Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[Max2147]

Looks like The Chaser (hilarious Aussie TV show) found our man Contact:

[Murr44]

It's not my lifestyle but I have no problem with gays & lesbians marrying and adopting children. What's important is that the kids grow up in a decent & loving environment, not whether their parents happen to be of the same sex. There is no proof (at least I haven't seen any) that kids of gay/lesbian parents will automatically become gay or lesbian themselves or grow up warped in some way.

[Frame57]

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....

[August]

Originally Posted by Frame57

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....

You mean gays are photophobic mutants?

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

You mean gays are photophobic mutants?

I am choking on my coffee as I read this....No...I mean that I would be living in an almost extinct human world.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Frame57

It would be awesome if everyone was gay...then in a generation or two I could live my Omega man fantasy....

Have you read "The Forever War" ?

[August]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I am choking on my coffee as I read this....No...I mean that I would be living in an almost extinct human world.

Face it, you'll just end up like Charlton Heston.

[Tchocky]

Nice to see some countries moving forward.
We're going back

[Frame57]

"get your paws off me, you damned dirty photo-phobic mutant"

[Skybird]

A further weakening-by-relativising the socially upmost important institution of the family. That'S why I totally oppose equality for gay and lesbian "marriages", especially when it coms to financial factors. Only the right to bequeath your posessions in case of your death to whomever you like I would accept as an exception to that principle of no fiancial equality of homo and hetero marriages (but in Germany: right this free bequeathing gets penalty-taxed massively, a truly socialistic - yes, socialistic, not social - envy-tax of up to 50%).

I insist on financial privileges and special security and attention for hetero relations due to the fact that they are the future of a society and culture - a vital function for the community and it't survival that homosexual relations cannot contribute to.

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

I know I didn't...

[AngusJS]

Congrats Sweden!

Originally Posted by Skybird

A further weakening-by-relativising the socially upmost important institution of the family. That'S why I totally oppose equality for gay and lesbian "marriages", especially when it coms to financial factors. Only the right to bequeath your posessions in case of your death to whomever you like I would accept as an exception to that principle of no fiancial equality of homo and hetero marriages (but in Germany: right this free bequeathing gets penalty-taxed massively, a truly socialistic - yes, socialistic, not social - envy-tax of up to 50%).

I insist on financial privileges and special security and attention for hetero relations due to the fact that they are the future of a society and culture - a vital function for the community and it't survival that homosexual relations cannot contribute to.

We had this debate at least twice in the past 6 months or so, didn't we!?

This makes no sense. The same number of gays will continue to not have children regardless of whether they can marry or not. True, the government would have an added burden, but is it really so great as to justify discrimination against millions of its citizens? Doesn't such discrimination have a negative effect on society?

And really, that's not much of a society if it's reduced to mere numbers, and not ideas.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Congrats Sweden!




This makes no sense. The same number of gays will continue to not have children regardless of whether they can marry or not. True, the government would have an added burden, but is it really so great as to justify discrimination against millions of its citizens? Doesn't such discrimination have a negative effect on society?

And really, that's not much of a society if it's reduced to mere numbers, and not ideas.

I am talking about tax reliefs for families and hetero couples, and other financial benefits for hetero couples and families that could emerge from them .

But since the psychological role-modelling of a male father and a female mother is different to that of a homo man or woman, I am against homsoexual couples adotping children, too, like I am also against tax reliefs for singles like myself, or adoption of kids by people who are singles.

Families are the social core-cell of any functional society in our understanding, and that is why it is of paramount importance that after the job-world already has minimised the status of families, at least the state - in conformity with the constitutional promised protection guarantees for families and their priviliged status in society - does not minimise families even more by eliminating these special status features and priviliges when giving them to each and everybody.

And finally, to say that homosexualtiy does nothing to secure the future of a society, not to mention the survival of a species that nature has designed to procreate in a heterosexual manner, has nothing to do with discrimination, but is a simple fact of life. You could as well claim me to discriminate when saying that man cannot fly due to lacking wings. In a hetero-sexual species, homosexuality appears as a symptom of curiosisty, but it is neither an important norm, nor is it "normal" in the way evolution has meant this species to be. I say that homosexuals must not be discriminated, we can afford not to do so - but I also say they deserve no right to claim they are as much a norm as heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not a norm equal to that of heterosexuality. that simple it is.

And regarding their social-communal function for their nation/people/tribe/community, they simply are by far not as important as it is politically en vogue these days to claim that it is. Families are more important for a nation or community than homosexual couples. Without families, there is no future. That is the simple reason why the status of family must be seen as exceptionell, must be protected, must be supported, boosted and given privileges that are not the same like for singles, or homo couples. because then it would not be privileges to support families anymore - and is it wise to do like that when population sizes of european peoples are in open decline?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, just to get my two cents in.

The state has no place in marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. Whether you view it as a religious construct or a private contract or whatever, there is no reason the state should be involved, at least in the U.S.

I couldn't care less if someone wanted to marry a.... flowerpot, for example. Whatever "they" might call themselves, they'd still be an idiot and a flowerpot. As long as I don't have to care, it's fine by me.

Where I do draw the line is adoption by gay couples. As much as I might love the idea of lesbians churning out bi-curious young women, homosexual parents are not a part of normal child development. Seriously, who wants to be the adopted kid with the gay parents? I can pretty much guarantee that if you were a guy, you'd get your ass beat every day on the playground. How much good would that do for your development?Adopted children face enough potential issues without having even wierder parents than normal.

---------------

The other big issue I have with state intervention in homosexual partnerships is the social conservative assumption that homosexuality is a choice. There is some strong evidence that says that it is not, including examples of homosexuality in animals and links between that and pre-pubescent testosterone deficiency (in males, not sure about females).
Even if it was a choice, nobody has the right to make that choice for anyone.

As long as gay marriage (or any other kind of marriage) doesn't incur tax costs to me, and it doesn't force some kind of legal recognition by me, and it doesn't make life even more difficult for some poor kid, I have nothing against it. However, I reserve the right to call my friends, and certain male family members "fags", or any derivative thereof, in a derogatory but jesting manner.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird nailed it - there should be no discrimination of gays, but it should not be placed on an equal level as a family in the classic sense.

However - there is a more important question here - why is the STATE (used as a catchall term for government) being involved in what is a religious activity anyway?

Marriage is a religious term - the State has inserted itself into a realm it has no business in to start with. If 2 gays want to live together - thats their business. If they want to set up a civil contract to formalize that - ok fine. The governments have equated "marriage" to be a governmentally controlled civil contract - and thats not what it truly is.

I have no issues with "civil unions" between same sex couples. They have every right to merge in a legal sense as anyone else.

Now - proper behavior in public is another issue - but what they choose to do with their stuff, their lives, in their house - is not my business. But it ain't a marraige. Its a civil contract.

Edit - Dangit Undersea beat me too it!