Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I think that someone should eliminate bullying from schools. It shouldn't happen anyway.
Same-sex marriages in Sweden
- Thread starter victor
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Irrelevant. I'm talking about how this is going to greatly increase the kids chances of being the kid that you see at school that gets picked on by everyone else.
Anyway, I'm not saying never. I'm saying not within the next 10-20 years. Society just doesn't seem ready for it yet.
Anyway, I'm not saying never. I'm saying not within the next 10-20 years. Society just doesn't seem ready for it yet.
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Not irrelevant, since having to take thins into consideration is a clear signal that schools fail at providing security to its students.Specialist said:
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Someone said that having homosexual parents may increase the chance of being a victim of bullies.
I say that it's irrelevant, because bullying in schools is a problem no matter of reason and needs to be eliminated anyway.
I say that it's irrelevant, because bullying in schools is a problem no matter of reason and needs to be eliminated anyway.
True, but there are things you can do to eliminate the chance of being bullied. For example you wouldn't dress your (male) kid up in womens clothes and send him to school. Just as you wouldn't put make up on the kid, or buy him the ugliest glasses you can find if their eyesight isn't very good. Parents do what they can to eliminate the chances of their kid being bullied, not increase it.
I went to school in womens clothes once...
I'm not sure what that has to do with gay marriage, but oh well.
Uhhh... I do think the bullying point, while somewhat important in some places, should be a non-issue when considering the legality of something like this. Striving for sameness in every kids childhood is hardly a worthwhile goal.
I'm not sure what that has to do with gay marriage, but oh well.
Uhhh... I do think the bullying point, while somewhat important in some places, should be a non-issue when considering the legality of something like this. Striving for sameness in every kids childhood is hardly a worthwhile goal.
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Yeah to me it sounds like classical case of blaming the victim. Otherwise it would be advised for children to drink alcohol, smoke and have sex as early as its possible in order to avoid bullying 
.
.I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the parents. That's what the whole thing is about. Just as dressing your kid up in female clothes will increase the chance of him being bullied, or putting make up on him or buying him the ugliest clothes/glasses you can fine, having same-sex married parents will do increase the chances of the kid being bullied. Who'd honestly want to INCREASE the chance of their kid being bullied?
Look, I'm not saying that there's any legal or scientific reason for it not to happen, I'm saying society isn't ready for it yet.
Look, I'm not saying that there's any legal or scientific reason for it not to happen, I'm saying society isn't ready for it yet.
Isn't the family supposed to emulate the state at a more individual, personal level? I remember i've heard this theory in philosophy class... If it is true, than all you have to do to a society is destroy the concept of family in order to control that society.
I sincerealy believe that a kid was meant to grow up with a male and a female, not because of religious motives, but because of purely biological, evolutionary ones: no same sex couple could have had children naturally any-time, so it is unlikely that a child can adapt to having two same sex parents who are also emotionally involved with each other. It's not about the bullying and the social stigma of such a kid (its not his fault after all) it's about how that kid would develop emotionally and what effect will his parents' relationship have on him while he's growing up.
I sincerealy believe that a kid was meant to grow up with a male and a female, not because of religious motives, but because of purely biological, evolutionary ones: no same sex couple could have had children naturally any-time, so it is unlikely that a child can adapt to having two same sex parents who are also emotionally involved with each other. It's not about the bullying and the social stigma of such a kid (its not his fault after all) it's about how that kid would develop emotionally and what effect will his parents' relationship have on him while he's growing up.
With all due respect, you can talk about "naturally" while sitting there under the protection of a complex socially enforced governmental organism in a weather-sealed, climate-controlled box and sending your thoughts out as electronic impulses to a forum that doesn't physically exist, via a machine made from dozens of minerals and chemicals pried from the guts of the earth and rehashed into forms so foreign to nature that they're poison to it? I'm afraid that there's next to nothing natural about our society, my friend.
NATURAL would be one male, one female, one child, and one cave (and even then, biologists have recorded instances of hot XXX gay monkey on monkey action)... "Natural" would be for an orphaned or abandoned child to die painfully and alone. Thankfully, natural's not what we've got. We have to deal with what we DO have, which is a giant mess of our own making. A small part of that mess is a bunch of gay people that can't have the kids they want, and a WHOLE bunch of straight assholes having too many kids and not being able to raise them.
Simple time. Supply and demand. There are a lot of kind, loving homosexual couples out there that have the means (and the deep, deep yearning) to care for-- pamper, even-- a child or two, or four. I don't have the statistics offhand, but I'm pretty sure that, stigma or no, kids that grow up in stable, loving same sex parentage households do better than kids that grow up in orphanages or foster care, by and large.
(Edit: PUNCTUATION, dammit! /anal)
NATURAL would be one male, one female, one child, and one cave (and even then, biologists have recorded instances of hot XXX gay monkey on monkey action)... "Natural" would be for an orphaned or abandoned child to die painfully and alone. Thankfully, natural's not what we've got. We have to deal with what we DO have, which is a giant mess of our own making. A small part of that mess is a bunch of gay people that can't have the kids they want, and a WHOLE bunch of straight assholes having too many kids and not being able to raise them.
Simple time. Supply and demand. There are a lot of kind, loving homosexual couples out there that have the means (and the deep, deep yearning) to care for-- pamper, even-- a child or two, or four. I don't have the statistics offhand, but I'm pretty sure that, stigma or no, kids that grow up in stable, loving same sex parentage households do better than kids that grow up in orphanages or foster care, by and large.
(Edit: PUNCTUATION, dammit! /anal)
I've known a same-sex couple raising a young boy, and at the time I'd say he was very emotionally stable. There's no reason for me to think he no longer is. At the very least, he had escaped most of the social bullshit attached to gender roles. None of this "Getcher ass out there on th' football field and be a MAN, my son!" crapola. In that area, that's a leg up in my view.
I said biologically, not naturally, possible. No same sex couple could've had kids in the history of mankind. This means that although biologically same sex couples can exist, as you said, homosexuality exists in the natural world, these couples were not meant to have children (which they never did).
There are even more heterosexual couples that can't have children and can adopt a kid. However, some gay couples may be able to have children through genetic manipulation - in the near future - or by insemination if they are lesbian couples. What i am saying is that just because they are gay it doesn't imply that they're gonna want to adopt a child, maybe they'll want to have one somehow, so that demand that you talk about is not that large.
All in all i guess a unbiased study would be required, however i am guessing that no one would attempt a study in the western world because of pressure from sexual-minority groups.
welsh
Junkmaster
Blakut- Not sure what philosophy class you have but whoever your teacher was, he's an asshole.
Why? Because people have been having families long before societies created states. States, as we define them today, are fairly modern creation. Before then you had empire, city-states, stateless societies and a variety of other forms of political organization for social collective action.
And guess what? People were fucking back then too.
Also this idea that marriage is strictly a religious institution that states should stay out of- Utter Bullshit.
The legal consequences of marriage generally outweight in real terms the religious consequences. In many cases, the state can address the inequalities suggested by religion through state intervention. For example a Muslim man has an easy time divorcing a wife, leaving wives with few opportunities to support themselves- leaving them in poverty or into a life of prostitution. In the US, wives have legal rights in the marriage based on the obligations contracted for in the marriage vow.
The importance of marriage as a civil and legal contract are huge- these go to anything from the right of your spouse to act as your representative, especially when you are incapacitated. It is a fundamental element of modern domestic relations law as it is in inheritence and estate law. One even can confide secrets in the wife that they could not with other individuals. It is, in the US and other countries, essential to the fundamental right to have and raise families.
Those who think marriage does matter are either fools or uninformed.
The question of gay marriage is not about whether your kid will get his ass kicked in school. Plenty of kids get their asses kicked in school for many reasons. Nor is it about the heterosexual couples who wish to adopt- in any event there are plenty of kids who need to be adopted and are not.
Its not about whether gay marriage contradicts your thoughts about what is natural. Fuck you and your assumptions about what is natural. Animals often have homosexual relations and there the evidence of whether humans choose a gay life is due to choice or genetics is at best inconclusive. Furthermore, even if it was proven that gays become gays because they want to, it should not impact their right to marry.
Marriage is a civil right protected by law. The denial of that right to someone based on their personal choice on who they wish to spend their lives with is no justification for denying them a right.
It doesn't matter if homosexual doesn't jive with your religion, because your fucking religion does not have the right to determine anyone's civil rights. You get to vote and you can vote on your religion. Likewise the court has the right to overturn legislation consistent with your religious feelings because it violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of our constitution.
Sorry, but I could give a fuck about your religion and fuck you if you think your religion has the power to replace my constitution. Sorry, but the constitution is the highest law in the land, not your fucking book of bullshit superstition.
As for this all natural order bullshit- get your head out of the flimsy social darwinism. Two guys who want to fuck each other in the ass is probably not going to stop most guys from wanting to fuck women. So generally, our species will do just fine.
Why? Because people have been having families long before societies created states. States, as we define them today, are fairly modern creation. Before then you had empire, city-states, stateless societies and a variety of other forms of political organization for social collective action.
And guess what? People were fucking back then too.
Also this idea that marriage is strictly a religious institution that states should stay out of- Utter Bullshit.
The legal consequences of marriage generally outweight in real terms the religious consequences. In many cases, the state can address the inequalities suggested by religion through state intervention. For example a Muslim man has an easy time divorcing a wife, leaving wives with few opportunities to support themselves- leaving them in poverty or into a life of prostitution. In the US, wives have legal rights in the marriage based on the obligations contracted for in the marriage vow.
The importance of marriage as a civil and legal contract are huge- these go to anything from the right of your spouse to act as your representative, especially when you are incapacitated. It is a fundamental element of modern domestic relations law as it is in inheritence and estate law. One even can confide secrets in the wife that they could not with other individuals. It is, in the US and other countries, essential to the fundamental right to have and raise families.
Those who think marriage does matter are either fools or uninformed.
The question of gay marriage is not about whether your kid will get his ass kicked in school. Plenty of kids get their asses kicked in school for many reasons. Nor is it about the heterosexual couples who wish to adopt- in any event there are plenty of kids who need to be adopted and are not.
Its not about whether gay marriage contradicts your thoughts about what is natural. Fuck you and your assumptions about what is natural. Animals often have homosexual relations and there the evidence of whether humans choose a gay life is due to choice or genetics is at best inconclusive. Furthermore, even if it was proven that gays become gays because they want to, it should not impact their right to marry.
Marriage is a civil right protected by law. The denial of that right to someone based on their personal choice on who they wish to spend their lives with is no justification for denying them a right.
It doesn't matter if homosexual doesn't jive with your religion, because your fucking religion does not have the right to determine anyone's civil rights. You get to vote and you can vote on your religion. Likewise the court has the right to overturn legislation consistent with your religious feelings because it violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of our constitution.
Sorry, but I could give a fuck about your religion and fuck you if you think your religion has the power to replace my constitution. Sorry, but the constitution is the highest law in the land, not your fucking book of bullshit superstition.
As for this all natural order bullshit- get your head out of the flimsy social darwinism. Two guys who want to fuck each other in the ass is probably not going to stop most guys from wanting to fuck women. So generally, our species will do just fine.
I would have worded all that a bit differently, but you have kind of summed up my attitude toward the matter.
I'm accustomed to people being vocal over their religious beliefs (or any and all others, I'm not just picking on religious folks). I do wonder why a person can't be satisfied that if I'm wrong and HAVE been supportive of evil things, I'll go to hell. Then they can sit on their cloud and holler down "neener neener, I told you so!" Do they believe THEY'LL go to hell if they don't campaign against it?
It just seems like such an trivial matter what kind of plumbing a couple has. What you've got in your pants is not the most important thing about you. How good a partner/parent/person you are seems more relevant to the issue.
I'm accustomed to people being vocal over their religious beliefs (or any and all others, I'm not just picking on religious folks). I do wonder why a person can't be satisfied that if I'm wrong and HAVE been supportive of evil things, I'll go to hell. Then they can sit on their cloud and holler down "neener neener, I told you so!" Do they believe THEY'LL go to hell if they don't campaign against it?
It just seems like such an trivial matter what kind of plumbing a couple has. What you've got in your pants is not the most important thing about you. How good a partner/parent/person you are seems more relevant to the issue.
Of course, and the family was also different then, but there is a connection between how we organize ourselves at a family level and how we organize ourselves at a social level.
Never said it wasn't important...
Proabably.
Hmm, i remember clearly not contradicting the fact that animals had gay relations. And i also remmeber not using the word natural. I was talking about a biological way for same sex couples to procreate. Can you think of a 'natural' way for two men to have a child? I can't, because there isn't one. And by natural i mean biological in the most literal way possible. Buttsex doesn't make one pregnant. However, if gay people had become gay because they want to... why would they do it? Getting married would let them adopt kids? Is it illegal for someone to do that now? I wasn't talking about forbidding them to have a marital contract. The thing i was talking about was adoptions, mostly
Like i said, i am an atheist and i don't think religion has the power to replace constitution, on the other hand, that doesn't make me have to like everything religious people dislike.
It was not the reduction of the species i was worried about. Even if everybody on the planet was gay, men would have to fuck women just not to let the species die. I was asking wether a kid brought up in a gay couple would develop normally. Can you answer that? How?
Christian homo-mariages - NO. It's againts Christian faith just like abortion, so if the Church in Sweden will accept such mariage, then they will loose credibility. Mind that I do not hate\fight homosexuals, I just do not think that they should be allowed everything. The basic rights, like the right to being happy, right to being respected or choosing whatever partner they wish are okay, but letting homosexuals raise children (I know I digress) and take Christian mariages is irresponsible and will lead to no good, in my opinion. We should keep some aspects of our lives conservative, like family, or we will have emotionaly unstable\screwed up mentaly people in our society.
No, I am not a nazi-lover and I do not consider myself better than homosexuals. (I say it just in case, so I won't be accused of anything)
No, I am not a nazi-lover and I do not consider myself better than homosexuals. (I say it just in case, so I won't be accused of anything)
Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty interesting that 3 out of 10 Swedes don't want gays to marry?
I thought the number for the pros would be higher, unless we're talking about church/religious marriage.
It'd be nice to have a link (English, if available) to that article and/or the survey results for some more details. Maybe there's a 'don't know' option that sucked in some votes.
Do us all a favor and be honest instead of this shit.
I thought the number for the pros would be higher, unless we're talking about church/religious marriage.
It'd be nice to have a link (English, if available) to that article and/or the survey results for some more details. Maybe there's a 'don't know' option that sucked in some votes.
You're saying you don't consider yourself better than homosexuals, but you don't think they should have the same rights as you?Ravager69 said:
Do us all a favor and be honest instead of this shit.
PlanHex said:
What makes you think that?
We have lots of religious people, and Racists/Nazis in Sweden.
You're saying you don't consider yourself better than homosexuals, but you don't think they should have the same rights as you?Ravager69 said:
Do us all a favor and be honest instead of this shit.[/quote]
Well put!
welsh said:
I don't know if you are attacking my earlier point, I think you may be, but I never said that marriage was pointless, I said that is SHOULD be pointless. Social contracts should not be state regulated, period. All the legal benefits that the state offers people for being married should be removed, they serve no legitimate purpose that could not be handled in a more prudent manner.
Marriages have no reason why they should be connected to the state. You claim reasons of acting as your second voice, those reasons could be handled by an expanded will. You make asinine statements about womens rights in a marriage, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS IN A MARRIAGE. A womans civil rights should always fully protected, and if they are not than the problem has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with civil inequalities of the government.
I honestly ask you to give me ONE good reason why marriage should be an established government process. One reason that could not be handled by something more orderly and functional like an extended version of a will that states who the spouse is.
Marriage is a matter of personal convictions or personal family or personal social contract and can be handled 100% without the intervention of the state.