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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

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.

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man.

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

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

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

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

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

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage".

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.

But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest?

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.

Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

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?

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

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. 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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. 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.

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

[MH]

Here is my small theory lol.
From evolutional point of view if you let gays to marry and adopt children you actually are helping in of getting rid of the gay's DNA which he will not pass for future generation.
See so easy.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently? Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

Look, Skybird, I stopped this debate on my part because a falling mountain would crack on your Dickschädel. I was running this debate to learn other viewpoints and possible solutions for future problems. Instead I encountered what appears to be a 1950ies stuck reactionary who sees the sky falling when gays marry and constructs a society doing away with itself out of that, quite similar to what you wrote in this Muslim thread. Now the internet does curious things to people, so I will like to think you are quite different in the real world. You are most certainly welcome with your other worldly views in this thread, where gay marriage equals marrying a dog or incest, but please leave my name out of that from now on, this is becoming too dirty and morally ambiguous for my taste to be a part of. I for once am glad the dark ages are over.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Black on white financial numbers, black on white tax interests, black on white mathematics of demography - are moral arguments only?

Cut to the chase. Describe the tax interests. Describe the mathematics. No huge text blocks, no preaching, no talking down to people. Just explain exactly how gays marrying each other will do what you say.

What kind of drinks have eaten your mind up recently?

And no more personal attacks either.

Or are you and Gammelpreusse intentionally ignoring the very solid arguments being given, and that so far none of you two have even touched upon, not to mention: showed to be wrong calculations?

Exactly what have you said that is solid?

And so far I have not even talked a single time about the moral dimension and the historical developement of the term and institution of marriage in various ages and cultures!

You're not the only one arguing the same case. Or do you think all arguments are directed solely at you?

Ypou two give me the feeling of talking to magic alls, thatr no matter what you yell always return one and the very same echo. It alos reminds me of this totally futile discussion about total freedom that we had some time ago.

That's not an argument, it's in intentional insult. Let's have no more of those either, shall we?

For the record, once again: I have not even touched upon moral judgements a single time in this thread.

And I haven't said that you have. In fact, I haven't addressed you at all. My argument has been with Mike.




Now, lets cut the crap. All of it. As I've said several times, I don't agree with allowing gays to marry. That said, I do support it, for a couple of reasons.

1. Why should it be allowed? Because they want it, and I don't see any potential harm.

2. I believe that our natural rights include doing anything we want, except where it harms someone else or where it infringes anyone else's right to do the same. We create governments to protect those rights, and we make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Any law beyond that moves into the purpose of controlling others, which we supposedly create governments to prevent.

So, is allowing gays to marry going to harm anyone else? I don't see it. If you can show that it will maybe I'll agree with you. And if it's not, what is the reason for opposing it, if not moral.

Now, what are your reasons for opposing this? Not justifications for your position, but actual reasons why you, yourself, personally, don't want this to happen.

[razark]

Skybird-

If there were no financial incentives to marriage of any kind, would you still be opposed to gays getting married?

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Drop your pants in front of it, learn and maybe be surprised.

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Cut to the chase. Describe the tax interests.
etc
etc
etc
etc

I ALREADY DID THAT - REPEATEDLY...!!!

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

Look, if there is a couple and becomes old dies, then the community looses two heads, so they must have had 2 children to compensate for their death in order for the population to stay constant. Actually, because some kids by desease or accident or crime die before having two kids of their own, there must be a little overcompensation per couple/women, that's why you can read that statistically for most societies you need 2.1 or 2.3 bybies per woman, I do not remember exactly right now, to compensate for the death of the parents if you want to have a population at a constant level. Simple? Simple, very.

If you have a couple that naturally produces babies by itself, this helps to compensate for deaths in the population, but if couples in mean have less than 2.1 babies, the population shrinks, and if couples have more than 2.1 babies, the population grows (assuming no change in living conditions and medical availability etc etc). That means: too few births, fewer tax payers in the future.Simple? Simple, very.

Our societies are overaging, we lack young people,. Two conclusions: too few babies get born in our societies. Simple? Yes, very simple. And: in the future, few and fewer taxpayers must pay for more and more old people. Simple? Very simple.

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!?

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!?

Who does more contributions for the community future, then? Hetero couples, or homo couples? Surprise, it is the hetero couple! Simple, isn't it?
What contributiuons does the society get from the homo couples, regadring ensuring the communities future survival? Wowh, it is a fantastic nothing! No babies produced, no future tax payer, no future worker, no futre academical expert. no nothing. So here we have reached the point where it seems to become not as simple anymore for some, or is it?!

What form of living together thus is of more vital interest and value for the community, then? The homo or the hetero relationship? You guessed it by now - it is the hetero relationship. It can make a diffrence for the community's futurte, while the homo rerlationshiop never does.

Is this about morals? NBo - it is aboiut stinking money? Is it about science? No, it is about demographic statistics, and simple mathematics! Traraaaa!

When we have an exploding world population, but suffering a shortage in births in the developed world, does the first mean the latter is irrelavent? No, it just means that the wrong countries that cannot afford it get too many babies, and the developed countries get too little. Is this racist to say? No, it is elemental mathematics and conclusive logic.

When you look at our own society now, America or Germany. What does it tell you when the social upper class shrinks, is overaging, and has a birth rate of let'S say around 1.6 babies, and the social lower class, constantly being pushed up in numbers by migratzion of educationally unqualified - and in case of Muslim people for the most integration-unwilling - migrants, and you read for your nation'S census the different ethnic subgroups of this segment of the population have birth rates between somehwere of 2.8 and 5.6 babies - what do these two things - which by trend I quote correctly - tell you? It means the group of people having good job chances and chances to make it into any kind of social elites or specialised jobs, is shrinking, which translates the group of future tax payers is shrinking, while the group of people having no or small chances for education and jobs - translates into netto receivers and not paqying compensating taxes - is growing. We now have the 1 million dollar question: how does this end...?

I take it for granted that you know the established correlation between social environment factors lice family situation and income, living place etc, and success in education and job/career chances. The smaller your social status and income, the smaller is the statistical chance for your children to surpass your status and income/social group when they have grown up.

It's really nerve-killing that one must so explcitly time and again explain thse very elemental very basic things. Even more so when it was done in several threads already, at least was summarised. For example here I refrred to the work of Gunnar Heihnsiohn, an explicite and well-reputated academic experts for reasearch done on demographical statistical analysis

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...nnar+Heihnsohn

I have just run a Google search, and found that while in Germany we have both a national law code ruling on family issues, and an article in the constitution constitution claiming the priviliged status of mothers, children and families, you inAmerica have apparently no such constitutional ruling, and no nation-wide one law on family issues, but you have family issues ruled on basis of individual versions of family laws in the different states (if my short survey at google gave me a correct impression). But at least these laws of yours - also seem to indicate a specially protected status of mothers, and families in most states.

Where reality does not match the laws in your or my country, this does not mean that the laws have been rendered overaged or pointless, and their content invalid. It means that the distortion being caused, is massive.

I do not need morals to argue against the equal status of gay marriage, I do not need it at all. And I haven't even tried it in this thread. I do not even need any science, I just need elemental statistc, and some reasonable guessing.

Gays and lesbians do not procreate, and thus their meaning as a partnership from a communal standpoint, is zero. Non-existent. Meaningless. Unimportant. Conclusion: no tax equality for gay/lesbian living together, and families/hetero couples. Note that finacial benefits being given to the latter, do vary and very well differ between couples raising children, and couples who does no (still not, or no more).

I could however argue in moral or better: historical terms on the issue of gay marriages. I admit then I still would be against it, because the institution of marriage in my understanding of history still is caused and based upon the understanding of family in a hetereosexual constellation, actually or potentially.

You are free to love somebody and live together with that person or have two different appartements. You may agree on consensual sex and techniques, and you may live like you want. All this is of no importance for society, lioke it also does not effect society whether oyu have good relaitons with your working collegaues or not. It does not matter for society. But havingf enough fa,milies producing sufficient ammount of babies and raising them, babies from the matching social background - that is of vital interest for society, it is decisive.

And that is what decides this useless debate. And again, I must not even use or argue in moral terms to conclude on that. It is about numbers, and numbers alone. You may like that, or not, you may find it shabby to say so, or cold-hearted, contradicting your demand for total freedom and total "equality" - it does not matter, not for reality and not for society . What matters are the numbers, numbers are it, nothing else. And it seems to me that in general, people in all the world know this since many millenia. Somebody earlier in this thread said that when it is siuch an old tradition, it is time to chnage it.

But maybe the tradition became so old, because it is so vital, so healthy, so well-proven?!

[Skybird]

That was my last post in here, I do not waste any more time for explaining the very logical and very obvious once again, or why relativising the importance of families by giving gay marriage the same status regarding taxes and prestige automatically and necessarily must come at family'S cost. He who has not understood it by now, will not understand it when I repeat it once again - or he is intended to not understand it anyway, no matter what is being said.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Just because a dog licks your genitals does not make the dog a consenting adult.

Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

[MH]

Lets just say that some of those couples adopt children.
It would mean that they produce future tax payers right?
Lets say that some of those adopted children would have to be taken care by state otherwise-doesn't that free some tax payer money?
Lets say they adopt an Indian kid and bring him to Germany-wouldn't that contribute to German population as whole and create potential future tax payer?
I don't know what benefits exactly receive married couples in Germany(here the benefits are minimal)but the above should smooth the calculations a bit.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, licking genitals surely expresses consent, but when dogs reach adult age is being discussed amongst dog experts, I give you at least this.

Regardless this is irrelevant and a dog can not really express his or her consent, beside,s it is another species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Lets just say that some of those couples adopt children.
It would mean that they produce future tax payers right?
Lets say that some of those adopted children would have to be taken care by state otherwise-doesn't that free some tax payer money?
Lets say they adopt an Indian kid and bring him to Germany-wouldn't that contribute to German population as whole and create potential future tax payer?
I don't know what benefits exactly receive married couples in Germany(here the benefits are minimal)but the above should smooth the calculations a bit.

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Regardless this is irrelevant and a dog can not really express his or her consent, beside,s it is another species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is a relief to see that you have the arguments so well under control. But I still recommend you do not try that dog. It may even start action on you without you taking the initiave with your pants. Occasionally it happens that such a dog hangs on your leg like being attached with glue, not even waiting for you to get undressed.

That may not be a verbal expression of consent, but it surely is an invitation for action.