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

[trekchu]

Originally Posted by Aramike

But they don't have the natural drive to do so, which is what propagates a species. Period.
.

Science has long since found ways around that.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by trekchu

Science has long since found ways around that.

Indeed it has. But, quite frankly, it would be unnatural and would redefine what it is to be human should the species rely solely or dominately on such methods.

[Safe-Keeper]

when you are determined to intentionally misunderstand the point I am after, and twist what I say into absurd distractions, then no argument is able to adress that, no matter what argument it is.

And you two know better anyway what I said and meant, don't you.

No. When I say I don't understand what you mean, I mean it. Try to be a little less verbose and a bit more clear. Quality over quantity, my friend.

Indeed it has. But, quite frankly, it would be unnatural and would redefine what it is to be human should the species rely solely or dominately on such methods.

But since we're not looking at a future in which everyone will rely on this method, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's rather like being against the use of trucks because "there would be nothing but traffic jams if every vehicle on the road was a truck".

[trekchu]

Of course. But bear in mind that Homosexuals of either gender with a will to have kids are a minority. The scaremongering that some are doing in regards to 'traditional marriage' makes it sound like it's the other way around.

[Aramike]

But since we're not looking at a future in which everyone will rely on this method, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's rather like being against the use of trucks because "there would be nothing but traffic jams if every vehicle on the road was a truck".

So, wait - we are to avoid any and all discussion of points refutting your own arguments now?

Was it not you that said this:

Appeal to nature. Logical fallacy.

...and despite the fact that you never reasoned why nature should actually be a logical falliacy, considering that nature is the fundament of all logic, we should take that at face value, we should also avoid the logic that changing the natural, species-inherent method of procreation should also be no-win?

What exactly is an argument you feel qualified to argue against without one-liner sarcasm? Science? Nature?

Or are we all supposed to just rely upon your premise as self-supporting and abandon the discussion because the conclusion is predetermined on the basis that you "said so"?

I do apologize for my directness in this matter as I am far closer to your position than you likely think - however, my contrarian, independent nature only allows me to accept actual logic as logic, rather than circular arguments that supposedly justify themselves regardless of independant logic or data.

[Gammelpreusse]

Man, what a debate.

As if homosexuals suddenly start becoming straight just so that they can marry. And as if straight couples only have children because they can marry. There is an ever growing trend, at least in Germany, for people to stay single anyways, "marriage" certainly did not much to change that.

You want more children? Provide day long day care and enable mothers a better reentry into work afterwards. And get the upper classes to get more children instead of complaining all day for the lower classes to have them.

And if gay couple want to have a children by adoptions, then that's still better then those children being raised in orphanages, with a proven track record of abuse, arguable way more harmful to their psychological development then being raised by a same sex couple. And that comes even more true in a society where men and women become ever more the same in their behavior patterns.

And this "contribute nothing to society" has far too familiar and eerie rings. What's next, sterilizing mentally disabled people because they do not contribute to society? Deporting Hartz IV candidates?

Whatever happened to "Live your life however you want as long you don't hurt others?" attitudes?

This whole debate is more based on prejudices and christian brain washing then facts. The ancient Greeks and Persians had much less Problems with those concepts and yet they quite managed to build up empires.

[Aramike]

Whatever happened to "Live your life however you want as long you don't hurt others?" attitudes?

I support that attitude 100%. But how does that equate to society fiscally and legislatively supporting it?

Hell, do what you want ... just don't ask anyone to support you doing that which I find objectionable.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I support that attitude 100%. But how does that equate to society fiscally and legislatively supporting it?

Hell, do what you want ... just don't ask anyone to support you doing that which I find objectionable.

But what IS objectionable? All I that came out of this debate so far is personal preference on how people have to live their lives. I completly agree on the stance that nature certainly did not plan for living beings to be straight, kinda a contradiction to reproduction. However, homosexuals are homosexuals, they won't just simply change. All you do is making others lifes miserable with such stances with no win whatsoever for anybody but the satisfaction of straights keeping the upper hand. Believe me on the other hand, if homosexuals ever came into a position where they tried to force their lifestyle onto others I'd be as opposed to that as well.

In the US, the impression constantly comes over that people have an utter aversion for the government to meddle in the affair of families and how to raise up children. So why does the same not apply to people themselves as well?

I say we make everyone have equal rights, if you won't let Gays marry then Hetero Couples shouldn't be able to marry... if you won't let Gays have children then you shouldn't let Hetero couples have children.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

Man, what a debate.

As if homosexuals suddenly start becoming straight just so that they can marry. And as if straight couples only have children because they can marry. There is an ever growing trend, at least in Germany, for people to stay single anyways, "marriage" certainly did not much to change that.

You want more children? Provide day long day care and enable mothers a better reentry into work afterwards. And get the upper classes to get more children instead of complaining all day for the lower classes to have them.

But that is the problem, and it is not just a fincial one. The Elterngeld raised by van der Leyen saw no raise in births, but a further decline, and Gunnar Heihnsohn, professor erimitus, shows by his statistic research on demographics and immigration that there is a growing of the social lower class and a decline in the upper and academic class, for example I referenced him here. As von der Leyen has learned, couples do not get babies becasue the state pays them a bitmore money - at least in the upper class they still get babies becasue of love, and because they want babies - not necessarily the money.

Question is, why those families who could afford to have more children, don'T have them to maintain the size of that social group, not to mention to increase it. And why those not being able to afford it, have so many children.

There is also an other trend, that you correctly pointed out, and that is that more and more kids get raised by just the mother (for the most) or the father. Obviously the parents got a baby unprepared I (no excuse for that, sorry), or at a stage of their relatioinship where they still could not be sure whether they would last with each other, or split again. To much bed-adventures going on too easily, and everybody jumps into the bed with everybody else too fast.

But it is also both a cause and a consequence of the further erosion of the institution of an intact family.

We do not need babies per se in Germany. We need more babies fro t he highly educated socail classes, and we need less babies from the less educated social classes. Only then there will be a future population that even can hjpope to have a slim chance to shoulder the tax burdens of the near futurte that are needed to maintain even basic, minimal sociual security. Having babies and more babies that will not contribute to the tax income once they have grown up, but that will cost the state becasue they will not make it in a job with solid payment because due to their social class they had no chance to raise to higher education (there is a strong link between social class and future job perspectives, and some other factors), will make things worth for all of us. So we do not need an undiscrimionatory increase in our population again to counter overaging, not by a baby-.boom and not by immigration. We need babies from the "right" social backgrounds. Every mother getting a baby while being young, maybe without job or in a low-payed job, and husband left her, costs us money, and easily more money than the baby will give back to the state once it has grown up, in taxes.

This is - beside the immense interest service of the state for its existing debts, and possibly in the near future the Euro collapse - the one thing that ruins Germany's finances more than anything else, and leading the nation to the brink of collapse.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But that is the problem, and it is not just a fincial one. The Elterngeld raised by van der Leyen saw no raise in births, but a further decline, and Gunnar Heihnsohn, professor erimitus, shows by his statistic research on demographics and immigration that there is a growing of the social lower class and a decline in the upper and academic class, for example I referenced him here. As von der Leyen has learned, couples do not get babies becasue the state pays them a bitmore money - at least in the upper class they still get babies becasue of love, and because they want babies - not necessarily the money.

Question is, why those families who could afford to have more children, don'T have them to maintain the size of that social group, not to mention to increase it. And why those not being able to afford it, have so many children.

So far agreed.

There is also an other trend, that you correctly pointed out, and that is that more and more kids get raised by just the mother (for the most) or the father. Obviously the parents got a baby unprepared I (no excuse for that, sorry), or at a stage of their relatioinship where they still could not be sure whether they would last with each other, or split again. To much bed-adventures going on too easily, and everybody jumps into the bed with everybody else too fast.

Also agreed.

But it is also both a cause and a consequence of the further erosion of the institution of an intact family.

Here we part in cause and effect. More next.

We do not need babies per se in Germany. We need more babies fro t he highly educated socail classes, and we need less babies from the less educated social classes. Only then there will be a future population that even can hjpope to have a slim chance to shoulder the tax burdens of the near futurte that are needed to maintain even basic, minimal sociual security. Having babies and more babies that will not contribute to the tax income once they have grown up, but that will cost the state becasue they will not make it in a job with solid payment because due to their social class they had no chance to raise to higher education (there is a strong link between social class and future job perspectives, and some other factors), will make things worth for all of us. So we do not need an undiscrimionatory increase in our population again to counter overaging, not by a baby-.boom and not by immigration. We need babies from the "right" social backgrounds. Every mother getting a baby while being young, maybe without job or in a low-payed job, and husband left her, costs us money, and easily more money than the baby will give back to the state once it has grown up, in taxes.

We need, more babies, period. It does not really matter where they come from.

A couple points to that.

First of all, the lower clases "always" had lots of children, even in the times before social securities and Kindergeld. Children always have been the safe keepers of a couple's future, so to say their life insurance. The more children, the more security later on. Actually, with all that financial security nowadays it would be logical for lower classes to get "less" children.

Second, we have a huge problem with class penetrability. It really does not matter so much where children come from, as long they do not get better education it won't achieve to much. I do not buy the argument that lower classes are inherently more stupid and thus less capable, that is 19th century thinking long disproved. I also personally met enough "lower" class folks with a high degree of intelligence but the inability to make any proper use of it because they never really learned how to move within German business and upper class society. And look at German society, where especially higher class parents try to get their children away from public schools and to private ones. And no wonder, given the sorry states of many schools and the lax attitudes of many teachers. We need all day schools where the children get away from their social environment and teachers taking their profession serious.

Third, I especially lay the blame at the higher classes, which have enough ressources to get children going and ensure their education. However, in this class children have become a status symbol like a dog. You have them, you show them around and you brag with their achievements. The few children available to this class are under 24/7 surveillance, have to fill their days with all kind of activities like music, riding, going abroad and so on, with hardly time for themselves. The result are artificial beings without social competence and a serious lack of character, tweaked solely for performance and no idea what the real world looks like. That these folks also lack a serious feeling for family does not wonder me much.

All these complains by higher class folks are a distractions for problems caused by themselves in most parts and their unwillingness to give up their status and influence in society. This is also reflected in the abandonment of the "Humboldtsche Bildungsideal" for the sake of economic performance in universities.

This is - beside the immense interest service of the state for its existing debts, and possibly in the near future the Euro collapse - the one thing that ruins Germany's finances more than anything else, and leading the nation to the brink of collapse.

There we agree again, but as I said, under completely different preconditions.

But this is worth a new thread, I think this goes too much off topic now.