Homosexuality

[RookParliament]

ah, but when one loves despite and even those faults, for we are all imperfect and each imperfection creates our individual unique beauty, then that is love. when all the secrets have been revealed, all the faults laid bare, yet still love remains.

Comfort with each other baby, comfort.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Marriage is a mutable social institution, that changes with the times. As always I wish the government would not take it upon themselves to be the "Grand Nanny" to consenting adults.

agreed... what is 'legal' is not always right, or just.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Gay marriage harms no one, so who cares. But on the other hand, I am against gay adoption. IMO, a child needs to have both a female and a male rolemodel in their life, and that is why I believe much of todays problems occur becuase of the absence of both due to long work weeks/overtime and television.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Gay marriage harms no one, so who cares. But on the other hand, I am against gay adoption. IMO, a child needs to have both a female and a male rolemodel in their life, and that is why I believe much of todays problems occur becuase of the absence of both due to long work weeks/overtime and television.

Well.....you kind of knocked your own argument down a notch in the same post. Given the choice, would you rather have a kid raised in an orphanage, or by two men/women?

 

[Kenneth R.]

i think more to the point would be to say parents, regardless of how they came to be parents, should strive to be better role models and endeavor to instruct their children more.

 

[Iridium]

Gay marriage harms the conservative right by shitting on one of their most sacred values. Gay marriage, furthermore, requires the government to grant tax breaks and financial benefits to a group that does not, in turn, benefit society in any way through their union. However, gay marriage opens up a huge market for divorce lawyers who will, no doubt take advantage of this. Gay marriage is an easy thing for straight men to take advantage of: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458898/posts

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Bah.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Homosexuality appears, frankly, to be a mental illness in the classic sense, that is, a maladaptive bio-environmental complex resulting in a defective personality matrix. And, like most such complexes, left to its own devices, nature would select its carriers for extinction (AIDS, anyone?). However, as usual, our "compassionate" society fucks things up by getting in the way, so it may take a deliberate campaign of genocide at some point to reduce rates of homosexuality to acceptable levels.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Gee, thanks a bunch. I would certainly propose that stupid people cause much much more of a drain on society than gay people. Can we exterminate all of them first?

 

[Korona]

Well.....you kind of knocked your own argument down a notch in the same post. Given the choice, would you rather have a kid raised in an orphanage, or by two men/women?

Both do inexcusable violence to the child, but the robbing it of the gender archetypes it needs for healthy development is so far from an ideal situation I lament a society that deems it acceptable (devorce does identical harm, perhaps worse because it ridicules the idea of a stable relationship at the same time). Of course pragmatism is an overriding factor when actual descisions are being made but in principal all three situations are very wrong.

As for marriage, how many people go to a Christian Church to get married and indeed swear before GOD that they will stay together untill death do them part? What the hell is the point in swearing something when it is taken so halfheartedly?! I lament the watering down of this tradition as it is one of the few practices that in a perfect world could remain unchanged.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Gee, thanks a bunch. I would certainly propose that stupid people cause much much more of a drain on society than gay people. Can we exterminate all of them first?

Of course.

Now quit babbling and get in the fucking oven.

 

[Kenneth R.]

As for marriage, how many people go to a Christian Church to get married and indeed swear before GOD that they will stay together untill death do them part? What the hell is the point in swearing something when it is taken so halfheartedly?! I lament the watering down of this tradition as it is one of the few practices that in a perfect world could remain unchanged.

i completely agree.

as for the genocide comment above by Laeth McLaurie, who determines when a sufficient number of people have been killed to reach "acceptable" levels? is there such an acceptable level if you are killing people for this behaviour? why not just kill them all? or is that your acceptable level: 0. it's like 1984 all over again, "are you a communist(gay)?".

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Zero would of course be ideal, but that may be unattainable. Killing as many as possible would be a good start though.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

So if you were in charge of the world you would seriously kill all the gay people, and anyone who you deemed had a "defective personality matrix?"

 

[no country for old wainds]

Wouldn't you?

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

So if you were in charge of the world you would seriously kill all the gay people, and anyone who you deemed had a "defective personality matrix?"

I'd certainly weed out the weak and the disease vectors from my race. I don't really care what blacks, Jews etc. choose to do.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and what if your race deemed you one of them? would you voluntarily kill yourself?

 

[Blod Draum]

Why is it that people can only employ emotional arguments? Is it so that you can SEEM right, instead of actually being correct?

It doesn't matter if the person advocating this sort of measure is deemed unfit to carry on with the rest of the tribe; there will always be others who are better equipped to handle the long-term vision required for the eugenic survival of a tribal group. The individuals involved don't matter, so long as life is preserved and continued for the people who won't destroy everything around them for individual gain, and for the environment itself that provides us and the other trillions of species living on Earth with inhabitable space.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

and what if your race deemed you one of them? would you voluntarily kill yourself?

You can't change the parameters of the question just because you don't like the answer.

The question asked was "If you were in charge..."

 

[Kenneth R.]

Why is it that people can only employ emotional arguments? Is it so that you can SEEM right, instead of actually being correct?

It doesn't matter if the person advocating this sort of measure is deemed unfit to carry on with the rest of the tribe; there will always be others who are better equipped to handle the long-term vision required for the eugenic survival of a tribal group. The individuals involved don't matter, so long as life is preserved and continued for the people who won't destroy everything around them for individual gain, and for the environment itself that provides us and the other trillions of species living on Earth with inhabitable space.

ah, the "greater good" argument. communism attempted such.

You can't change the parameters of the question just because you don't like the answer.

The question asked was "If you were in charge..."

and even if you were in charge, and found yourself unfit by the qualifications of your investigation, what then? you seem to avoid answering it, in preservation of your own life. got news: you aren't the only one who seeks to preserve their own life.