Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You measure how deserving someone is of their human rights by their perceived worth to society, determined by how likely they are to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. Interesting.

And the idea is completely laughable. If marriages were all about babies, then the elderly and the sterile would be discriminated against in your world. And to postulate the fact that you should meet some "criteria" to be worthy of human rights is ridiculous on its face as it ignores the very concept of what human rights are.

But I've read your diatribes against this before, so it's be like banging my head into a wall to rehash all the problems with that idea, so I won't.

The privilige of marriage is being given on basis of the most often scenario to be seen over centuies and millenias: that where boy and girl come together, there is often a baby - or more - sooner or later. There may not even be love involved. But since a long time, this is what happens most of the times you look at events: boy meets girl: baby. Natuzre wanmted it that way. And it happens more often this way, than any other scenario. Yes. Old peopole occasioanlly marry, too. Yes, there are sterile couples (best candidates for adoptations I say). Yes, babies become b ig and strong and leave the house. And still: this is the scenario that happens most of the time and is of the only real importance for the community: boy meets girls, having babies. No babies, no next generation. No next generation, civilisation dies. That simple.

Yes, I think that in some ways communal interestz overrule individual interest. Not always, but as a general rule of thumb and on several imporetant, vital issues, I indeed agree with Mr. Spock's famous quote. And occasionally I agree with Kirk'S not less famous reply as well.

BTW, I am absolutely serious when saying gays discriminate signles like me when claiming for themselves rights like heterosexual couples with singles like me being exlcuded from said rights. It is a injustice and a blatant violation of the human dignity of single people that they should enjoy less social respectability and benfits and protection than gays, lesbians and hetero couples. Do we do any damage top society just becasue we do not have babies or refuse to live in a homosexual relation? Or are we indirectly put under pressure to turn ourselves into homosexuals - and then getting access to said priviliges for - well, for what? For being gay? Or for having no babies?

Maybe we think it wrong from all beginning. Mybe we should sanctionise hetero couples raising children, and should but getting babies under a social ban, and penalty taxes. It cannot be tolerated that the social function of families is seen as more vital than that of social relations of gays and lesbians and singles.

I should ask the EU bureau for social engineering over this. The ideology of gender mainstreaming - the systematic denial of any differences between men and women and the declaration of the ultimate arbitrariness of sexual role models independant from biological sex: there is a whole pseudo-academical literature about it already - is not for nothing integral part of EU policies since the treaty of I think Amsterdam it was.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Mybe we should sanctionise hetero couples raising children, and should but getting babies under a social ban, and penalty taxes.

Not that bad of an idea. Given a world population of 7 billion and climbing we need to stop rewarding people for having kids and start making them pay extra for the extra resources their offspring consume.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Not that bad of an idea. Given a world population of 7 billion and climbing we need to stop rewarding people for having kids and start making them pay extra for the extra resources their offspring consume.

Wrong. We need to frezze the growth of populations in poor underdeveloped countries wehre despite the ongoing starvation and the erosion of the land due to too much cattle getting held and where endless natural disasters haunt the land and the people, they nevertheless insist on having 6, 8, 10, even 16 children. In the longer run, these numbers of several billions in the poor countries need to be redc ued. Eithger we find ways to do it humanely, or nature will care for it in it's own ways. In the developed nations we need to find a way to stabilise our society's age structure, else our Western nations go down the drain due to overaging populations, or they lose their identity and cultural nature due to excessive migration of foreigners who sooner or later no longer stay a minority, but take over from the former owners of the "homeland". From that stability (to be reached) then we can start to redesign our communities and economic structures to tailor them so that they stay functional even with smaller sizes and smaller workforces.

This insane concept of unlimited growth in each and every regard, needs to be skipped. Dynamically fluctuating stability and "Nachhaltigkeit" are much-much-much more important.

The Chinese had a strict one-child policy (still have?). It now backfires on them for various reasons different from mere population size. It has caused mssaive distortions in their society's age structure. I also recommend to study the excessive social distortions in Japanese society. It is a cultural and social drama they have in Japan. I read comments by sociological researchers saying the chnage in their sopcial structures caused by modenr socviety since WWII does more long-term damage to thecom munal integrity then WWII's loss of lives and overall destruction.

My old mentor and trainer, a Japanese, said the same. His family was scattered around the whole globe as well due to the distortions caused by the war, and then the modernisation of traditional society. Their whole middle class is desintegrating.