Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.
Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.
|
I am surprised to see such a monumental simplification from you.
Threat from the 3rd world hordes: would only be an iossue if actually hugh hordes of 3rd world babies get transported to the 1st world, or huge ammounts of people from there moving here, outbreeding the natives in the 1st world. With regard to certain miogration grouips, I pointed out that indeed their reproucftion rates are 2, 3 and 4 times higher than that of native social upper classes that are not even maintaining their population size. However, my argument is not to to defend against the hordes of the 3rd world, but to defend against a further social minimising of families, by relativising it'S special sdtauzs byx giving the same sttaus to homosexual couples. I also saids that homosexual people have all freedom to live tigether, and that now much of the fight is about gaining tax status of families (to save money that way that families would spend on children, while homosexuals keep it for themnselves). Before we can hope to make the needed middle and upper social classes getting more abies so that we have the sufficient number of tax payers int he future (our biug problem unfolding currently), family and marriage needs to become perceived as a desirable, honourable endavour again. And this can only be achieved not by paqying boni, but by fostering a cultural climate that educates people to pay more respect to the institution of family, and founding a family, again. This is the main reason why I am strictly againmst relativisng and by that: reducing the socially payed respect to families even more, by giving others who do not contribute to the community'S interest like kid-raising families do. So I am against treating homo couples and single mlike me the same way hetrereo couples get treated. I want hetero couples to be given a special recognition and status that I neither claim for singles like myself, nor accept for homo couples.
Third world issues have nothing to do with it. It effects the financial and demographic developement in our countries only in so far as migration is concerned, and different migration subgroup form difefrent social classes that differ in their reproduzction rate, chnaging the overall balance between netto payers and netto receivers agfainst the first and in faovur of the latter. This is what the statistics of federal offices in Germany indicate since long time. This is what controversial Thilo Sarrazin's book is about
: financial developement of tax income and tax spendings, and statistics of demographics.
We need less babies from social classes being netto receivers, and we need more babies form social classes being netto payers. From this perspective it'S avbout tax payers, not individual people's romance. Individual'S love stories are of no concern for the community, nor should it stick it'S nose into private people's business. Statistics and demographic trends effect all community, and make statements over all people, or a "mean/avergae" citizen. They do not describe or match individuals, but the total community.
That is their very purpose!
Tax-wise, population levels in the third world are of no interest for us in our nations over here. How to pay our future bills - that is what our politics must focus on. They fail since long, spend more than can be affored, did not form rsserves for bad timers, but accumulated current and even potential future debts (the pensions that will be needed to pay in ther future when current employees leave the job due to their age).