'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[Aramike]

Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities.

Why?

Actually, I don't mind children being raised by gays - so long as there are no heterosexual couples willing to do so. I trust nature's judgement to a certain extent. Medical conditions aside, nature has deemed that only a man and woman can reproduce. Furthermore, it drives us in the communal, family sense leading to the concept of "parenting", which is naturally impossible for gays.

I think some of you are either intentionally misreading Skybird's point, or you simply have blinders on and cannot understand it. Essentially, from what I read, he's simply extrapolating society as an extension of human nature. To him (and I tend to agree) it makes sense to reward CONCEPTUAL communal units that possess potential for the continuance of society - hence, marriage. (Note: I say "coneptual" because marriage is generally based upon the PERCEIVED ability to produce offspring - not whether that ability actually exists.)

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not? Some people dress their dogs in cloathings, bury dogs on cemetaries for dogs, and even leave their property to their pets in case they live shorter than their pets.

In fact in Switzerland - that is the same Switzerland that was the first state in Europe to bring up this ugly issue of no longer discrminating women by calling them mothers - there is a strong political initiative that wants to abandon a so far existing law that puts incest under punishement. I'm not sure but I think at the time I type this, it is either in the final stage of preparation, or is already being decided. Ther argument is that the law is only rarely used, and cases of incest could be handled by laws against absue of minors and rape. What is ignored here is that incest also can take place between consenting adults.

Due to the genetic risks and the expensive consequences for the community if ill babies get born from such "relations", there is good reason why cultures of all eras and around the globe have tabooed incest. They dominate by far in numbers, and very clearly so. Even where we know from history that royal families practiced it, it was not a common practice amongst ordinary people, but an exception at the very top of the social hierarchy.

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not?

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

What about your sister?

[Aramike]

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues.

This position is likely to be considered one of the most extreme many have ever read here ...

... and I couldn't agree with it more. Well done! This is an excellently articulated point of the value of traditional culturalism. Indeed, as a species we have risen far beyond our most basic instincts but Skybird's point is that some of those baser drives have deep, intrinsic value.

I find it amazing that so-called progressives who are deeply driven to return to a more naturalistic state share the same political leanings as those most invested in defying such a state.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised.

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.

Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

Regardless this is irrelevant and a dog can not really express his or her consent, beside,s it is another species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Why?

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

[Aramike]

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man. (That is, unless you define a gay man as something other than a man, which would require the term "gay" before it, hence the different term in the first place, logically invalidating your argument.)

The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

Ultimately, if you're going to make the idea that the potential to have natural biological children is NOT a factor, I find it odd that you would dismiss the survivabilty of said children as an argument - I mean, really? Because doing so only lends plausibility to the argument that procreation is a factor in marriage. Or are you merely interested in invalidating any argument that is not your own on the merits that you don't agree with it (something you accused me of)?

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage". But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest? Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

Because your arguments don't express the actual reasons you opopse this. Is 'tradition' really your main reason? If so, it's a shallow one.

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man.

Except for the one we're talking about, which you would deny.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

No, it is my explanation for the origin of the taboo, not why I think it should exist.

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

I'm ambivalent on the subject. You brought it up as a comparison, and a bad one.

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage".

I don't term it as "gay marriage". I merely state that I see no reason why gay should be prevented from marrying each other.

But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest?

You, not "we", introduced incest in an attempt to divert the argument to something I supposedly couldn't answer. I had nothing to with it. It's a classical attack method, even used by the Pharisees with the coin trick. Please stick to the subject.

Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

Again you attempt to divert this to the personal. So far all of your objections have been based on tradition. Is there any single real reason why this is a bad thing?

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

Why is that even a question? Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.

"Why shouldn't they take a lesser alternative and like it?" isn't an argument at all.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

[MH]

Here is my small theory lol.
From evolutional point of view if you let gays to marry and adopt children you actually are helping in of getting rid of the gay's DNA which he will not pass for future generation.
See so easy.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

Look, Skybird, I stopped this debate on my part because a falling mountain would crack on your Dickschädel. I was running this debate to learn other viewpoints and possible solutions for future problems. Instead I encountered what appears to be a 1950ies stuck reactionary who sees the sky falling when gays marry and constructs a society doing away with itself out of that, quite similar to what you wrote in this Muslim thread. Now the internet does curious things to people, so I will like to think you are quite different in the real world. You are most certainly welcome with your other worldly views in this thread, where gay marriage equals marrying a dog or incest, but please leave my name out of that from now on, this is becoming too dirty and morally ambiguous for my taste to be a part of. I for once am glad the dark ages are over.