that I also would be against men breeding embryos under their left shoulder, like it was suggested some years ago - yes I am against this too. Against this and any other such follies. Sometimes I think all mankind will just end like Brian W.Aldiss described it in his Helliconia trilogy: an anarchistic band of mutated giant genitals chasing each other aboard a space station.

Obviously, and many young single mothers obviously were not aware of that whiole there still was time. I tell you a secret, though: there also is a huge difference between two men and two women and a mixed couple. ;)

When one does not have any argument and nothing to say, a brief offence spit out en passant still is a form of communication. :yeah: But it says more about the sender than the receiver.

Don't look for me, so that I must not find you. In other words: leave me alone, nice guy.

No, I thought his argument was "gay marriage is bad because its pointless to societal constructs."

It's a very intriguing point.

Okay, then perhaps I misread it. But the following passages are some that jumped out at me on my first read, and that's what they said to me.
I'll have to give it another read in more detail.

Edit:
My reading of his comments was probably colored by recent discussions with some folks about the Quiverfull movement. Some of those passages seemed a bit close to what I've seen from that movement.

I agree. A lot of Skybird's points in this newest argument do indeed make sense from a societal point of view. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions, but they are worthy of honest discussion and not derision.

Here in Utah large families are encouraged. The result is that, because of the obvious tax breaks for each child, people who opt to have no children, or who opt not to marry, or simply have not had children yet, are forced to pay for the schooling of all the children they don't have. From a stictly societal point of view this is a good thing, but it breeds a lot of resentment, especially from those who believe they are helping society by not having children.

It's just like welfare. On one hand you have the 'obvioius' position that as a society we need to take care of those who can't do it themselves, but on the other we have the negative that this requires that people be forced to provide that aid, whether they want to or not.

But here's something new: Prop 8 "defines" marriage as being between one man and one woman, but is that really a definition or is it a stricture? How would people feel if a law was suggested that gave 'Marriage' a true definition - A Legally Binding Contract Between Two People For The Production And Protection Of Children? That's what it really is, but I'll bet that 99% of the 'good people' who voted for Prop 8 would cringe at that definition.

First point: Nature does not want anything. Nature is not a sapient being nor does nature have a consciousness. Nature just is.

Second point: Please read about the "Appeal to nature" logic fallacy. Just because something does not does not occur in nature does not mean that it is respectively good or bad.

Nature wants us to die...

For females it does. All that is needed is an Egg and Genetic material. All that is different is the genetic material delivery system. That is all that lump of flesh between your legs is after all, a launcher for self guiding genetic material and waste disposal system.

For men its a little different, we need the egg as we don't generate them on our own but we can certainly gestate a fetus in our abdomens (its been done).

Plus some male and female couples can't produced children despite having the "equipment". So "nature" wants some to have children and other not?