Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Again, what rights are being retracted by allowing gay marriage? Who is losing their way of life?

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.

So now allowing gay marriage will eliminate all gender roles? It has been proven time and time again that homosexual parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents in raising their children. Those children are perfectly well-adjusted.

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...

So you are now laying divorce rates on homosexual marriage as well?

Have we all lost our marbles?

No, not all of us.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...

Ok, I can't really add much to what I've already said, and what Tak's & Tribesman have already said, but I will point out that you're completely rambling now. What sort of mental acrobatics do you need to go through to connect gay marriage to the banning of high school athletics. I think your argument has gone off the rails somewhere.

[MH]

Wow Sky you get creepy sometimes.
I'm with you about some of the "mainstreaming" but your logic is flawed somewhat unless you put all of this in the same basket-which you cant or dont have to.
You can't live just by some cold logic-you have to be human as well....

On the bright side let gays get married adopt children instead of pretending to be straight.
It may cause the genome to go extinct (i'm hypocrite lol)

[Armistead]

Sky seems to be clear, the more rights you deny gays the better off the world will be. I suspect a few million gay couples live together as married, the question is why deny them the benefits of marriage, property rights, medical rights, parental rights, etc...

Being single has nothing to do with it, you have the right to get married as would a gay single person.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

...the question is why deny them the benefits of marriage, property rights, medical rights, parental rights, etc..

I don't think Sky or anyone else is trying to deny benefits to gay couples. All of that was offered freely, they just wanted to call it civil unions.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think Sky or anyone else is trying to deny benefits to gay couples. All of that was offered freely, they just wanted to call it civil unions.

Did you actually read the argument? That is not what he was saying at all. And yet, you agreed with it couple of pages back.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Again, what rights are being retracted by allowing gay marriage? Who is losing their way of life?

SIGH.

A privilege of somebody can be eroded in two ways. Either the privilige gets denied to the priviliged, which is a rejection, or the unprivileged gets the same privilige, that is a relativization.

You have noted that I talked of the latter, the relativisation, yes? I must ask this, because when reading the smae questosn again and again I must conclude that people simply do not read what I say.

So now allowing gay marriage will eliminate all gender roles?

Please show were I said that. In fact, what I indicated is that the politically correct debate about gay marriages is just one symptom, or one mission embedded in a greater cultural developement, of which gender mainstreaming also is a part, and the erosion of the priviliged status of the family institution. I also gave several reasons why the family is desired to be abandoned as a social model, from various lobbies, serving several different interests when destroying it.

It has been proven time and time again that homosexual parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents in raising their children. Those children are perfectly well-adjusted.

That is not that clear at all, and has been quesitoned already in the late 80s in materials short before I started to study. A gay man is not a mother, and a lesbian woman is not a father. If a female mother and a male father is missing in a children's life, certain gender role models are missing in his experience of family life. It is naive to assume that this always has no consequences in the developement of the childs character. Yes, when the father gets killed in a war or the mnother just leaves the father alone, the remaning parent can raise the kids, and it will survive, and must not necessarily turn into a mnaiac. But the materials I rember to have stumbled over -unsystemtically - in the past 20 years, often indicate that there are changes in the statistical patterns of probabilities for later "symptoms" in the subject's social and sexual life. And maybe you have taken note of that just two or three weeks ago a group of I trhink British scientists showed a study that presented evidence that little children being taken away from parents and put into a kindergarten at too young an age, at their schooldays were overrepresented in categories like social agression, concentration and attention deficits, and problems in learning behaviour.

Is it really that surprising when I claim that what you get out of the box depends on what you put into the box before? Yes, a kid can be risen withoiut a father or a mother. But that should be reserved for cases of "accidental tragedies". Losses, deaths, divorces. It should not be declared a norm that is arbiotrarily to be impklemented ion children thzat could also be given to intact families. The tragic expocetion of missing parentsa - is nothing to be desirable or to be declared as a natural normality that does not effect the psychologic constitution. It does.

And is that really that much a surprise?

Mind you, claiming the total arbitrariness of gender roles and the total disconnection fro biological and social factors as well, is in the interest of quite some opinion lobbies like those I mentioned in an earlier reply. Functional traditional family structures are an obstacle for quite some of these lobbying ideologists, due to the natural immunity, at least resistence, to foreign influence they enable the kid to develope. What lbbies liek those I mentioned do not want is the independent, strong indovidual that does not need said lobbies and refuses.

We live in an era of a giant re-educaiton program. A giant social engineering experiment.

So you are now laying divorce rates on homosexual marriage as well?

Could you precisely demonstrate where I should have said that in what wording? Where have I said that gay marriages cause a raise, or even the very existence of divorce rates?

I know I do a lot of typos, out of speedtyping and carelessness. But is my English wording and grammar really this bad as well..?

---

Okay, I understand that this is all just an excercise in futility. Bye everyone. No hard feelings, Tak.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No hard feelings, Tak.

No hard feelings what-so-ever. You're on of my favorite people on SubSim.

[soopaman2]

It is not about civil unions/Marraige...

It is about being "classified differently."
Usually religious reasons are cited in con arguments.

Aesops fables are as valid a source as the bible, q'ran or Torah... I seen no proof any of those books haters love to quote being any more true than Aesop, or the Twilight trilogy.

[CaptainHaplo]

Giving someone the same rights as another group - ie civil unions vs marriage - is about being "classified differently"?

What?

I thought it was about having equal rights. Now its about labels? Make up your mind.

[mookiemookie]

[August]

So what you're claiming is that marriages have refrigeration and Civil Unions do not?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

So what you're claiming is that marriages have refrigeration and Civil Unions do not?

All I have to add, is I'm glad there's nothing more important to worry about, like say, the economy or Iran. Must be getting close to election time.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

All I have to add, is I'm glad there's nothing more important to worry about, like say, the economy or Iran. Must be getting close to election time.

So what you are saying is that you consider civil rights to be alongside the arts on the list of fluff that can be dealt with once we have 0% unemployment and world peace.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So what you are saying is that you consider civil rights to be alongside the arts on the list of fluff that can be dealt with once we have 0% unemployment and world peace.

So what you're saying is the choice is either one extreme or the other.

You seems to equal redefinition of the historical meaning of marriage (man-woman) with the right of people to speak or keep and bear arms.

So of course to you anyone who says that maybe we ought to concentrate on more important stuff right now is obviously a hater of freedom and the American way.