Hydrotoxin: You should learn now that not everyone is worth debating with. Some basis and grounds to be established between people before an convincing arguments can be made. To call you insane isn't fair, but the simple fact remains that I find the fact you refuse to accept the existence of natural rights is a basis of a great deal of philosophy that I believe in. And that all objectivists in our society. So I am sorry I "disappointed" you for leaving this debate. There is a certain line where I am going to bend to opinions of other. This is honestly, for me, equivalent to accepting that all of our laws of physics are just lies and are wrong, so I can't just "cope" to those circumstances.
If you have a vent channel you want to discuss this with me, I will be more than happy to discuss this further with you.
If you have a vent channel you want to discuss this with me, I will be more than happy to discuss this further with you.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
@Smiley: only female gays can reproduce, then. It just isn't practical do have to undergo an expensive and often lengthy screening and medical process as opposed to just screwing and having a kid naturally.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparen.../surrogacy.htm
Any fertile gay couple can have children through these methods. And because the process is relatively expensive and well-regulated, it will encourage only couples who have the resources to provide for children to have them.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
And the parts of society I refer to are a large portion of the U.S. government and conservative officials worldwide- in other words, the people who hold all the cards. While I'm sure a large portion of the population no longer gives a shit, those officials do.
And what will happen in ten years? Twenty? The world has grown increasingly tolerant of gays over the years, what makes you think this isn't changing? Besides, the only way the officials get elected is with the support of some percentage of voters. If that percentage is shrinking, the government will become more tolerant of different sexualities.
Also, you say that your opinion regarding adoption is grounded in logic. Consider the fact that in 2000, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported already having at least one child under the age of 18 living at home. If gays are not allowed to adopt children, children in gay couple households have no legal status should something happen to the parents, including death or serious illness. The child cannot claim inheritances or other household assets in case of death. If one parent dies, the second parent has no legal right to take custody or care for the child. A parent without legal right to a child cannot legally register him/her for school, or make medical decisions for them. With all of that being the case, what is the defense for your stance which seems to lead to a variety of problems?
[Inq]
Need help with anything? Have a question? PM me! I'll try my best to help you.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
@Odlov,
While it's true that denying certain benefits to people based on something as seemingly arbitrary seems "unethical", think of it as a negative incentive of something that society as a whole still very much frowns upon. And for whoever mentioned the unconstitutionality of anti-homosexual laws, do you really think the law treats everyone equally? As much as some would like to think that the law views everything objectively and treats everyone with a general demeanour of egalitarianism, if everyone was equal in all respects, there wouldn't really be much of a need for those laws in the first place, would there?
And America will keep frowning upon homosexuality until the law gives homosexuals equal civil rights. Public opinion is largely shaped by law. Until the law changes, bigots will use it as justification (and fuel), much like they use 'sacred texts' for the same purpose.
Redneck: "Faggot marriage is illegal cuz it's a perversion, nd California law and GOD agrees wit me"
The whole purpose of "social development" thing is to minimize suffering and maximize efficiency. There is no serious drawback to letting gays marry, while not doing so would simply isolate a group and create unrest and hinder efficiency. From your posts it seems you think homosexuality is a strain of flu virus, that will just spread to everyone who grows up around gays. Clearly it's nonsense. Homosexuals are a minority, yet they were always present, even in societies who wouldn't even recognize that such thing existed (Soviet Union, for example). Hardwired sexual orientation > societal influence, always.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
No for marriage and no for adoption.
Marriage: they can't procreate, so they are of no use. While they are capable of being functioning members of society, they serve absolutely no purpose in furthering it in any way, so I see no reason to support it.
Adoption: the child would be ridiculed to no end, and may very well end up hating his adoptive parent due to the endless torment by his peers. In addition, the child may end up being gay himself (unless they've finally proven homosexuality is a genetic defect), which would perpetuate a pointless cycle.
What makes you think people get married just to reproduce?
"Can't see California with Marlon Brando's eyes"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"She isn't real.... Can't make her real"
I agree with Cowmeat, all kids should have a mum. I guess it brings a sense of security to a child. But, then the question of "what about a dad?" pops up.
It's highly debatable.
It's highly debatable.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
