One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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.

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.

I have the statistics of demography on my side

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

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

Its my football and no-one can play anymore because I don't want to
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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This is bad, because the future of a society lies in families producing children. No children, no future - it's as simple as that. And this is why families are so very much more improtant than gay rights or lesbian marriages, or singles like I am. Singles like me should not enjoy the same level of protection by the state, like families. And homosexuals and lesbians also should not be given the same status and benefits like families shoild be given. I do nothing to the biological securing of my societies future. Gays and lesboians also do nothing to secure the billogical future of the society threy live in. In this regard I am as unimportnt, as they are.

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?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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...

... also for psychological reasons and cultural reasons. While exceptions already exist were homosexual couples 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 psychologist (ex) I object to some study things being done that politically correct found what they were intended to find; that there is no difference for children'S future when 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.

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

See what I said on adoptation, I am against it...

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"?

[razark]

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

[Moeceefus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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"?

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

There is a huge difference between producing a child, and actually raising a child.

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by razark

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

When one does not have any argument and nothing to say, a brief offence spit out en passant still is a form of communication. 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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

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

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

It's a very intriguing point.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.
...
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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If nature wanted....

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If nature wanted...

...two men or two women raising children, it would have given them the biological traits to produces children by themselves.

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?