Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

Skybird · 12-11-11, 04:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-11-11, 05:00 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

12-11-11, 05:19 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-11-11, 06:53 PM

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 · 12-11-11, 07:04 PM

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 · 12-11-11, 07:44 PM

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.

razark · 12-11-11, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Vital biological interests ...
... breeding ... babies ... Families, children, and thus the institution of hetero marriages...

How is a homosexual marriage any different in this case from a heterosexual marriage where the couple is unable or unwilling to have children?

Takeda Shingen · 12-11-11, 08:02 PM

The facts that conception is not exclusive to marriage and that human population has done nothing but rise exponentially throughout the course of recorded history invalidate the arguments of heterosexual marriage as necessity.

I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden. It removes no rights granted to heterosexual marriage. Government is unable to force religious institutions to permit homosexual marriage, so the protection of religious practice is an invalid argument. When it comes down to it, no one is harmed. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, and that the fetus should be protected. I disagree with this assertion, but I can accept the position as logical. If you hold that to be true, the elimination of the fetus is murder, and murder denies the most fundamental right (life) to the individual.

No such connection of logic can be made in the case of gay marriage. It always comes down to the fact that person X doesn't approve of the lifestyle. It is akin to people wanting to prevent people wearing cargo pants from driving vehicles; no reason behind it other than the fact that you just don't like cargo pants.

Skybird · 12-11-11, 08:54 PM

How often do I need to repeat myself? I have answwered these issues repeatedly now - in this thread, and in several threads. Can't you people not store it in memory when just asking the same questions time and again as if it were the first time they get posted?

And Tak, I also made it clear that lifestyle and what happens in other people bedrooms is the last, the very last of my concerns.

Like I also adressed the differenc ebetweenm the overaging of Wetsern societies due to lack of babies, and the population explosion in poor countries which are the main reason, the absoplute, total, dominant, unquestionable main reason why global poöuation grows so terribly high.

I adressed razor'S question by pointing out that laws need to be formed on basis of a norm, which often is a majority issue. The norm is not that hetero couples are unable to have babies, but that they can have babies - and that this needs to be the diominant fsactor that the design of a law environment needs to consider.

Nowhere I ever mention religion. I refered to cultural tradition and the meaning of marriages over the centuries, tought. and that was an understanding dominated, hopelessly dominated by the overwhelming majority of cases, of this: 1 man + 1 woman = probably babies.

We need a stabilisation of our age structures and demographics in Western nations. The explosion of global population is not being caused in the West, but collapsing demographic structures can and do lead to problems that threaten our social security system, our ability to maintain advanced industries and hightech branches, to maintain a suffiently big workforce to care for these industries as well as caring for the old, and our ability to pay for more and more old that live longer and longer. Our societies are in danger to collapse under the growing discrepance between falling numbers of young tax-payers and cliombing numbers of old tax-receivers - just in casse nobody has realised that so far. It is one of the absolute top problems in Europe. Goobal explosion of population is caused in Africa and SE Asia for the most - the regions that are the most vulnerable to climate change, economic exploitation, natural disasters.

Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more - by reltivising the specially prpotected status, the social image of family when giving the same status and priviliges - last but not least fincial poriviliges!!! - to non-families as well?

But still discriminating against singles at the same time? Why is my tax buck being spend not for families, but also for a man and a man liing together? The family does somethign for me, ideally, and for the community, the gay couple does not. They just are there, and their marriage contributes nothign to the community, while they deliver another marginalisation to the family.

Families are mor eimprotant than gays and lesbians. Families are more important than singles.

And gays/lesbians are not one bit more important than singles. The contribution to the community of both homo couples and single'S lifeform is equal. And I say: equally low, compared to families.

Platapus · 12-11-11, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden.

By allowing them gays to marry, it will cheapen the sanctity of marriages of Kim Kardashian, Drew Barrymore, Pam Anderson, and of course our favourite Britney Spears.

I am kinda of the mindset that if you don't like gay marriages, don't have one.

12-11-11, 07:04 PM	#5
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,444 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-11-11, 07:44 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,818 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-11-11, 08:54 PM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,818 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	How often do I need to repeat myself? I have answwered these issues repeatedly now - in this thread, and in several threads. Can't you people not store it in memory when just asking the same questions time and again as if it were the first time they get posted? And Tak, I also made it clear that lifestyle and what happens in other people bedrooms is the last, the very last of my concerns. Like I also adressed the differenc ebetweenm the overaging of Wetsern societies due to lack of babies, and the population explosion in poor countries which are the main reason, the absoplute, total, dominant, unquestionable main reason why global poöuation grows so terribly high. I adressed razor'S question by pointing out that laws need to be formed on basis of a norm, which often is a majority issue. The norm is not that hetero couples are unable to have babies, but that they can have babies - and that this needs to be the diominant fsactor that the design of a law environment needs to consider. Nowhere I ever mention religion. I refered to cultural tradition and the meaning of marriages over the centuries, tought. and that was an understanding dominated, hopelessly dominated by the overwhelming majority of cases, of this: 1 man + 1 woman = probably babies. We need a stabilisation of our age structures and demographics in Western nations. The explosion of global population is not being caused in the West, but collapsing demographic structures can and do lead to problems that threaten our social security system, our ability to maintain advanced industries and hightech branches, to maintain a suffiently big workforce to care for these industries as well as caring for the old, and our ability to pay for more and more old that live longer and longer. Our societies are in danger to collapse under the growing discrepance between falling numbers of young tax-payers and cliombing numbers of old tax-receivers - just in casse nobody has realised that so far. It is one of the absolute top problems in Europe. Goobal explosion of population is caused in Africa and SE Asia for the most - the regions that are the most vulnerable to climate change, economic exploitation, natural disasters. Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more - by reltivising the specially prpotected status, the social image of family when giving the same status and priviliges - last but not least fincial poriviliges!!! - to non-families as well? But still discriminating against singles at the same time? Why is my tax buck being spend not for families, but also for a man and a man liing together? The family does somethign for me, ideally, and for the community, the gay couple does not. They just are there, and their marriage contributes nothign to the community, while they deliver another marginalisation to the family. Families are mor eimprotant than gays and lesbians. Families are more important than singles. And gays/lesbians are not one bit more important than singles. The contribution to the community of both homo couples and single'S lifeform is equal. And I say: equally low, compared to families. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-11-11, 06:53 PM	#4
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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.

12-11-11, 08:02 PM	#8
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	The facts that conception is not exclusive to marriage and that human population has done nothing but rise exponentially throughout the course of recorded history invalidate the arguments of heterosexual marriage as necessity. I still wait for a valid argument as to why homosexual marriage should be forbidden. It removes no rights granted to heterosexual marriage. Government is unable to force religious institutions to permit homosexual marriage, so the protection of religious practice is an invalid argument. When it comes down to it, no one is harmed. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The pro-life position is that life begins at conception, and that the fetus should be protected. I disagree with this assertion, but I can accept the position as logical. If you hold that to be true, the elimination of the fetus is murder, and murder denies the most fundamental right (life) to the individual. No such connection of logic can be made in the case of gay marriage. It always comes down to the fact that person X doesn't approve of the lifestyle. It is akin to people wanting to prevent people wearing cargo pants from driving vehicles; no reason behind it other than the fact that you just don't like cargo pants.