Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[1480]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

Good catch, my bad. I did something extremely stupid in lumping both of them in together, when only the latter should apply to the argument.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's right. The Old Testament takes a very hard line, but Jesus himself had said nothing on the topic and the writings of the Evangelists are scant and much more loosely defined.

His teaching are kind of ........



........

[Fish]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Denying someone the same rights as everyone else because of what goes on in their bedroom is disgusting and it's deserving of all the shame, scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.

Amen to that!

Our finance minister is gay.
Nice guy.

Asking if he is a good finance minister,... I tell you in a few years.
Having good faith though.

[soopaman2]

Gay marriage is not recognized by insurance companies. If you have coverage for your spouse, your gay lover is not covered.

Big reason for the call for equality, and the insurance lobbyists in congress is why this is a hotpoint, and not a no brainer.

It is not so much religious, but financial.

You all should know better.

Who will it hurt? Besides the shareholders?

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

It is not so much religious, but financial.

Nah it's all about the right to use the word "marriage". "Civil Unions" were proposed as a legal alternative but that was rejected.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Fish

Our finance minister is gay.
Nice guy.

Our foreign minister is gay.
Complete idiot.

So...?

I tend to think like this: don't taunt, don't flaunt.

A lot of social engineering, and providing flank cover for this social engineering project named gender mainstreaming as well, plays a role here. And the latter is by far not just about equal rights for women. It is the attempt to declare every difference in natural and psychologic design between male and female as nonexistent, and assuming social gender roles to be totally arbitrary and freely selectable, not being influenced by factors of real sex. The same effort you see in the criminalisation of terms like mother and father, which are to be repalced with parent 1 and 2, or in Europe the neutral word "das Elter" (neutral Artikel, and the word Eltern means plural but now gets vandalised and turned into a singular form that in German language simply does not exist).

There are so many clever Dicks at work who consider themselves as so very clever indeed. But you people will see in the forseeable future were this and other poltical correct follies will lead us. And that is not a survivable culture of strong people, but exactly the opposite.

Defined some British historian what "decadence" means regarding a civilisation: a civilisation has turned decadent when not only it no longer is capable to fight for itself and defend itself, but when it even cannot find an answer anymore of why it should want to defend its identity. Perfectly said! I wished I would know the name of that guy.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Nah it's all about the right to use the word "marriage". "Civil Unions" were proposed as a legal alternative but that was rejected.

So what is the harm in using marriage?

This is America, not Iran. Not Iraq, Not some bigoted society. America thrives on its diversity.

Why can they not enjoy the same LEGAL rights as us who marry hetero?

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So what is the harm in using marriage?

This is America, not Iran. Not Iraq, Not some bigoted society. America thrives on its diversity.

Why can they not enjoy the same LEGAL rights as us who marry hetero?

Hey you were the one who claimed it was about money. An alternative that addresses that particular issue was proposed and rejected. That tells me it ain't about the money.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So what is the harm in using marriage?

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition, a meaning that cannot arbitrarily be altered just because it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue. Our societies combine certain values and a certain ammount of more or less functional legal protection with it. The possibility that where man marries woman there will be children, has a major thing to do with that as well. And to form a general rule, a law of general validity, you base not on exceptions from the norm, but the majoirty group that represents the norm - in this case a norm that mother nature has meant when designing mammals as a group of species procreating by intercourse of TWO sexes. Homosexuality exist, within animal species and withon human species. So do Albinos. But Albinos are neither normal, as nature meant it when inventing the pigments, nor the norm. They are the exception. And their genetic blueprint that misses the correct coding for pigments, is not of equal importance for the whole species than those genes thast include the pigment information. So lesbian and gay couples and hetero singles like me are not of equal importance like heterosexual marriages to the communal interest of the social community as well. This does not mean you must discriminate them, but it is absurd to claim they were of the same cultural importance than mixed couples. They are not. It means nothing, nothing at all for the community, whether those two adult men or two women live together without formal treaty, with a treaty, or do not live together at all. Their existence as a couple will not create children. Their relation means as much as the difference of me drinking either coffee or tea, and meeting a lose friend for going to the cinema or watching the film alone. That'S why I say: don't taunt, don't flaunt.

The institution of this classical family concept has already been heavily damaged in the West, due to the modern job world and its demands, politicians trying ideologic games, and a general decline of customs, values, and educated culture.

Seeing how easily practicable egoism has turned the sense of responsibility in adults in our societies, how easily couples break apart nowadays, how easily two people marry today and divorce again just short time later after the first challenge or first problem of their "love affair", and how few babies get born although one would argue that a rich society should have more material resources to supply the raising and education of children than a poor society, tells something about the deformations in our Western culture.

Something swings back against us there.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain culktural tradition, a meanign that cannot asrvbitraily altered just it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue. Our societies combine certain values and a certain ammount of more or lessd functional legal proection with it. The possibility that where man marries woman there will be children, has a major thing to do with that.

The institution of this classical family concept, has already been heavily damaged in the West, due to moder job world and its demands, politicians trying ideologic games, and a general decline of customs, values, and edcuated culture.

Seeing how egoist adults have turned, how easily couples break apart, how easily two people marry today and divorce again just short time later after the first challenge or first problem of their "love affair", and how few babies get born although one would arue that a rich society should have more material resaources to supply the raising and education of children than a poor society, tells something about the deformations in our Western culture.

Something swings back against us there.

Well said.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well said.

Ah, you were too early quoting me. I corrected the many typos and added some things. Sometimes even a careless quicktyper like me produces just too many typos - and then cannot understand his own sentences anymore.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ah, you were too early quoting me. I corrected the many typos and added some things. Sometimes even a careless quicktyper like me produces just too many typos - and then cannot understand his own sentences anymore.

I thought you got the message across just fine with this:

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition, a meaning that cannot arbitrarily be altered just because it fits your agenda to in the future use "red" to describe the colour of blue.

The term is not just a name, but defines a certain institution with a certain cultural tradition

The term is just a name and it changes and is redefined just as institutions and cultural traditions change.

[Takeda Shingen]

It used to be tradition that women and minorities were not able to vote. Traditions that infringe on the rights of others are not worth keeping.

[Platapus]

Used to be that interracial marriages were also illegal but that culture seemed to change just fine. That's the good thing about cultures, they can change to reflect different changes in the population's conceptualizations.