bloodyminded Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) Hmm, I should think it depends on where you live. Here in Canada, for instance, where speech is free ....give or take......, and gay marriage is the law of the land, it actually doesn't take any courage to speak out for gay marriage or other such issues. China, India or countries with Sharia Law, on the other hand, people get prison and worse for speaking out. This talk of courage in Canada is getting embarrassing. I said nothing whatsoever about courage for speaking out; I said that whiners who think we should "stop criticizing the West" and focus only on the behaviour of others...is cowardly. Further, it is quite specifically an anti-democratic impulse...because democracy needs self-criticism. It's its lifeblood. Edited July 11, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 I tend to agree. But it seems as though attaining equal rights isn't the root goal of some on the pro-gay marriage side. Nope...their "root goal" is to...."destroy marriage," and...um....I dunno. They're sly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 And worse, place special value on procreative excess. Rats and flies are particularly efficient at expanding their populations. Some company to keep. It never ceases to amaze me how many of my former ideological brethren on the right just cannot come to terms with the hard evidence that nature imposes hard limits on resource exploitation. It's like they think the planet will grow to match their demands! The calamity created by conservative economics, is multiplied by their cynical coopting of conservative Muslim, Christian and Hindu religious desires to return to old patriarchal standards...which include the fight against allowing women to control when and how many children to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 That you would refer to human beings as an infestation really says all we need to know about you. After all, pests that cause a "mass infestation" should be exterminated, right? Okay, I know you think you are a genius, but yet you are unable to take a detached perspective and explore how a conscious biosphere (I'm not saying such a thing exists in reality) would view the sudden, rapid growth of this one species, and the effects it has had on the planet. Many new age types have a warm, fuzzy notion of Gaia, or Mother Earth...while I'm thinking that a real Gaia would view us as a botulin...something similar to a disease causing food poisoning. Too bad your narrow ideological limits and blind faith in progress cannot allow you to see this perspective. It would be the cold, slap in the face that a lot of people need to shake their complacency about our present situation. Of course. If we have altered one planetary climate, we can alter others. I look forward to this "infestation" spreading to other planets and terraforming them. Forty years ago, the promise of space travel looked a lot closer to colonizing other worlds than it does today, and yet there was more general concern for environment and overpopulation than there is today. Besides the funding problems for NASA and other agencies, the failure of closed biospheric systems has revealed that creating a working biosphere is more difficult than engineers envisioned back in the good old days. For the foreseeable future, this world is the only one we've got, and we need higher motivations than procreation and exploitation to save the world for future generations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 ...For the foreseeable future, this world is the only one we've got, and we need higher motivations than procreation and exploitation to save the world for future generations! For you the future does not hold great promise, it is a threat. - Ellie Parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 And worse, place special value on procreative excess. But there is a value on the ability to procreate, as well as nurture offspring with what nature intended. A father and mother. In this respect, gay marriage will never be as important as regular marriage. Sorry, but it just won't. Does that mean gay men and women shouldn't have the same legal rights? Of course not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Okay, I know you think you are a genius, but yet you are unable to take a detached perspective and explore how a conscious biosphere (I'm not saying such a thing exists in reality) would view the sudden, rapid growth of this one species, and the effects it has had on the planet. I'm "able to take" any perspective I choose. That doesn't mean I agree with it. I am a member of this species, and hence I do not see myself as a pest, a part of an infestation. That is hard wired into my brain, as part of my impulse to survive and to see the species survive, as it should be in any human. Many new age types have a warm, fuzzy notion of Gaia, or Mother Earth...while I'm thinking that a real Gaia would view us as a botulin...something similar to a disease causing food poisoning. Gaia is just another fairy tale superstition along with Zeus and Allah. No point to mention it if you are trying to have a rational discussion. Forty years ago, the promise of space travel looked a lot closer to colonizing other worlds than it does today, and yet there was more general concern for environment and overpopulation than there is today. Er, care to provide a cite? 40 years ago, almost no one had heard of environmentalism. Today, it is a mainstream cause. For the foreseeable future, this world is the only one we've got, and we need higher motivations than procreation and exploitation to save the world for future generations! The people who set out with the goal of "saving the world" are never the ones that actually save anything. The real saving is being done by scientists and engineers who are developing new technologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 But there is a value on the ability to procreate, as well as nurture offspring with what nature intended. A father and mother. In this respect, gay marriage will never be as important as regular marriage. Sorry, but it just won't. Nature doesn't "intend" anything. And marriage is irrelevant, especially in terms of "nature," to the raising of offspring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Nature doesn't "intend" anything. And marriage is irrelevant, especially in terms of "nature," to the raising of offspring. Had three serous female partners in my life - I did not need a certificate or licence to breed or co-habitat - It is not the churches or the states buisness what I do with my body and the product of my body...It is mine...and THAT is natural - If you want to be with someone - there is no law to stop you...if you want to leave there is only your natural and good values that will cause you to stay or leave - but if you have children - YOU stay - and protect them untill they can protect themselves - that is real marriage - the rest is just some state or church sponsored form of control. Gays are stupid to think that so-called legal marriage is a benefit - If you want to live together and are worried about benefits so much- go see a lawyer and have him draw up a few documents that will have the same effect as a legal marriage... Gays and lesbians who want to be like US - are fools . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 But there is a value on the ability to procreate, Sure is, you can sell babies for $40,000 ! as well as nurture offspring with what nature intended. A father and mother. In this respect, gay marriage will never be as important as regular marriage. Sorry, but it just won't. Does that mean gay men and women shouldn't have the same legal rights? Of course not. Says you, without any facts of course. So ok, your opinion. But the experts say on par kids are the same with or without gay parents. Some advantages some disadvantages. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm http://www.beachpsych.com/pages/cc121.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Nature doesn't "intend" anything. Of course nature does. Says you, without any facts of course. So ok, your opinion. But the experts say on par kids are the same with or without gay parents. Some advantages some disadvantages. A child being raised by a father and mother is always preferable. It's just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Of course nature does. "Intends" things? Are you speaking of Mother Earth the conscious being, or referring to the "God is everywhere" theme? Intent denotes consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) A child being raised by a father and mother is always preferable. It's just common sense. Common sense and you are like balut and ceiling tiles. Post something that backs you up since I posted links that proves you wrong. Edited July 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Common sense and you are like balut and ceiling tiles. Post something that backs you up since I posted links that proves you wrong. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's just common sense that having a mother and a father is better for a child. Children are influenced and learn things in different ways from a mother and a father. I'm not saying that gay couples aren't good parents. They can be great parents. But the ideal situation would be a mother and father. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Whatever you may think, its wrong. The ideal situation is having parents...period. Gay straight doesnt matter. Edited July 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 But there is a value on the ability to procreate, as well as nurture offspring with what nature intended. A father and mother. In this respect, gay marriage will never be as important as regular marriage. Sorry, but it just won't. Does that mean gay men and women shouldn't have the same legal rights? Of course not. Every animal has the ability to procreate, so this is nothing to be bragging about, as world population nears the 7 billion mark. If procreation is everything, then you are telling us that couples who are unable to have their own children, and have to adopt - are not as "important" as "regular" marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 The ideal situation is having parents...period. No. Having two parents is definitely better than just one. But having a mother and father is the most ideal situation. It's just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's just common sense that having a mother and a father is better for a child. Children are influenced and learn things in different ways from a mother and a father. I'm not saying that gay couples aren't good parents. They can be great parents. But the ideal situation would be a mother and father. Ideal, schmideal! An editorial by Dahlia Lithwick a few years ago, summed it best: Rules rooted in sweeping moral judgments don't generally work in family law for the same reason they don't work for families: Kids love and need the parents they have, not necessarily the parents we love. Why Courts Are Adopting Gay Parenting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) No. Having two parents is definitely better than just one. I said parents , note the "s", it means plural or two or more. So mom and mom, dad and mom, dad and dad , see that makes them parents , again with an 's'. But having a mother and father is the most ideal situation. It's just common sense. Good lord you're thick . Dont be daft boy, post a link that backs you up. You have been proven wrong,but give it a shot. Edited July 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Good lord you're thick . Dont be daft boy, post a link that backs you up. You have been proven wrong,but give it a shot. There's nothing to prove, it's just common sense. If one gets raised without a father, or without a mother, there's certain things they're gonig to miss out on. That's a fact. So mom-mom, and dad-dad can be great parents. But they'll never be able to provide the upbringing of mom-dad. I'm sorry that offends you. But sometimes the truth hurts. Just get over it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm "able to take" any perspective I choose. That doesn't mean I agree with it. I am a member of this species, and hence I do not see myself as a pest, a part of an infestation. That is hard wired into my brain, as part of my impulse to survive and to see the species survive, as it should be in any human. And you just negated your opening statement about how you are able to take an independent perspective! Survival as a species is going to be a lot more difficult than following primal drives and urges. That old hard-wiring needs to take a back seat to doing what's best for the common good. Gaia is just another fairy tale superstition along with Zeus and Allah. No point to mention it if you are trying to have a rational discussion. Contemplating Earth as a living organism is a useful perspective to use to counter the exploitation-at-all-costs thinking of those who think our world is a giant candy store that can endlessly supply everything we want. Er, care to provide a cite? 40 years ago, almost no one had heard of environmentalism. Today, it is a mainstream cause. Bullshit it's a mainstream cause! You want a citation! Every fucking Republican in the U.S. Congress is a global warming-denying creationist...there's your citation! Forty years ago, the first Earth Day was a major cultural event worldwide, and environmentalism was taken seriously by the right, as well as everyone else. The people who set out with the goal of "saving the world" are never the ones that actually save anything. The real saving is being done by scientists and engineers who are developing new technologies. And we know where science and engineering goes when it is totally divorced from morality and ethics! It is impossible to make any progress without an informed public to start with, and that is going to require not only fighting back against rightwingers who want to exploit every last drop of oil and coal seam underground, it also requires a public that is aware of the misdirections and frauds conducted to pretend to do something about climate change: cap and trade schemes, carbon capture schemes, ripping out forests to plant Acacia trees, promoting biochar as a carbon capture solution etc. There are a number of frauds being stamped with the green label that have been created by scientists and engineers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) There's nothing to prove, it's just common sense. If one gets raised without a father, or without a mother, there's certain things they're gonig to miss out on. That's a fact. So mom-mom, and dad-dad can be great parents. But they'll never be able to provide the upbringing of mom-dad. I'm sorry that offends you. But sometimes the truth hurts. Just get over it already. You truly are thick. It isnt a fact, since nowhere have you shown any proof, any published artoicles that agree. Just shady denying the truth...again. The truth can hurt, and obviously you dont want to hear the truth. Gay parents raise kids every bit as well or better than hetero parents. How about you read the truth and 'get over it " Edited July 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Gay marriage and children is like a couple of old spinster aunts raising a child - who does not have parents...Problem is that the child does have parents - real ones - natural ones - which are the only valid and real ones - I hate the term "biological mother or father......the only real parents are the parents - the rest is political and socially engineered crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 I wanted to weep in joy when I saw those two 87 year old lesbians unite in marriage...so beautiful to see the dominating one take the others barely attatched head and pull it forward for a nice dry kiss on that leathery cheek - It was so beautiful...but what was the purpose of that? I really don't get it...back in 1934 - they were called "spinstresses" and old gay guys were called "confirmed bachelor" - what was wrong with the old system...it worked just fine...other than the " I want their pension when they are dead approach...just like real marriage - It always gets down to the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.