Is Western culture being destroyed?

[numinus]

Creating stable family units that are more capable of adopting some of the thousands of orphans in this country alone?

http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/03e.pdf

Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to speedily re-establishing his or her identity.

Article 20
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

Clear?

Promoting monogamy amongst the homosexual community, decreasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases?

The homosexual lifestyle IS the vector by which disease is transmitted. By what stretch of the imagination do you prevent the disease by legitimizing the lifestyle that causes it, hmmm?

Quelling the dissent of a vocal minority?

Putting the debate to rest so that other issues can be addressed more fully?

And contradicting the un convention protocols on the rights of children?

I think you need to straighten out your priorities.

 

[numinus]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the UDHR is imperfect?

That at the time of it's conception, homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder?

That you're building an argument based on a premise which at every turn refuses to take into account the other side's view of things?

Of course it is imperfect.

Its imperfection stems from the competing imperatives of natural law and an individual's personal liberty. The line is drawn quite clear -- you are free to indulge as you wish. That freedom, however, DOES NOT OBLIGATE the state and society at large to attach LEGAL IMPETUS to your particular choice.

Clear?

We've debated this before and I'll admit that, prior to coming here, I had never considered why marriage is litigated. That said, I still believe that homosexual and heterosexual union institutions must be equal under the law, both in name and structure. If additional benefits must be applied to some unions because they are "child-bearing" than so be it; however, the present social context of the word "marriage" being what it is, it is inequitable to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals.

Then its settled. Call it whatever you wish. Just don't call it a marriage. And do not attach to it the rights that NATURALLY accrue from marriage.

 

[numinus]

There's no "logical" purpose for women's right to vote. In fact, a perfectly "logical" argument can be made against universal suffrage in a society. In fact, "logical" arguments can be made against each of the examples I gave.

Given that, why must there be a logical purpose?

Universal suffrage is the LOGICAL consequence of the social contract. The purpose of the social contract is clear.

 

[numinus]

What's the point though?

Once one's partner is dead....what's the point?

What about those without the resources?


Why SHOULD it have to come to that at all simply becasue they are homosexual?

WHERE is COMPASSION?

I honestly do not know what you want me to say.

I have visited very sick friends in the hospital. I need not be a family member to do so.

And when my father was critically ill, my presence at his side was restricted. The restriction wasn't there to deny me my 'rights' -- it was for purely medical reasons.

 

[vyo476]

http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/03e.pdf

Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to speedily re-establishing his or her identity.

Article 20
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

Clear?

None of this addresses the idea that allowing homosexuals to marry creates more stable units which are, in turn, more capable of providing care to children - which would be a benefit to society as it would encourage adoption in a society where thousands of children remain in foster care.

If you have a point to make addressing this, make it - don't just quote another document. You're providing evidence without a thesis. In other words, no, not clear.

The homosexual lifestyle IS the vector by which disease is transmitted. By what stretch of the imagination do you prevent the disease by legitimizing the lifestyle that causes it, hmmm?

There are few, if any, STDs which cannot be transmitted through both homosexual and heterosexual practices. The "homosexual lifestyle," as you put it, has nothing to do with the transmission of the disease.

My point was that monogamy decreases incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases. The fewer sexual partners a person has, the less chance that person has of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease. Walk across one lane of traffic, you're less likely to get hit by a car than the guy who walks across four lanes of traffic.

And contradicting the un convention protocols on the rights of children?

I think you need to straighten out your priorities.

My priorities have what to do with this discussion?

I'm trying really hard to debate with you in a civilized manner. Please attempt to extend me the same courtesy.

 

[vyo476]

Of course it is imperfect.

Its imperfection stems from the competing imperatives of natural law and an individual's personal liberty. The line is drawn quite clear -- you are free to indulge as you wish. That freedom, however, DOES NOT OBLIGATE the state and society at large to attach LEGAL IMPETUS to your particular choice.

Clear?

Once again, "society" does nothing consciously.

What obligates the state not to attach legal impetus to a choice, when all those currently affirming that choice desire the litigation?

Then its settled. Call it whatever you wish. Just don't call it a marriage. And do not attach to it the rights that NATURALLY accrue from marriage.

The one downfall is that the legal term "marriage" has to go. No marraige for homosexuals? Fine, no marriage for heterosexuals, either, at least not as a legal term. If people still want to engage in spiritual or religious marriages, or call their union a marriage, fine, but it must not be litigated under the name "marriage." There is too much social divisibility surrounding that name.

 

[numinus]

Well, actually, every field on which you have posted, biology for certain,

Certainly. I never claimed expertise in biology. I have admitted that a number of times.

comparative religion,

Since when have I compared religions, eh?

reading comprehension,

That is a skill, not a field of inquiry. Duh?

international law/agreements,

You mean the udhr?

And YET, you have not offered one shred of evidence in its text that 'natural and fundamental group unit of society' includes gay unions.

the separation of church and state,

As far as I can recall, I'm the only one who mentioned that the principle came from europe, NOT america.

the US Constitution and Bill of Rights,

Such as....?

philosophy,

I NEVER saw you offer a critique in philosophy, ANY philosophy, in this forum.

hermeneutics,

Saying the bible is nonsense isn't exactly hermeneutics, now, is it?

cultural anthropology... it's quite a long list.

'Cultural anthropology' is a redundant. Anthropology deals with socio-cultural comparisons, fyi.

You forgot physics and economics. I made considerably large posts on this field.

Perhaps we should take a poll here on the site about this, but after reading a large number of your posts I think that it's quite an egotistical stretch for you to compare yourself to Alexis de Tocqueville.

Heaven's no! It never entered the realm of contemplation to compare myself with a minor french aristocrat/bureactract. I merely pointed out that a foreigner can offer insights in american life. Duh?

And I see you haven't read it, if that remark is the only thing you have to offer as a response.

If you did, then no there would be no shame in that, just like my knowing more about your religion than you is no shame on you--or it wouldn't be if you weren't advocating ramming it down the throats of people in our country--that's what is shameful.

The only thing you know about my religion, you read from a tabloid whose format borders pornography.

Keep dreaming.

Newsflash for you, Nums: There is nothing dignified about abysmal ignorance. And a person who deliberately ignores documents and statements made by the historical personages of his own church does not enhance his dignity or his education thereby. It my however pump up his bliss.

My religion is MY RIGHT OF THOUGHT. Just because I'm a catholic-on-record does not mean I agree with everything every church official in history ever said.

And the fact that you think otherwise exposes your bigotry -- plain and simple.

 

[numinus]

None of this addresses the idea that allowing homosexuals to marry creates more stable units which are, in turn, more capable of providing care to children - which would be a benefit to society as it would encourage adoption in a society where thousands of children remain in foster care.

If you have a point to make addressing this, make it - don't just quote another document. You're providing evidence without a thesis. In other words, no, not clear.

You do not see the PRINCIPLE behind the assertions of this un convention?

Take that with a woman's right to motherhood in the udhr and you have a very clear picture what is within the un's contemplation of what a family is.

There are few, if any, STDs which cannot be transmitted through both homosexual and heterosexual practices. The "homosexual lifestyle," as you put it, has nothing to do with the transmission of the disease.

EXPOSURE TO FECAL MATTER.

I said it before. Pretending ignorance isn't going to help your argument one bit.

My point was that monogamy decreases incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases. The fewer sexual partners a person has, the less chance that person has of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease. Walk across one lane of traffic, you're less likely to get hit by a car than the guy who walks across four lanes of traffic.

What are you talking about? The vector exists in the lifestyle -- married or not.

My priorities have what to do with this discussion?

I'm trying really hard to debate with you in a civilized manner. Please attempt to extend me the same courtesy.

That you talk of adoption in view of 'homosexual' rights rather than the rights of a child suggests a defective set of priorities. At the very least, it is a blatant non-sequitur -- as are all the 'alleged' reasons you offered.

 

[numinus]

Once again, "society" does nothing consciously.

What obligates the state not to attach legal impetus to a choice, when all those currently affirming that choice desire the litigation?

The udhr and the uncrc are CONSCIOUS assertions of everyone.

The one downfall is that the legal term "marriage" has to go. No marraige for homosexuals? Fine, no marriage for heterosexuals, either, at least not as a legal term. If people still want to engage in spiritual or religious marriages, or call their union a marriage, fine, but it must not be litigated under the name "marriage." There is too much social divisibility surrounding that name.

So, why do we need to declare the rights of children, hmmm? Children are humans too, are they not -- hence a redundancy of the udhr?

Think!

 

[Coyote]

The homosexual lifestyle IS the vector by which disease is transmitted. By what stretch of the imagination do you prevent the disease by legitimizing the lifestyle that causes it, hmmm?

No, it isn't the homosexual lifestyle - or at least, not the life style of monogomous, committed homosexual pairs. It's promescuity and it's any lifestyle that encourages promescuity. In many other countries the primary vector isn't even homosexuality. Citing exposure to "fecal matter" is weak - every mother of an infant exposes herself to another persons fecal matter multiple times a day for heavensakes.

So be honest: promescuity is the culprit.

 

[Coyote]

Universal suffrage is the LOGICAL consequence of the social contract. The purpose of the social contract is clear.

I don't think so. For example - children do not have suffrage.

 

[vyo476]

You do not see the PRINCIPLE behind the assertions of this un convention?

Take that with a woman's right to motherhood in the udhr and you have a very clear picture what is within the un's contemplation of what a family is.

I'm not particularly interested in the UN's contemplation of what a family is. An unmarried couple has a harder time adopting and then caring for a child then a married one. If we allow homosexuals to marry, suddenly there would be more married couples - many of whom would turn to adoption to raise children. This would decrease the number of children in foster care. Look at the stastics. Children who are adopted tend to fare better and commit fewer crimes than children who remain in the foster system. Stimulating adoption and getting as many kids out of foster care as possible has beneficial affects for society.

EXPOSURE TO FECAL MATTER.

Is something that occurs during anal sex, which is not unique to homosexuality.

I said it before. Pretending ignorance isn't going to help your argument one bit.

And insulting my intelligence isn't going to help yours, either. Please stop.

What are you talking about? The vector exists in the lifestyle -- married or not.

All right, I'll try to put it in terms you'll understand.

Marriage encourages monogamy. In a (faithful) monogamous relationship, two people only engage in sexual relations with each other. If they only engage in sexual relations with each other, an STD will only be passed if one of them already has it. If, on the other hand, they do not have a monogamous relationship, and instead go out and have sex with other men, the chances they'll engage in sexual relations with someone who has an STD increases.

The more partners, the higher the risk. The fewer the partners, the lesser the risk. There are other risks involved too, of course - protected sex vs. unprotected sex, disease screening, etc.

That you talk of adoption in view of 'homosexual' rights rather than the rights of a child suggests a defective set of priorities.

Demonstrate this.

At the very least, it is a blatant non-sequitur -- as are all the 'alleged' reasons you offered.

You have failed to derail even one of the reasons I've offered. A recap:

I stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would create stable family units more capable of adopting children. You countered with several quotes from the UN. I asked for a thesis to tie those quotes together. You countered by stating that the evidence shows what the UN considers a family to be. What the UN considers a family to be still does not address the issue - that allowing homosexuals to marry allows them to create a more stable platform for adoption.

I stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would promote monogamy amongst the homosexual community, decreasing incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases. You countered by offering that homosexuality causes sexually-transmitted diseases. I offered that there are few, if any, sexually-transmitted diseases that cannot be passed through both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. You countered by mentioning exposure to fecal matter. I countered by stating that anal stimulation is not unique to homosexual practices - many heterosexual couples indulge in anal intercourse. You've so far clung to the idea that homosexual practices cause sexually-transmitted diseases when the reality is that any sexual practices can spread sexually-transmitted diseases - and promiscuous sexuality, which is discouraged by monogamous marriage, increases the incidence of transfer of sexually-transmitted diseases.

You did not actually address my points on quelling the dissent of a vocal minority or putting the debate to rest so that other matters can be discussed, countering with a statement that homosexual marraige would contradict the rights of children according to the UN (your point is an attempted refutation of my position as a whole, not a direct response to either of my points listed in this paragraph). I asked what my priorities have to do with the discussion, along with stating that I would prefer to keep this debate civil. You suggested that discussing adoption in view of the rights of homosexuals rather than in view of the rights of children shows skewed priorities. I have requested that you demonstrate this, as I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry - and adopt - does not violate the rights of children in any way. In the UN document you posted earlier, Article 20, Section 3 specifically mentions adoption as an acceptable means for the care of children deprived of their families, which reinforces my own point.

In review, you have failed to demonstrate how any of my points is a non-sequitur. I have asked you on at least one occasion to keep this conversation civil. I will ask again. Please cut out the disparaging remarks, they contribute nothing to this debate.

 

[vyo476]

The udhr and the uncrc are CONSCIOUS assertions of everyone.

No matter what you say, "society" is not capable of consciously doing anything. Society is simply the construct of norms and values shared by a people, usually with some form of geocentricity to bind them all together. "Governments" do things consciously, but do not confuse "government" or the "individual" with "society." They are very, very different.

So, why do we need to declare the rights of children, hmmm? Children are humans too, are they not -- hence a redundancy of the udhr?

Think!

How did you infer "we don't need to declare the rights of children" out of "we must stop using the term "marriage" because of its social implications"? There are huge leaps of logic you're taking here without explaining them.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Certainly. I never claimed expertise in biology. I have admitted that a number of times.Since when have I compared religions, eh?That is a skill, not a field of inquiry. Duh?You mean the udhr?And YET, you have not offered one shred of evidence in its text that 'natural and fundamental group unit of society' includes gay unions.As far as I can recall, I'm the only one who mentioned that the principle came from europe, NOT america.Such as....?I NEVER saw you offer a critique in philosophy, ANY philosophy, in this forum.Saying the bible is nonsense isn't exactly hermeneutics, now, is it?'Cultural anthropology' is a redundant. Anthropology deals with socio-cultural comparisons, fyi.You forgot physics and economics. I made considerably large posts on this field.Heaven's no! It never entered the realm of contemplation to compare myself with a minor french aristocrat/bureactract. I merely pointed out that a foreigner can offer insights in american life. Duh?And I see you haven't read it, if that remark is the only thing you have to offer as a response.The only thing you know about my religion, you read from a tabloid whose format borders pornography.
Keep dreaming.My religion is MY RIGHT OF THOUGHT. Just because I'm a catholic-on-record does not mean I agree with everything every church official in history ever said.And the fact that you think otherwise exposes your bigotry -- plain and simple.

More of the same boilerplate, but thanks for trying, Nums.

 

[numinus]

I don't think so. For example - children do not have suffrage.

Is it your suggestion that children vote?

Let's examine that.

A person who votes -- that is, an integral member of the polity -- is required to know the consequences of his actions. Are children capable of that?

Even more, a person who consents to the social contract, whether given freely or tacitly, is held LIABLE within the terms of the social contract -- TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. That means, subjecting children to the operation of the penal system AGAINST the logical assertions of the uncrc.

One cannot be held accountable for a responsibility he or she is incapable of even comprehending it.