Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[Henry Wood]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I don't disagree with this. However, I do find it odd that no one mentions extending this courtesy to, say, Christians.

I'm just making a social statement here.

I agree with you 200% as I was baptised a Christian myself and though no longer practising I most very often feel that the basics of my country, i.e. laws based on the Judeo/Christian ethos which have served us very well over many centuries are now being abandoned wholesale. The "rules" being put in their place are neither as fair or just. "Rules" are being created to cope with every little "group" that some self-interested person/party has a need to promote.

This was not the way Britain was ruled before. We respected minorities but they also had a duty to conform to the laws of the majority in the land they had chosen to settle in. Nowadays laws seem to be being brought in with some settlers.

I'm glad I'll soon be off out of it.

[Henry Wood]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Henry,

no matter what some people may say, g(u/a)ys of a mind like yours surely are not the problem here.

Hi Skybird,
As I said when I started my input, this argument will always go on and on even long after we all now present on these boards are long gone.

The argument is older than any of us and will go on to the end of time because we (like me!) will always be here. It has never, ever changed throughout history, and just because some people want certain things to be more accepted, I do not see very much changing now.

Personally, as I have said, and I repeat, I do wish some "progressives" would stop trying to push out the boundaries. A great many of us - and not just of my age group - would prefer that things were allowed to "settle" for a few years, let's stop all this confrontation.

But no, the struggle must go on ...

[Carotio]

Late comer to this thead, I had to add a few words too.

My country, Denmark, was if not the first, then one of the first countries to allow registred partnerships for homosexuals.
And discussions whether to allow marriage in churches, adoption or even insemination of lesbian couples are also on the agenda.

I'm all for the natural legal rights, and I don't mind homosexual couples or singles at all - as long as they don't hit on me... I have actually once had to kindly decline an offer...

But when it comes to marriage in churches - then I ask myself why? Okay, if they want and if a priest is willing to do so, then okay. But there's a paradoxe in this matter, since most religions are against homosexual marriage, so why even bother? Is it for the ceremony? Then ask a person from the local authorities to attend a ceremony in private surroundings such as a garden, a beach or whatever. And then again, what do I care... I never visit the churches anyway... except as tourist...

Adoption - well, they might may well be loving personalities, and inside their own four walls, they may have a nice family life, but children are cruel to eachother, and these children will be target for teasing. Besides, I have seen interviews with children from homosexual couples' families, and they did find it somehow odd to have either two mums or two dads. In most cases, it was two mums, and the boys really missed a dad to go out and do "man stuff" such as playing football or the like. So IMHO, I think the homosexual couples should just settle for a dog instead, and give their love to that instead.

Insemination of lesbians - NO WAY ever. At least, not at the cost of society. Two women can by definition of nature not have children in the natural way, and as such, they are not entitled to have the same right as hetero couples, who by definition of nature should be able to have children the natural way, but for an unlucky circomstance one of them can't without help. Plus the same reason as allready written for adoption.

My words on that matter.

I may oppose some demands of homosexual couples, but not their right to coexist around the rest of us. And for sure, I would never even dream about beating anyone up because of that. I'm amazed about the frequency of previous statements like that before action was made. It's an interesting paradoxe that such intolerance was treated with an extended tolerance.

[Henry Wood]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I think it is ignorant to believe that there aren't people who make the choice as well as people genetically predisposed.

I just came across this post.

Hey Aramike, do you truly believe there are people who make the choice to be gay, as in they turn around one day and say:

"OK! I'm Aramoke! I'm a gayboi!"

Then what do THEY do?

Obviously you are speaking from knowledge, so please enlighten us?

When did you make your choice, Aramike?

Were you happy with your choice, Aramike?

Come on, Aramike, you know much different to what I have claimed for you have disputed my thoughts.

So, OK, Aramike:

PPOSTFU! Or I could make it more polite, don't sit on the pot ,,,,

Just where do *you* get your opinion that some gay people do choose to be that way?

ARE YOU TALKING FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?

[Henry Wood]

Originally Posted by Carotio

Late comer to this thead, I had to add a few words too.

My country, Denmark, was if not the first, then one of the first countries to allow registred partnerships for homosexuals.
And discussions whether to allow marriage in churches, adoption or even insemination of lesbian couples are also on the agenda.

I'm all for the natural legal rights, and I don't mind homosexual couples or singles at all - as long as they don't hit on me... I have actually once had to kindly decline an offer...

But when it comes to marriage in churches - then I ask myself why? Okay, if they want and if a priest is willing to do so, then okay. But there's a paradoxe in this matter, since most religions are against homosexual marriage, so why even bother? Is it for the ceremony? Then ask a person from the local authorities to attend a ceremony in private surroundings such as a garden, a beach or whatever. And then again, what do I care... I never visit the churches anyway... except as tourist...

Adoption - well, they might may well be loving personalities, and inside their own four walls, they may have a nice family life, but children are cruel to eachother, and these children will be target for teasing. Besides, I have seen interviews with children from homosexual couples' families, and they did find it somehow odd to have either two mums or two dads. In most cases, it was two mums, and the boys really missed a dad to go out and do "man stuff" such as playing football or the like. So IMHO, I think the homosexual couples should just settle for a dog instead, and give their love to that instead.

Insemination of lesbians - NO WAY ever. At least, not at the cost of society. Two women can by definition of nature not have children in the natural way, and as such, they are not entitled to have the same right as hetero couples, who by definition of nature should be able to have children the natural way, but for an unlucky circomstance one of them can't without help. Plus the same reason as allready written for adoption.

My words on that matter.

I may oppose some demands of homosexual couples, but not their right to coexist around the rest of us. And for sure, I would never even dream about beating anyone up because of that. I'm amazed about the frequency of previous statements like that before action was made. It's an interesting paradoxe that such intolerance was treated with an extended tolerance.

I remember years and years ago when all of us in the "Underground" (before they changed the laws) said, Oh, we must move to Denmark! LOL!

As a gay man, I agree with every single word you say, and I go further and say any gay man who does not agree with your summary is maybe a deviant who needs to be watched.

I never, ever heard these stupid demands for the "right to have a family" etc., until the brazen feminist demands took hold, then these demands seem to spread out everywhere and to every Tom, Dick, Harry, Joan or Jane who wants to jump on board.

"Oooooohhhh! I want to have a child!"
"Why can't I have a child?"
"We must change the law so I can have a child!"

The main point I agree with you is for the sake of the children!

Their "friends" will be oh so cruel when they find out about Peter and his two daddies or Jane and her two mummies, and any silly, stupid, selfish gay couple who ignore this fact of life are not fit to be considered as caring adults.

[saltysplash]

Originally Posted by August

Of course they were. Why else the constant wars of conquest if not to make room for expansion?

To feed the masses back home by way of tribute. Safeguarding borders, Military triumph and renown.

Expansion of the Empire is not to be confused with expansion due to over crowding.

Most Empires expanded for monetary gain and commercial reasons

[saltysplash]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Salty,

You lost me on the last line concerning the 'writer of the scriptures'.

The writers of the scriptures mention Homosexuality throughout the old and new testaments. which was in response that its an Illness brought on by Modern day stress.

[Skybird]

Whether it is a disease can be argued. While psychological stress of severe kind eventually can make a subject to "chose" homosexual partners although by hardware it is not homosexual, originally, and so can curiosity make people to experiment as well, the real, unavoidable homosexuality that the subject cannot escape, is hardcoded in the hardware, a genetical deviation from the biologcial norm of our species, and that norm is genetically encoded heterosexuality. Because you cannot change your metabolic functions and physiological chemistry by will and choice alone, but we know for sure that homosexual people "chemically" react to for example the smell of sweat (pheromones) of the same gender in the same way like heterosexuals react to pheromones of the other gender. And here we do not talk about habits anymore, but substantial basic chemical processes that get noted by the receiver, and to which he cannot help but to react, again chemically.

BTW, in North America homosexuality once was officially rated as a disease, and as such it was classified in the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual, DSM. For the revision of the 3rd version, DSM-IIIR, one followed the popular social pressure, and deleted it from it. That was one of the greatest and most spectacular successes of medicine ever: with just on stroke of the pencil, millions of ill patients got healed from their disease, from one second to the next.

[August]

Originally Posted by saltysplash

To feed the masses back home by way of tribute. Safeguarding borders, Military triumph and renown.

Expansion of the Empire is not to be confused with expansion due to over crowding.

Most Empires expanded for monetary gain and commercial reasons

"Commercial reasons" "Feeding the masses"; both ways of describing overpopulation. Armies and war have always been the best way of trimming the numbers of extra males in a population.

[saltysplash]

Originally Posted by August

"Commercial reasons" "Feeding the masses"; both ways of describing overpopulation. Armies and war have always been the best way of trimming the numbers of extra males in a population.

Vanquished foes would send stuff and things to the victors by way of tribute such as grain as in the case of Rome.

There was no mass sending of citizens to the defeated lands in fact it was the opposite, Slaves were sent back to the homeland so I still dont buy the overpopulation thing

I've read that overpopulation in a, for example, a rat population leads to aggression. The rats start fighting and killing each other to bring the population down.

[saltysplash]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I've read that overpopulation in a, for example, a rat population leads to aggression. The rats start fighting and killing each other to bring the population down.

I can understand aggression but it certainly wouldnt encourage me to start snuggling up alongside my cohorts

Yea well, to equate gays with rats on any level to me seems like that ol' familiar technique that Goebbels & co. were so fond of in relation to the Jews.

[saltysplash]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Yea well, to equate gays with rats on any level to me seems like that ol' familiar technique that Goebbels & co. were so fond of in relation to the Jews.

Sorry, you lost me, who's equating gays with rats?

Originally Posted by saltysplash

Sorry, you lost me, who's equating gays with rats?

Hopefully nobody. I guess August's tests were conducted with a human population.