Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[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.

[razark]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

I read them the first time. Second time too. They just don't hold water. Babies are born out of wedlock all the time. Population grows exponentially. You've got this completely illogical notion that allowing gay marriage will turn everyone gay and that there will be no humans within 150 years. Or, as you closed with, gay marriage will destabalize western civilization. Sky, you should know better than this; you are a smarter man than I am. I mean that. Banning gay marriage has clearly not reduced the number of homosexuals in society.

Regarding norms it, as Platapus and I have pointed out, was the norm for women and minorities not to vote, as well as being the norm to prohibit interracial marraige. I will say it again--a norm that denies civil rights that pose no imposition on the majority is not a norm that should be enforced. Not you nor I will have our rights altered in any way should homosexual marriage be permitted.

[Betonov]

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?

In february it will be my 26th birthday and my parents are still together, still not married and never will be.

Now tell me that my parents, being a non-family in ''traditional'' wievs, shouldn't have been given the financial priviliges, that helped them bring me up and send me trough school.

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

Why not? it was a cultural tradition.

Vital biological interests of a civilisdation

Bollox

And us hetero-sexual singles, who would be discriminated

How?

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.

It no longer amazes me how some people refuse to actually think but just trot out the same pre conceptions mis conceptions and even outright falsehoods again and again.

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.

I am not a racist but.......
So as you don't want children and don't want a relationship that means others cannot have them.

Have you guys really nothing better to do to reduce the likelihood of babies being born in our coutnries even more

Wow
But hold on, is this the same Sky who wants his special eugenics program where he wants to eliminate huge numbers of people from having any babies at all and only people who fit his personal special criteria shall be allowed to bear fruit?
Isn't it wonderful how someone who always insists that they are right and who will not develop and modify their views through the process of thought will write stuff which shoots down their own arguements

How often do I need to repeat myself?

Repeating yourself is no good, you have to learn to think, and when your statements have been taken apart then repeating them just makes you look very silly.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

In february it will be my 26th birthday and my parents are still together, still not married and never will be.

Now tell me that my parents, being a non-family in ''traditional'' wievs, shouldn't have been given the financial priviliges, that helped them bring me up and send me trough school.

They should have, but a set of rules regulating such help needs to base on a formal frame that also makes abuse difficult, amongst other factors to be considered. That'S why the state demands a couplke to be married when the babies it creates should benefit from these priviliges. It is a pragmatic thing of that somehow you need to have rules that alloow you to deal well with the majority of cases, while at the same time motivating people to marry and have babies indeed. That is what tax beenfits and financial aids given to amrried people is about. To protect that social constellation and giving it a priviliged status of support and protection, is what "marriage" in modern West is about, or was about before the institution came under attack.

Separation of couples have been climbing since long. Social relations became more and more lose, it seems. More and mor epeople espoecially in cities stay alone, and more and more of them are not happy with that, but also point at theirt freedoms and wish to "enjoy" - often without taking responsibilities. Women want careers. We have a massive, a very threatening demographic probloem in the West, the age structure of our socieities shift towards a older age structure where the social stability of the communal life is in danger itself.

And really nobody sees a link between the systemtic devaluing of "family", and falling birth rates?

There havbe been chnages in modern socieites oin the trasditional role models, yes, I am aware of that. But I question the wisdom of many of these changes. I question the wisdom of celebrating it that now families cna skip the family life by mothers sending their 1 year old little children to kindergarden ( a study recently even proved that this does longterm damage to the child'S psychological and cognitive develoepement, it was in the news). I question the wisdom of women delaiyxng getting children until they are 40, for the sake of careers, when at the same time statistiscs show the rate of birth risks skyrocketting and more and more women saiyng they were unhappy with the life filled with a successful career. I question a policy of influencing population growth when that lesads to a decline of sdaid population and thus an overaging process sets in that sooner or later necessarily the babies that in 20 years or so will be expected to pay by their tzaxes for all the bullsh!t we are responsible for, while they cannot save for thewir future and have more and more problems to financially fopund a family themselves.

Family is the most important social cionstellation in a comunity like they emerged in the Wetsern sphere, and most other cultures as well. No other social constellation possible between people equals it in importance, and meaning for the survivability of a community. And us modern idiots deconstruct, relatiivse and ridicule it as much as possible - for reasons of poltiical correctness and this hobby of ours that we call egoism and party-for-me-somebody-else-cleans-the-kitchen-please?

We are insane.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I read them the first time. Second time too. They just don't hold water. Babies are born out of wedlock all the time. Population grows exponentially.

Even in poor coutnries where they have 8, 10, 14 babies maynbe, most adults there form a couple relation between a man and a woman, often by something that is called marriage. Most babies in most parts of Europe get born in couple-related marriage-style relations. I explkained it earlier. The general rtule by which the state administers an iossue like for example the stgate'S suzpport for families, must base on somethignt hat can easdily be caught in a rule and that covers the majoprfity of the general cases in pragmatic reality, it also should encourage the social life form that is of interest for the community, due to the releavnce of its possibe consequences in the future. That'S why we encourage couples to marry, and we do that by offering incentives like financial aid, tax reliefs, legal options making certain financial apects of life easier. That is not just arbitrariness, or a wanted discrimination against others, but it serves a purpose. These incentives are meant to give a couple a status that is priviliged compared to that of just living together, may it be homos or heteros, or singles staying alone. If you make everything equal and deny any differences being made, you cannot offer incentives anymore and cannot give a priviliged status anymore.

You've got this completely illogical notion that allowing gay marriage will turn everyone gay and that there will be no humans within 150 years.

Who, me? No. I did not ade such an allegation, aölthjough I know that social role models can influence the sexual and gender developement of young people. For the same reason you find that many sexual festishes and obsessive perversions are rooted already in events of the childhood and adolescence of the subject. That are pretty old hats in psychoanalysis.

Or, as you closed with, gay marriage will destabalize western civilization. Sky, you should know better than this; you are a smarter man than I am. I mean that. Banning gay marriage has clearly not reduced the number of homosexuals in society.

I do not care for somebody being this or that as long as he keeps his laundry to wehre it belongs - in his own washer. And nowhere have I indicated I am after 2reducing the number of gays" in a society. Some gays are gay by genetics, threy cannot fight being what they are, it is useless. We even know that sometimes nature messes up pretty badly and then out the wrong psychological gender in the wrong body by natural sex. But these are accidents by nature, no intentional desiogn feature sof our species. Like there are car accidents - but that doe snot make car accidents any more desirable or "natural".

The effect of decreaisng birth rates and overaging and still shrinkling populations qwith all the saocial, the drmataic social, economical costs that causes, are a statistical fact, you need to question mathematics itself if you want to question them. We already see it happening in all Euzroppoean countries, and it already is refglkected in the cost explosions of certain parts pof the finajmcial budgets. Old people cost money, and when you have less and lesser younger ones working for loans that alow them to pay taxes to support theirown fa,milies, their own future securing, and the old, then you have a problem that holds enough explosives for a massive communal earthquake in the forseeable future.

Regarding norms it, as Platapus and I have pointed out, was the norm for women and minorities not to vote, as well as being the norm to prohibit interracial marraige. I will say it again--a norm that denies civil rights that pose no imposition on the majority is not a norm that should be enforced. Not you nor I will have our rights altered in any way should homosexual marriage be permitted.

Mankind has followe sdimple logic, experience andf the way nature has shown when making a marriage between a man and a women the dminant social core cell of social interactions. Imagine a society where you have only homo couples. These maybe could create babies thgenhj by genetic manipulation in the lab. But that is not natural, and not the way nature has meant our design to enable our survival as a community. And such a homo species in the dawn of its evolotional rise - would not have the skill to do genetics and thus would go exctinct within the first generation. Ob viuously this is not how nature has meant it, and that is why I reject to clal homosexuality a norm beside heterosexcuality that is equal in meaning and importance. Homosexcuality is a deviation from the way nature has enabled our species to procreate. We must not burn homosexuals at the stake - but we also must not think they are the general design feature of our specie'S genes. They are real, they exist, but they are a genetic irregularity, not the representation of a working genetic encodification of the human genom. It is not desirable to declare the "accidental" exception from the rule as something of equal importance as the general rule and of same value for the surviving of the community.

Last time I told this, I got attacked over claims that I was "psoiing" with it, but still: I knew two gay men at university. We got along very well. And guess what! Both said they hate CSD for by it the few freaks and nudists would giuve the many a bad name, and also both said they do not care for gay marriage and all that word war waged by some lobby'S spokesmen, instead they said, we just want to live our lives like everybody else, privately, being treated like the others, and no big show being made of us. Just leave us alone, in peace. They also indicate that by their impression the huge majority of the gays the knew or heared of, saw it the same way.

I once had a loved one, until fate struck. We knew from all beginning on we were meant for each other, from the first seconds on. But still - we were determined to share our lives and stay together. But we never would have married. Financial aspects and benefits we did not concern ourselves too much with. On children, we were not sure back then. But still. Two people can happily live together - and simply do not care for marriage status at all. So why this fuzz about it all? But where you give privilieges to social relations, it should be for said relation being of any posiive effect for the community that justiofies these priviliges. And for singles and working colleagues, dog owners and student mates, gay couples and pedestriansd in the park I just do not see that kind of communal profit. I am nothing speciual. A single or couple gay is nothing special. But a family is. and since family is in tro9h ble and birth rates as well, we need to sow incentives a bit. Not that silly and ifnantile like German family minmister has tried it two years ago - and spectacularly failed in increasing birth rates - but by a more deep-rooting change in misled, ill-going cultural developements.

What the heck is so difficult with that? I say : stop making a big issue of gays, leave them alone and let them live their lives peacefully like everybody else. Stop the show. Stop the posturing.

Don't taunt, don't flaunt. True for the gay issue. And for so many others as well. Live and let live.

[Takeda Shingen]

I am not saying that you are looking to 'cure' homosexuality, Sky. However, the core of your argument hinges on the belief that preventing homosexuals from marrying with cause birth rates to rise. This is simply not the case. Again, these people are already gay. They have not had children. They will not be having children. Continuing to prevent them from marrying does not and will not raise birth rates for any nation. Nothing changes that fact. Also, no rights are being taken from hetrosexual couples. The pact of marriage in which a heterosexual couple may enter for sake of species propagation (a very bleak view, if you ask me, but it is your view) remains unaffected for those partaking in it. No heterosexual families are broken up. No heteresexual couples are denied a marriage license.

And really nobody sees a link between the systemtic devaluing of "family", and falling birth rates?

No, can't see it.
But then as again your "systematic devaluing" doesn't really exist it would be hard to see.

you need to question mathematics itself if you want to question them

Not in the slightest, the only thing in question is the very questionable way in which Sky is taking numbers and making crazy claims about what they mean.

I once had a loved one, until fate struck.

And sadly this event might have been what tipped you over the edge into your well illustrated insanity.

What the heck is so difficult with that?

Very little of those arguement makes any sense, and what bits do make sense contradict the cores of your argument.

BTW was anyone just waiting for his "I knew two gays at school and they said.....""

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I am not saying that you are looking to 'cure' homosexuality, Sky. However, the core of your argument hinges on the belief that preventing homosexuals from marrying with cause birth rates to rise.

No, thatz is a simplification. It is about protecting a status of an institution that exists probaaly not without reasons since centuries and millenias, first as a lose form of living together, later further institutionalised. And the likelihood of birthrates has something to do with the wide acceptance this model has found.

The damage gets done by relativising something that has an outstanding importance and value, making it less outstanding while it remaisn to be important. That way, be become more ignorrant of something important, even start to deny the relevance of said importance. The institution of family is under fire since deacdes, and thus it slowly declined, falls apart, gets marginalsied. Some want it due to their hate ion the churches doghma. Some want it because their left idoelogy demands them to form hman colel,ctives where an indepednently exiosting social community like a family is seen as a thread from individuality to the model of collective that leftist ideas in the end all want. Then there are those who think profit interests and a maximisation of mechniamkjs that tailor humans to the needs of the economy, overrule natural features of humans and demographics relevancies of ciommunity. ASnd then there are the gender-m,ainstreamers for whom the mother-role is an offence of women and for whom the denying of any psychological differences in both sexes is just a tool to push not only equal rights for women, but to declare total arbiotrariness of formiung gender idntiies in no longer males and females but just neutral humans that are not male or female by nature, but by social learning exclusively. In other words, it is about control and ideology.

and then we wonder why the frustration tolerance for problems in patrtnerships is declining, couples marry and separate carelessly, and people think about their own party-life and career first, raising families second - if at all? Mothers get offended by calling them not mothers anymore (since that now is sexual discrimination), males must behave as if they are not male, but as typically female as women are, any typöical charactersoics in bahviour between young boys and girls get more and more disalowed and supressed in education and school, a systemtic education towards uncompetitiveness takes over, an infantilisation should cure the egoism of the 80's juppies, and lacking fighting spirit even leads to competitive team sports and martial arts getting banned in some European schools occasionally...

Have we all lost our marbles?

No, thatz is a simplification. It is about protecting a status of an institution that exists probaaly not without reasons since centuries and millenias, first as a lose form of living together, later further institutionalised. And the likelihood of birthrates has something to do with the wide acceptance this model has found

What a pile of rubbish, the development of formalised marriage and the increasing roles and rulings from established authorities is over finances not birthrates.
The whole history of changes in western europe can be put down to business and nothing else, after all it is a business transaction, the objections and wranglings over parental consent would be a prime example as both the bride and groom are family assets and the union of the two families has financial and social implications on all involved and many more besides.

[Betonov]

You actually told me they shouldn't have Now I'm offended