1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Is Western culture being destroyed?

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by I-AM-THAT-I-AM, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    You are not particularly interested in the udhr's definition of family, eh?

    It is the BASIS of marriage's legal impetus. It legitimizes the NATURAL SOCIAL ORDER BY WHICH ALL PEOPLE COME INTO BEING.

    So, one can very well make an argument that apes can care for human children (and everyone can be like tarzan) and it would be entirely irrelevant to marriage as a legal institution.

    Clear?

    In homosexual relationships -- it is the rule rather than the exception, no?

    I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm criticizing you for dishonesty.

    You need not have multiple partners. Merely exposing your penis to fecal matter on a regular basis, not to mention your blood stream is enough to cause infections of biblical proportions.

    You said:

    "If we allow homosexuals to marry, suddenly there would be more married couples - many of whom would turn to adoption to raise children."

    A huge non-sequitur by any reasonable standard.

    Good grief!

    Just because a couple (heterosexual or otherwise) is legally married DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY THEM TO ADOPT A CHILD OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.

    It is explicitly stated there in the uncrc. The best interest of the child is the PRIMARY CONSIDERATION -- specifically, foster parent(s) that can provide continuity to his cultural, religious, (etc) IDENTITY.

    That the prospective foster parents should be married was not even mentioned -- although it logically follows from the above.

    What nonsense.

    Exposure to fecal matter would cause infections. You do not need to get it from somebody else.

    You have been watching too many porn movies if you are suggesting that anal sex is a popular alternative in heterosexual couples. It is popular with gay men only.

    And while it is true that most sexual practices transmit disease, the probability increases with homosexuality. It is not a coincidence that the incidence of aids occurs more among gay men.

    Kindly look at the underscored/bold words in my post. I do that to emphasize a point.

    Adoption is done according TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. The best interests of the child is an environment that would provide CONTINUITY in the childs cultural, religious, etc. IDENTITY.

    To put it simply -- adoption is, by nature, DISCRIMINATORY. In looking after the best interest of the child, NOT ALL PROSPECTIVE FOSTER PARENTS ARE EQUAL. The only thing that is equal is that heterosexual couples are EQUALLY discriminated as homosexual couples.

    Capice?

    Btw, you have a right to pursue your own happiness. The state is not obliged to grant it to you.

    You have failed to understand the uncrc and the udhr. Consequently, your argument is a collection of disjointed non-sequiturs that point to different directions all at once.

    You have made these arguments before. I have roundly refuted every single one of them. What makes you think presenting them again would have a different outcome?
     
  2. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    NO.

    Government exists because society invests its collective will to it. The state governs with the consent of the governed. That is the fundamental principle of democracy.

    You are invoking equality are you not? If homosexuals can't marry, then equality demands that heterosexuals can't marry as well.

    WRONG.

    Women have special rights (motherhood) which comes from the nature of her gender. Using your logic, men should have a right to motherhood as well -- which is logical contradiction.

    Children have special rights owing to their situation. Using your logic, adults should have the rights of children as well -- which is a logical contradiction.
     
  3. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    It is the use of terminology I was talking about. If heterosexuals still want to get together, fine. If they want to call their union "marraige," fine. It is the government that should not call it "marriage" because of the social implications of the term today. There are too many people out there who feel that if heterosexuals should be allowed to get married, so should homosexuals. The word "marriage" is the trigger for this.

    The question is, can you accept the present institution of marriage by another name?
     
  4. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Funny, marriage was around (and was litigated) long before the UDHR was signed.

    This still doesn't mean that homosexuality "caues" sexually-transmitted diseases. Homosexuals are certainly at risk for sexually-transmitted diseases, yes, but the fact remains that they can happen to heterosexuals as well.

    Biblical STDs? There's got to be a joke in there somewhere.

    I'm talking about STDs, numinus. Syphilis. Gonorrhea. Chlamydia. Sexually-transmitted diseases. Social diseases. Whatever you want to call them. You get them by having sex with someone who already has it. The fewer people you have sex with, the less likely you are to catch one.

    You will have to demonstrate how this is a non sequitur. I know plenty of homosexual couples who would like to raise children. It'd be easier for them if they had all the rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Hence, if you allow homosexuals to marry, many who would like to adopt children but are held back by financial concerns would then be able to.

    I didn't say it would "automatically" qualify them to adopt a child; it would just make the whole thing more feasible for them.

    How does placing a child with homosexual parents interfere with that child's identity?

    These statements are unnecessary. Is "civility" just not in your dictionary?

    I know plenty of heterosexual couples who enjoy anal sex on a semi-regular basis. My last girlfriend was fond of it herself, although we never did it (we weren't together very long).

    The only thing that has prevented heterosexual couples from engaging in anal sex is social taboo, and in case you hadn't noticed the traditional social taboos are largely being overrun these days.

    Funny you should mention AIDS. You MUST get HIV from someone else. If the person you're having sex with doesn't carry the HIV virus, you're not going to get HIV. Homosexual sex does not cause AIDS; anal intercourse is one way to trasmit the disease, but anal intercourse is neither a requisite of nor unique to homosexuality. Stop perpetrating this fallacy that homosexuality "causes" sexaully-transmitted diseases.

    So how does leaving a child in the foster care system provide more CONTINUITY and nurture the child's IDENTITY more than adoption by a homosexual couple?
     
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Numinus, what would the negative affects of allowing homosexuals to marry be?
     
  6. Coyote

    Coyote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    No, it is not my suggestion that children vote. But - the age of being able to vote is somewhat arbritrary - dependent on when a culture feels an individual mature enough.

    That's besides the point though - the point was there are logical arguments against universal suffrage and that was one example..
     
  7. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    You have strayed hopelessly far from the point.

    The law does not suffer the ambiguities you seem hell-bent on perpetuating.

    Marriage is an institution governed by LEGAL FORMS AND SUBSTANCE. If you are contemplating on a relationship that does not abide by the legal forms and substance of marriage, then by all means -- have your relationship. JUST DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE.
     
  8. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    So, what's your point? You would rather not have a marital institution governed by laws?

    Good god!

    HOMOSEXUALS ARE AT RISK AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

    If you wish that to sound more academic -- THERE IS A VERY REAL STATISTICAL CORELATION BETWEEN THE INCIDENCE OF DISEASE WITH HOMOSEXUAL EROTICISM.

    I meant plagues described in the bible.

    And I am talking about the hazards on your immune system as a result oif anal sex.

    There it is again!

    They want to raise children. It'd be easier for them blah, blah, blah.

    ADOPTION IS ABOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ADOPT.

    ADOPTION IS NOT ABOUT MAKING IT 'MORE FEASIBLE' FOR THE PROSPECTIVE PARENTS. ITS ABOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

    Do you finally get it?

    That is a determination to be done on a case to case basis -- DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF THE CHILD.

    Sigh

    Are you suggesting anal sex occurs with equal frequency for heterosexual couples as homosexual couples?

    Your suggestions are beyoind the realm of facts and logic.

    I was offering aids as an example since the demographics are very well documented.

    It does not.

    If it did, then there wouldn't be any reason to adopt an orphan, now, would there?
     
  9. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    That's not how it works.

    A law is promulgated for a purpose that would bring about a common good.
     
  10. numinus

    numinus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    Just because the age of majority differs from one country to another does not make the principle of universal suffrage any less logical.
     
  11. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Not with that name.

    Ah. There's the joke.

    But...that's not what I was talking about in the original point you were responding to. So either prove that discouraging promiscuity doesn't decrease the incidence of STDs (like, for instance, AIDS) or we can stop discussing sexual practices.

    1. It is in the best interests of the child to be adopted.

    2. It is in the best interests of the child that those who wish to adopt have the means to do so.

    You alluded to the idea that having homosexual parents would be potentially damaging to a child's identity. Now prove it.

    Equal frequency is not necessary.

    And I was offering AIDS as an example because it illustrates my point. If you have unprotected sex with someone who doesn't have AIDS - you're not going to get AIDS! You're putting yourself at other risks, but not at risk to recieve HIV.

    About 1 in 100 people in the US have AIDS. The more people you have sex with, the more likely you are to eventually hit someone who carries the virus (even unknowingly). That is when you get AIDS. The act of sex doesn't "cause" the disease, it transmits it from a priorly-infected source. Transmission of such diseases goes down if promiscuity is discouraged.

    That was my original point. Either address that point or we can stop talking about sexual practices now.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

    I believe you just admitted that encouraging homosexuals to adopt would have a beneficial affect. Congrats, it wasn't that hard, was it?
     
  12. Coyote

    Coyote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    The fact that there IS an age of majority is one logical reason against universal suffrage.
     
  13. Coyote

    Coyote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    The primary risk factor for HIV/AIDS is promescuity - a promiscious lifestyle.

    Engaging in anal sex does increase the possibility of the virus entering the bloodstream.

    However - statistically - homosexual couples who practice safe sex are at no greater risk then heterosexual couples who practice safe sex.

    Statistically - heterosexual couples who practice a promiscious lifestyle or a lifestyle that involves IV drug use are at the same risk rate as promiscous homosexuals. This is clearly evident when looking at AIDS in other countries where homosexual sex is the least of the factors.

    The only thing I will agree with you on is that the so-called "homosexual life style" (which is really only the life style of a subgroup analogous to heterosexual "swingers") - is a heightened risk factor. And why is that? It is based on promiscuity.
     
  14. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    18
    No, anal sex occurs more often between heterosexual couples than homosexual couples. In light of the fact that heterosexual couples make up around 95% of the couples having sex, then it stand to reason that there are more instances of anal sex between them than between the small percentage of homosexual males. Lesbians don't have nearly as high an incidence of anal sex as heterosexuals or homosexual males. Trapunto is far more common than you probably realize, Nums, and anal sex is one of the great options open (so to speak) for couples who are forbidden to use birth control by that man in the funny hat in Rome.

    Num logic, greased up and sliding into the dark abyss once again.
     
  15. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    18
    You somewhat disingenuously skipped over the question being asked and then went on to expound another fallacy that is dear to your heart. Laws are passed for many reasons, and common good is probably pretty far down on the list.

    Most laws are passed to protect money or power, many laws are passed to codify religious bigotry into law: law against gay marriage is a classic example.

    Why don't you answer the question, Nums?
    vyo asked very politely, "Numinus, what would the negative affects of allowing homosexuals to marry be?"

    Got no answer, do you?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice