[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And the personal attacks continue. Do you ever consider any remote possibility that you might be wrong about anything?

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

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

And like some others you must now step to extreme constuc tions and absurd exaggerations to make a point. I make a simple link between hetereosexulaity, and the chance that this produces babies, and that the institution of "family" is basing on this simple biological fact. Within the socialised framework of rerlations between humans, hetereosecual relationsshhops simply are the norm for two adults living together when they are a love, and due to the interest this is of for the community, this example serves as the rolemodel the basic design of social laws regarding the status of human relations are basing on. Like many details in our environment also are dersigned ojn other statistical norms, for example that functional designj for the most is not foc ussed on left handers, but right haqnders, becaseu the are the by far dominant group. And that design is done for the most with the healthy person in mind, not with the leg-amputated or paralysed. Speed limits are set although there might be exceptionnel situation when it is recommendfable to drive much faster. ETc Etc. Tax laws and laws in general also based on the statistical norm, becasue the people represernting the statistical n orm are the most likely to be effected by it.

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

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

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

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

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

Quite simple. You are advocating that we force everyone to marry as soon as possible and make more taxpayers. Did I get that wrong?

Yes you did get it wrong, and you know it. Which means you know it is not like this, but you just try to sneak in for the cheap rethorical score here.

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