Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

and you reasoning against that action is....?

Are you actually asking me what my reasoning is against banning red heads from breeding?

Does this mean you would support a law that banned people who are likely to have red headed children breeding, due to the children having a higher chance of being bullied?

 

[Tisme]

Sure they'll get picked on, but bullies will always find ways and means. We can't ban gay couples from having kids because the kids might be bullied - teach those kids how to deal with bullies, or make certain the school principal talks to them about it.

To say gay couples shouldn't have kids because of this and that is like saying poor people shouldn't have kids, then prescribe that only those with x income could have y number of kids because kids costs money. Plenty of kids from poor family do perfectly fine without the private schools, trips to the zoo and summer holidays by the coast.

Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society? Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe. Imagine how far we could have leapt if we hadn't been shackled by political correctness and vilification laws, instead we have the brakes on and a public more like public servants than innovators and free thinkers.

 

[Tisme]

Are you actually asking me what my reasoning is against banning red heads from breeding?

Does this mean you would support a law that banned people who are likely to have red headed children breeding, due to the children having a higher chance of being bullied?

Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing that doesn't have a volatile temper and require anti-perspirant in a crowd scene. Now that's a good use for science intervention

 

[Tisme]

Interesting attitude by Ms Rosalie Ber:

The introduction of contraceptive technologies hasresulted in the separation of sex and procreation. Theintroduction of new reproductive technologies (mainlyIVF and embryo transfer) has led not only to theseparation of procreation and sex, but also to there-definition of the terms mother and family.For the purpose of this essay, I will distinguishbetween:1. the genetic mother – the donor of the egg;2. the gestational mother – she who bears and gives birth to the baby;3. the social mother – the woman who raises the child.This essay will deal only with the form of gestationalsurrogacy in which the genetic parents intend to bethe social parents, and the surrogate mother has nogenetic relationship to the child she bears anddelivers. I will raise questions regarding medicalethical aspects of surrogacy and the obligation(s) ofthe physician(s) to the parties involved. I will arguethat the gestational surrogate is “a womb to rent,”that there is great similarity between gestationalcommercial surrogacy and organ transplant marketing.Furthermore, despite claims to freedom of choice andfree marketing, I will claim that gestationalsurrogacy is a form of prostitution and slavery,exploitation of the poor and needy by those who arebetter off. The right to be a parent, although notconstitutional, is intuitive and deeply rooted.However, the issue remains whether this rightoverrules all other rights, and at what price to theparties involved. I will finally raise the followingprovocative question to society: In the interim periodbetween today's limited technology and tomorrow'sextra-corporeal gestation technology (ectogenesis),should utilizing females in PVS (persistent vehetativestate) for gestational surrogacy be sociallyacceptable/permissible – provided they have leftpermission in writing?

 

[SirRumpole]

That's the same argument used against interracial marriages in the 60's.

You shouldn't ban things because parts of society are bigoted, otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.

That's a simplistic argument that ignores all the other good reasons why children raised by homosexuals are at a disadvantage to other children.

Add it all up, and on balance it's better to have a mother and father than two mothers or two fathers. Gays want to have children so they can pretend that they are the same as everyone else. In a lot of ways they are, but not when it comes to raising children.

 

[luutzu]

Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society? Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe. Imagine how far we could have leapt if we hadn't been shackled by political correctness and vilification laws, instead we have the brakes on and a public more like public servants than innovators and free thinkers.

A country is only as rich as its poorest, only as strong as its weakest

If we want to live in a civil society, live among others, we ought to care for those others we live among. Why live in society, drawing strength and efficiency and protection that an ordered and organised group often give... and then ignore the need of the few and the weak among that group?

I mean, we're all selfish and self-serving so it doesn't need much to tell people to just look out for number one. But the great leap forward is not of much use if it leave many of its own behind.

This is not just wishy washy leftist (socialist, noco?) propaganda, it make a lot of economic as well as moral and civilised sense.

Marriage equality is great progress to me.

 

[Value Collector]

Once again you advocate making society change its instinctive and intuitive norms to suit the aberrant behaviours of the few. How does that progress society?

How is anyone asking society to change?

Except for maybe asking them to stop being bigots, but that's a good thing.

Tolerance does not automatically equate to good for the tribe

.

Yes it does, Society is better today because it is more tolerant. Society is better because we let Blacks into universities, and we don't stone gays.

Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing

No, the idea of banning read heads has no merit, and I the existence of so many gorgeous red heads mean I would be against it, lol

 

[luutzu]

Well....you must admit there could be some merit in the idea ...maybe we can mutate them into something more appealing that doesn't have a volatile temper and require anti-perspirant in a crowd scene. Now that's a good use for science intervention

oi, you might be upsetting Prince Harry. He's here flying around in our jets for some reason.

 

[Value Collector]

That's a simplistic argument that ignores all the other good reasons why children raised by homosexuals are at a disadvantage to other children.

.

All of the arguments against gay marriage have been simplistic, infact none of them actually confront gay marriage at all.

I don't really see the children as being disadvantaged, especially when the other option is not existing at all.

Lets say we spoke to you, 2 hours before your conception and we said.

"Look Rumpole, things are happening on earth and it looks like its possible you might get a chance to be born and live, but here's the thing, the genes that make you up are in two eggs, not a sperm and an egg. The only way you will be born is if the lesbian woman owning one egg has it fertilized with the chromosomes from her wife's egg, so you have a chance at life, but only if you have two mothers, did you want us to go ahead with it?"

If given that option, would you take your chance at life or be happy to fade away and never exist.

 

[SirRumpole]

"Look Rumpole, things are happening on earth and it looks like its possible you might get a chance to be born and live, but here's the thing, the genes that make you up are in two eggs, not a sperm and an egg. The only way you will be born is if the lesbian woman owning one egg has it fertilized with the chromosomes from her wife's egg, so you have a chance at life, but only if you have two mothers, did you want us to go ahead with it?"

If given that option, would you take your chance at life or be happy to fade away and never exist.

That's a spurious nonsensical argument.

People don't get the choice whether to exist or not, but at a suitable age they can compare their lot in life with their peers and ask themselves if they got a better deal or not.

If children of homosexuals would have preferred to have been bought up by heterosexuals (all else being equal), then they obviously feel deprived in some way and would, if they had any compassion would not want others to be bought up that way.

 

[Purple XS2]

It may be true that our society has to some extent separated sex from procreation.
But to suggest we embrace the notion of asexual procreation as the equal of a formalised sexual relationship - marriage - is a notion that I simply do not believe has widespread support.

Easily tested of course: hold a plebiscite. After all, the homosexual rights / asexual procreation movement both believes in democracy, and has overwhelming public support, which is why they at the forefront of calls for a plebiscite ... oh ... they're not. Now why is that, I wonder?

 

[Value Collector]

That's a spurious nonsensical argument.

People don't get the choice whether to exist or not, but at a suitable age they can compare their lot in life with their peers and ask themselves if they got a better deal or not.

If children of homosexuals would have preferred to have been bought up by heterosexuals (all else being equal), then they obviously feel deprived in some way and would, if they had any compassion would not want others to be bought up that way.

It's not a nonsensical argument, you are effectively saying that you don't want anyone who is not made of DNA from a woman and man to exist, you are saying they would be better off not existing than to have two fathers or two mothers.

To say they may look at them selves later and say, "well I would have rathered those parents, instead of these one's" is nonsensical because non of us can choose our parents, we either have the parents we have, or we don't exist.

We all get different lots in life, some rich some poor, some black some white, etc it's not different having gay parents


but humour me for a moment, what would have been your answer? Would you prefer nonexistence?

 

[SirRumpole]

but humour me for a moment, what would have been your answer? Would you prefer nonexistence?

I said your argument is nonsensical and it is, because in order to answer your question of whether I wanted to exist, I would already have to exist, otherwise I couldn't answer your question.

You seem to have tied yourself into a logical knot there old chap .

 

[pixel]

I had always thought that the proliferation of gays and lesbians was Nature's way to curb overpopulation. With the world on the brink of collapse because of lacking food, resources, living space - wouldn't that be preferable to putting more and more kids into the world, only to let them starve, die in squalor, or blow themselves and others up in the name of a fictitious deity that seems to love carnage?

 

[Value Collector]

I said your argument is nonsensical and it is, because in order to answer your question of whether I wanted to exist, I would already have to exist, otherwise I couldn't answer your question.

You seem to have tied yourself into a logical knot there old chap .

lol, I am not in a logical knot, you just seem to be avoiding the question. It seems like an easy enough question to answer, I think you are just avoiding it because if you give the honest truth, which Would be that you would rather exist with gay parents than not exist at all, your entire argument against gays having children breaks down.

 

[Value Collector]

I had always thought that the proliferation of gays and lesbians was Nature's way to curb overpopulation. With the world on the brink of collapse because of lacking food, resources, living space - wouldn't that be preferable to putting more and more kids into the world, only to let them starve, die in squalor, or blow themselves and others up in the name of a fictitious deity that seems to love carnage?

Nah, gays have nothing to do with over population, they exist within all populations.

All it takes to reduce the population is for every couple that wants kids, to have no more than two children, if that was the case, the population would drift downward.

 

[Tink]

An article I posted last year.

Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...or-rights-of-donor-conceived-children/5661090

http://donorconceived.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/lauren-burns-donor-conceived.html

 

[SirRumpole]

lol, I am not in a logical knot, you just seem to be avoiding the question. It seems like an easy enough question to answer, I think you are just avoiding it because if you give the honest truth, which Would be that you would rather exist with gay parents than not exist at all, your entire argument against gays having children breaks down.

There is no point in answering your question because you do not offer a choice that could exist in reality. No one has the option to choose whether or not they exist and under what conditions.

The proposition you put is an absurdity and therefore not worthy of an answer.

The question that those of us who do exist have to decide is whether gay parenting provides any advantage, or at least no disadvantage to children that heterosexual parenting, all else being equal gives. I think I and others have given several good reasons why it foes not.

 

[Tisme]

A country is only as rich as its poorest, only as strong as its weakest

.

I think the trap here is thinking that somehow we have been moving to an enlightenment, when I fact we should probably look behind us and see what we have left behind or brought along with us. Australia was not the cultural backwater many pointy heads would have us believe and we have consistently been a benefactor nation to the poor surrounding us, a net +ve migration country, shown strong restraint in putting up with waves of old world cultures with their pagan hoodoos, even allowing them to create ghetto enclaves to hide in and set up "communities" (which I totally do not subscribe to).

Back a few generations we cared about who, what and where, but it seems these days we are more concerned about not getting involved. We have been carefully crafted to agree to anything that was customarily a taboo as out moded thinking. We have even have laws to force us to agree. What is happening is an extension of the way we sit idly by and allow the Catholic Church manage priests into pedophilia, which male on male is homosexuality, which is ironically anti Christian, no two ways about it.

No one is going to stop some men sticking their penis into another man's effluent pipe, but I don't see how that translates to special privileges because of it. Society is a majority thing and I doubt very much society agrees being verballed by a vocal minority. IMO the entertainment industry and social media has much to blame for the desensitisation of the latest generations to accepted no go zones; the few have a disproportionately big voice . Even discussion boards have become places where people no longer speak frankly and freely, but are now vehicles for individuals to get all hurt and bent out of shape because someone doesn't agree with them and their push agenda (usually looking for validation of their insecure conscience).

There is no doubt in the near future children will be gratuitously, but legally conceived for the pleasure of homosexuals wanting to role play mum and dad. And with it will be a plethora of movies and magazine propaganda to wash our concerns away. Even homosexuals who think the gay marriage and gay parenting thing is a sham will saddle up to the tribe of bothers and sisters because they must.

Because others repetitively asserts they agree with things that go against one's instinct doesn't make that instinct wrong, if anything it galvanises one's resolve. I am steadfast in believing marriage is an invention patented for hetrosexual couples (likely to earn a few shillings for the friars and monks) and it should not be tinkered with. Personally I don't think people should marry unless they intend to start a family, but that's my view. I have major problems with allowing women to become breeding heifers and cows for the pleasure of others ; I have a major problem with IVF outside of couples who would otherwise be fertile if not for injury; I have major concerns genetically manipulating conception and; I have really gigantic concerns for the deliberate breeding/concept of children to be involuntary placed/stuck with parents who live at the fringes of society and social norms who lack the paternal and maternal drives that would steer them into procreating as our bodies are designed.

 

[Value Collector]

An article I posted last year.

Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...or-rights-of-donor-conceived-children/5661090

http://donorconceived.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/lauren-burns-donor-conceived.html

But again Tink, what doe this have to do with Gay marriage?