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

[antikristuseke]

You brought up marrying dogs, not me. But here is why dogs are not relevant to this discussion: 1) another species 2)a non sapient species 3) a non sapient species we can not effectively communicate with outside of the most basic of commands.

While a dog in heat may hump your leg they are unable to give you informed consent, unlike a homosexual male or female human for example.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You can consider all that, yes. You can consider mass-transportsof poor brown-eyed Indian babies to Europe by the many millions, yes, and you can consider gay couples to adopt children. Lets bring 2 billion poor people into the West, to bring Earth a bit nore into balance, maybe that will heal the Earth axis precession that makes it wobble around evry 24000 years. You can also consider to bottle the rain we have to much and bring it to Spain and Almeria where they have too little, and you can consider to heat you house wioth the methane you produce frokm you digestion, and you can consider in vitro fertilization to be equal in preferrability to natural preganncy. You can even consider to run surgery to give women a penis and to giove males two breasts, in the name of gender correctness, or you can consider males carrying out a baby under the lft or right axle, as was shown to be possible I think by a medical team of surgenons some years ago. You can consider a burkha to be a bikini of different style and you can consider smoking to be a social support measure to secure for jobs (in the tobacco industry).

You can consider all that, yes. Whether it make sense to do so, is something completely different.

Stop the discrimination of singles! Singles have rights, too! Singles also are humans! We need an Indian baby adoptation quota! And a Chinese one! And an Indonesian one! And a Nigerian one! And a Bangladeshi one! People just love to adopt foreign babies from the other side of the planet!

-----

Man, get your feet back on the ground. Get realistic. I think you try to compensate for lacking argument by driving your utopic mind game way too far and to absurd extremes.

And in case you never have noted it: most people, of all races and skin colour, most people around the globe prefer to stay amongst people like themselves. Think of it and morally judge it any way you want, but it is a simple truth that describes most people on this planet. Most blacks don'T want to adopt white babies, most whites do not want to adopt brown babies and most yellow people would not like to raise Aboriginee babies. That's just human nature.

Ok Ok i just tried to give some contra arguments.


Still i don't think you would like to live in society that its run strictly by numbers or someones rights are define by numbers even tho i see a lot of potential in applying such system here-real problem solver for Israeli demographics.
Im not against guy marriage or for it-simply don't care but it was interesting to know your reasons.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Knock knock knock - sombody's at home...?

And the personal attacks continue. Do you ever consider any remote possibility that you might be wrong about anything? You preach, you talk down to everyone as if they were children, and when they don't sit up and pay attention you start throwing insults. Witness your superior demeanor in post #160. No one can discuss with you - we are all expected to sit and obey.

Look, if there is a couple...

All of your arguments about babies are true, but they are also valid reasons to prohibit anyone from marrying unless they can prove that they can and will have children. By your "logic" we should set a time limit on how long couples can stay married without having children. Your numbers are good, but they are hardly a reason to keep two people who love each other from marrying.

We talk no global numbers in total world population here, becasue our tax system and national survival depends on national popultion and taxpayers, not global population. America does not get taxes from people from India, Germany does not get taxes from Bangladesh. Still simple, isn'T it!?

Quite simple. You are advocating that we force everyone to marry as soon as possible and make more taxpayers. Did I get that wrong?

Homosexual couples do not produce babies. Simple, yes? Now the hundred thousand dollar question - do they produce future tax payers? Do they help to produce future workers and academical specialists and future payers of national fincial burdens - like your social wellfare or pension when you have become old? No, they don't - isn't this a surprise!?

Yep, I was right! Do I get a pat on the head from the Professor?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Who does more contributions for the community future, then? Hetero couples, or homo couples? Surprise, it is the hetero couple! Simple, isn't it?

No, it's really not that simple.

What benefit does society gain from a hetero couple that refuses, or is incapable of, reproduction? The exact same benefit that it gets from one of your socially useless homosexual couples.

What benefit does society gain from a homosexual couple that raises a child?* The exact same benefit that it gets from one of your magical heterosexual couples.


What harm does a married homosexual couple do? None. Two homosexual men are not going to decide that because they can't get married, they are going to go out and find two women to breed with. Two heterosexual men are not going to decide that, since gay marriage is legal, they are going to marry each other, instead of women.

That argument just doesn't hold water.


*Contrary to your beliefs, homosexuals are capable of producing, and many already have produced, viable biological offspring. Many of these end up being raised by a homosexual couple. Amazing how biology actually works, ain't it?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And the personal attacks continue. Do you ever consider any remote possibility that you might be wrong about anything?

When somebody tells me that for example the result of a simple mathematical calculation is a question of morals, or is open for majoirty vote, or somebody else tells several time3s in a row refuses to take note of what I just laid out and demands me to explain it one more time, acting as if I never had explained it at all; then: no, I absolutely refuse to consider that. On other issues you can see me being more cautious and considering chances and probabilities of alternative thoughts. But not on this issue here.

All of your arguments about babies are true, but they are also valid reasons to prohibit anyone from marrying unless they can prove that they can and will have children. By your "logic" we should set a time limit on how long couples can stay married without having children. Your numbers are good, but they are hardly a reason to keep two people who love each other from marrying.

And like some others you must now step to extreme constuc tions and absurd exaggerations to make a point. I make a simple link between hetereosexulaity, and the chance that this produces babies, and that the institution of "family" is basing on this simple biological fact. Within the socialised framework of rerlations between humans, hetereosecual relationsshhops simply are the norm for two adults living together when they are a love, and due to the interest this is of for the community, this example serves as the rolemodel the basic design of social laws regarding the status of human relations are basing on. Like many details in our environment also are dersigned ojn other statistical norms, for example that functional designj for the most is not foc ussed on left handers, but right haqnders, becaseu the are the by far dominant group. And that design is done for the most with the healthy person in mind, not with the leg-amputated or paralysed. Speed limits are set although there might be exceptionnel situation when it is recommendfable to drive much faster. ETc Etc. Tax laws and laws in general also based on the statistical norm, becasue the people represernting the statistical n orm are the most likely to be effected by it.

I have argued whyt the ultimate importance is in protexcting the family status as something special that overrules that of homosexual people, or singles like me. Can you tell me a reason why homosexual couples should gain tax benefits that I am excluded from as a single?

Such traditions like the special status of family in societies have gained their reputaiton over long time, over generations, centuries and millenia. I focusse don the one aspect that currently is a very important one, finanes, but it would be naive to assume it is the only one. These cultgural and histgoric reasons, some of which even hjavbe a basis in our biological evoltuion, also are reasons why we generalise from "family" on "hetereosexual relations". In the end, in a natural way, homsexual couples will never reproduce without needing artificial, foreignb help, in laboratories it would not be "natural reproduction", and taking a third person for temporary time into the boat to benefit from his/her biological assiatnc e in getting a abbvy, is parasytic behavior that cannot be seen the sayme way like making a baby with somebody you love, and by making love to that person. Two women cannot do it. To men cannot do it. Bypassing this biological fact in the laboratory, from a standpoint of nature always is something like a cheat, to put it that way. It is not the evolutional design for our species that nature meant to enable our species self-maintaining survival. We can do it, scientifically. But must we do it so often that we make it the new "norm"? What does the majority gain from that? To me, for the most it sounds like chnaging for the sake of just changing things.

The institution of family last but not least also is relgiously motivated, and even me as an atheist must take into account that religious rules are important for many people, andn that it has influenced the culture and history that formed the place I live in and made it what it is, in good and in bad. The bible gives a clear understanding of what "marriage" is. As far as I know, Judaism does so as well. Islam does also not legitimise gay and lesbian marriages. It is not known in Buddhism and Nidnusim as well. That covers already most people in the world, and all five major world religions. Since I see the relgious tradition being in support of the cause I want to see real.sied - the special status of "family" being procted and generally accepted - , I have noi intention to argue with relgion about the defintion of marriage. Itr says that marriage includes always one man and one woman, and I can imagine the reason, and I will not start a quarrel with any religion about this understanding of marriage. Why should I?

In the end, I really think that this gay marriage thing is about money and tax reliefs they demand when being equal in status to hetero couples, what already reduces the moral claim of the issue, since singles then would indeed by discmrinated against gays/lesbians. I accept financial reliefs only for normal marriages, and additional finacial aid only for couples with children (like it is being handled indeed, you do not get certain funds just for being married, but for every child of yours).

It also is about a political gay movement that has gone on stampede, now wanmting to misisonanse all world for what it conders to be poltiically correct. I take pleasure and satisfaction from resisting to such movements for the simple reason that I like to see such movements fumbling.

Quite simple. You are advocating that we force everyone to marry as soon as possible and make more taxpayers. Did I get that wrong?

Yes you did get it wrong, and you know it. Which means you know it is not like this, but you just try to sneak in for the cheap rethorical score here.

Oh dear, now you got me to write in here again. Well. but this is my last day in this thread for sure, and I go to bed now. My current new sig answers most of the other things being raised by the other people in here.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

............It also is about a political gay movement that has gone on stampede, now wanmting to misisonanse all world for what it conders to be poltiically correct. I take pleasure and satisfaction from resisting to such movements for the simple reason that I like to see such movements fumbling...........

OK thats something i do agree with totally.
Those movements are sometimes a bit too extreme at drawing any type of attention to justify their existence.
And they get the attention needed.

[Aramike]

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.

No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.

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

Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.

How are those different rights again?

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

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

Bad one? Because, why, you said so?

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?

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.

So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?

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.

Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.

Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.

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?

Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way. I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions. To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.

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.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means.

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.

All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement.

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

Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.

How exactly is this tyranny? Is it forcing anyone to do anything? Well, except for accepting something they don't like. It hurts no one and denies them nothing.

Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?

I thought that was your position. Oh, no, he can marry who you say he can. What was that about tyranny?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.

Then why can't they marry each other?

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.

Why not?

How are those different rights again?

You say he has a right to marry her, but no right to marry him. Those are two different rights, out of your own keyboard.

Bad one? Because, why, you said so?

Because you're trying to drag in all sorts of external comparisons which have no bearing on the question at hand.

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?

I'm not the one saying that some can marry whom they want and others can't.

So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?

I guess you didn't bother to read my explanation of how I actually feel about this, and why I take the stance I do. I'm not trying to force you into anything. I mostly question why you are so openly hostile to this. I'm not for it, but I see that it hurts no one. So what are your personal reasons?

Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.

Except of course all the people who have posted differently.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.

No, it's the old arguing trick of changing the subject. "But what about this?" "How do explain this, then?" Yes, it's an attempted parallel, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.

Yes, you would. If the fact that they can't concieve children is an arguing point, it then directly applies to anyone who can't do the same.

Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.

And that takes us back to my question: Is your opposition to gays marrying each other really because of the affect it would have on the dictionary? If so, then it looks to me like a pretty odd reason. If not, then what is your personal stake in all this?

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way.

I took the "You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve" that way. If you didn't mean it that way, then there's no problem.

I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?

As I've said several times, in my heart I'm against it myself. But I question my heart, and everything else. You say I'm getting worked up, but the truth is I have strong reactions when I see people be openly hostile to any concept.

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions.

And I can say (and have said) exactly the same thing from the opposite side. I see the simple solution in allowing gays to marry each other, and you seem to virulently hate the idea.

To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.

Skybird often makes excellent points. Unfortunately he then refuses to acknowledge anyone else's and insists that he, and only he, is right, and to disagree with him is the action of a recalcitrant child.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means.

Again I ask, is the reason for your opposition based solely on the dictionary? That sounds wrong to me.

All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement.Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?

We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Creating legislation based on moral preference is a very different thing, and reeks of attempts at control, which truly is tyranny.

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".

"You can marry whom you want, except where I say you can't."

That is definitely "lesser".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.

Again, you want to control peoples' lives based on the dictionary? Again, that seems to me to be a cover for keeping a certain segment of society "in their place".

And again, my reason for supporting this is that I see no possible harm in allowing it. It doesn't hurt anyone.

[Skybird]

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are. I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.

[krashkart]

Are homosexual people less than human?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Are homosexual people less than human?

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?
However I think that homosexuals should be able to marry as this also regulates many more things like the right to inhere things from a deceased partner, or the right to get financial support from a partner. Just those family raising benefits should not be granted (but they shouldn't be granted to childless couples either).

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?

Which reduces to the point rewarding individuals for producing children as opposed to rewarding homosexuality.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

Ah. Well that explains it. Reality does not equate to how things should be done yesterday.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Oh no, the opponents to homosexual marriage in the thread agree that they are human. Their argument, however, reduces to the belief that humans are essentially breeding stock. Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to breed and thus renders the industrialized nations vunerable to the third world hordes in terms of populace. It's classic fortress mentality, much of which is historically used to enforce dogma. Fear of 'the other' is a powerful tool.

Of course, nothing in that argument takes into account the fact that homosexuals are not, due to their sexual preferences, functioning as stock anyway, as they are not procreating. Thus, homosexual marriage would not alter the available breeding populace.

I am surprised to see such a monumental simplification from you.

Threat from the 3rd world hordes: would only be an iossue if actually hugh hordes of 3rd world babies get transported to the 1st world, or huge ammounts of people from there moving here, outbreeding the natives in the 1st world. With regard to certain miogration grouips, I pointed out that indeed their reproucftion rates are 2, 3 and 4 times higher than that of native social upper classes that are not even maintaining their population size. However, my argument is not to to defend against the hordes of the 3rd world, but to defend against a further social minimising of families, by relativising it'S special sdtauzs byx giving the same sttaus to homosexual couples. I also saids that homosexual people have all freedom to live tigether, and that now much of the fight is about gaining tax status of families (to save money that way that families would spend on children, while homosexuals keep it for themnselves). Before we can hope to make the needed middle and upper social classes getting more abies so that we have the sufficient number of tax payers int he future (our biug problem unfolding currently), family and marriage needs to become perceived as a desirable, honourable endavour again. And this can only be achieved not by paqying boni, but by fostering a cultural climate that educates people to pay more respect to the institution of family, and founding a family, again. This is the main reason why I am strictly againmst relativisng and by that: reducing the socially payed respect to families even more, by giving others who do not contribute to the community'S interest like kid-raising families do. So I am against treating homo couples and single mlike me the same way hetrereo couples get treated. I want hetero couples to be given a special recognition and status that I neither claim for singles like myself, nor accept for homo couples.

Third world issues have nothing to do with it. It effects the financial and demographic developement in our countries only in so far as migration is concerned, and different migration subgroup form difefrent social classes that differ in their reproduzction rate, chnaging the overall balance between netto payers and netto receivers agfainst the first and in faovur of the latter. This is what the statistics of federal offices in Germany indicate since long time. This is what controversial Thilo Sarrazin's book is about: financial developement of tax income and tax spendings, and statistics of demographics.

We need less babies from social classes being netto receivers, and we need more babies form social classes being netto payers. From this perspective it'S avbout tax payers, not individual people's romance. Individual'S love stories are of no concern for the community, nor should it stick it'S nose into private people's business. Statistics and demographic trends effect all community, and make statements over all people, or a "mean/avergae" citizen. They do not describe or match individuals, but the total community. That is their very purpose!

Tax-wise, population levels in the third world are of no interest for us in our nations over here. How to pay our future bills - that is what our politics must focus on. They fail since long, spend more than can be affored, did not form rsserves for bad timers, but accumulated current and even potential future debts (the pensions that will be needed to pay in ther future when current employees leave the job due to their age).