Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[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.

[Skybird]

Defending white policies of apartheid against blacks, has no point indeed.

Defending specially protected status of heterosexual marraiges, has.

Vital biological interests of a civilisdation are not an object of just chnaging attiotudes and "conceptualizations". They are vital factors that decide about extinction or survival.

And us hetero-sexual singles, who would be discriminated when our status compared to homo couples get marginalised although homo couples do not serve anything more valuable for the community than us singles - we still wait for anybody explaining why it is okay to equal homo sexual couples to hetereo marriages, but singles not.

Men tic different than women. They are not better or worse, they are different. Homos and Heteros have non-equal importances for a communal life and its interest to secure its future - by breeding. A homosexual society - would die within one generation. Because it would not have enough babies, if any at all. Especially when it were a tribe 20.000 years ago, when there were noi genetic science and laboratories to artifically create what nature had denied to homo couples.

It amazes me time and again how far people are willing to go in limiting limit their reasonable thinking and to change the meaning of words - just to appear as politically correct. Must be some Rudel-mentality.

I am not discriminating gays. I am willing to give and accept them as many rights (and responsibilities) as I claim for myself. - BUT NOT MORE. Families, children, and thus the institution of hetero marriages, is more important than them, or me.

This may not be politically correct for the confused mind. But it is right. And that is what counts.