Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Fluffz]

I liked how you specifically say that discriminating people for how they are born is wrong, and then preemptively counter that with saying the only way gay people can be born that way is if it were a disease, as if say... having brown hair vs black hair isn't part of 'how you are born' and nothing to do with a 'disease'

Your entire argument was that it's not fair for a woman who has to get pregnant (because it takes 9 months and they have to take time off work) to get the same tax advantages as couple who adopts. Now you backtrack from your own argument and say that it's okay for infertile couples to adopt.

But gays are not born with the attribute "gay marriage"!! If they were this attribute would in fact show similarities to a disease. I dont understand how someone wants to argue like that. Its not the same thing as being born big or small your comparison is completely wrong. Dont you see the difference between choosing not to get children and being unable to get children? No one if forcing a gay person into a gay relationship, that person is following a desire that is different from the desire of the straight person (following by free will hopefully). It is NOT the same action, how is it unfair to treat them different?

An Example, a very exact analogy: A moderate and an aggressive person make a decision (you can choose which of the two represents the gay one, it doesnt matter). One uses fists to solve the issue the other uses words. Is the same law/treatment to be applied to both?

It boggles my mind how you can so easily change your stance back and forth with no real consistency.

Maybe it helps you if you read sentences in the context of the post. The GAY couple and the man-woman couple are different and deserve individual fair treatment. I always said that, no change n stance intended.

there's no real link between money and birth rate

The more money, the more kids.

You are the one contradicting himself. But never mind, at least i try to understand the meaning of a post. You think individual cheques will result in more children. I say (fair!) investment into social infrastructure like the family does a better job at it. That means a Mother that wants to give birth to a child should receive more money that the gay couple that has chosen a different life.

But while this might be nice and fair, reducing tax money spent on gays and giving it to families will result in approximately one additional child in this country. My point is the nonsense of equalisation of social differences. Rivaling cultures are a great engine which by creating conformity is destroyed. Conformity is not necessary where you accept, respect and learn from differences. Why dont we create one law for the retired pair that needs themselves to scrub their back because the living partner has passed away, one for the gay couple that needs help to get trough the adoption process and one for marriage?

[Liquid Blue]

You're rolling that whole post off the opinion that being gay is a choice, and not a natural occurance, like males being born and growing up attracted to women.

It happens repeatedly in nature, is not in any way an affront to nature, at most it's an affront to what you grew up believing. A percent of the population being gay will not wipe out the species , will not turn your children to satan and will not doom an adopted child if they are raised by gay parents.

[Kolar]

Great. So does or does not the mother have the right to take her kids possibility of biological reproduction with its favored partner? My answer is no. Yours is what i quoted?

That doesn't make any sense.

If you can not control your actions by conscious choice this is a problem that needs to be solved. Please note that unlike being black being gay is an action. You can not seriously request equal treatment for different actions. While your desire might or might not have a biological origin your action has not. We dont talk about being attracted to the same gender, we talk about marrying the same gender

A straight guy doesn't decide one day he is attracted to females. Would you say they also have a problem that can not be controlled? and needs to be "solved"?

As unnatural as curing any disease. But i do not consider being gay a disease at all. There is no reason (that i want to argue about) to cure the desire. But there is also no reason to equalize 2 different actions.

Again what the hell are you trying to say here?

[Displaced]

fluffz do you type into babelfish or some other bs program in austrian and translate to english?

cause i truly cannot grasp what you are trying to convey, (not just this post, but pretty much all of your posts) thus making it very hard to actually refute any of your points.

[MirrorriM]

How is a gay person someone who "fights with fists" and who is unequal in society? I understand that you think it is a bad choice, but why is it a bad choice? Why is it the same thing as a person who fights with fists? Why is it that once a man declares himself to be gay, he becomes unequal to everyone else? I would like another example besides defeating the tax break system, since both sides have been argued a lot with no real consensus from either side.

[Epinephrine]

But while this might be nice and fair, reducing tax money spent on gays and giving it to families will result in approximately one additional child in this country. My point is the nonsense of equalisation of social differences. Rivaling cultures are a great engine which by creating conformity is destroyed. Conformity is not necessary where you accept, respect and learn from differences. Why dont we create one law for the retired pair that needs themselves to scrub their back because the living partner has passed away, one for the gay couple that needs help to get trough the adoption process and one for marriage?

Am I the only one that has no idea what this guy is talking about now? His posts are so incoherent that I'm just going to give up now.

[Fluffz]

How is a gay person someone who "fights with fists" and who is unequal in society? I understand that you think it is a bad choice, but why is it a bad choice? Why is it the same thing as a person who fights with fists? Why is it that once a man declares himself to be gay, he becomes unequal to everyone else? I would like another example besides defeating the tax break system, since both sides have been argued a lot with no real consensus from either side.

You are exactly the person i included the "it doesnt matter who represents whom" for. This example is supposed to illustrate the difference between action an property which a lot o people here seem to have a major problem.


Me: If Nycle were right and a pill for the mother could make sure the child would grow up straight i would say the mother has no right to steal her kid the option of reproduction with its future partner of choice
Kolar: Gay couples have many options if they choose to have a family.
Me: So has the mother the right to stop her kid from biological reproduction?
Kolar: That doesn't make any sense.
Me: You dont make any sense. Answer the question.

Me: If you can not control your actions by conscious choice this is a problem that needs to be solved.
Kolar: A straight guy doesn't decide one day he is attracted to females. Would you say they also have a problem that can not be controlled? and needs to be "solved"?
Me: Like attraction is an action.

Me: The kid needs to be the one that picks its lifestyle, if science explores this is not the case it needs to be medicated.
Kolar: If a child is effected by some kind of chemical process in the womb then interfering with that process may have other unforeseen consequences, in either case it wouldn't be natural
Me: As unnatural as curing any disease.
Kolar: Again what the hell are you trying to say here?
Me: The kid needs to be the one that picks its lifestyle

[genocidal]

I'm pretty surprised someone bothered with a discussion with Fluffz. I'm pretty sure he's a non-native English speaker, but still. Some of the shit he says couldn't possibly make sense in any language, or all of them combined.

[Fluffz]

Ill try to explain everything you fail to understand as long as this isnt in trash talk. Feel free to ask me questions.

[genocidal]

Well I could care less. I just think it's interesting someone does kind of care.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Why you on is going to be forever birthing babies on gay penis mother father Chinese dentist?

(I think I'm getting the hang of this.)

[MirrorriM]

Erm, I dont see how that answers any of my questions, rather you gave me a summary that I believe is supposed to prove your point, but instead makes no sense at all. Instead of responding to other people's points, why not respond to my questions directly?

[Summa]

Fluffz:Homosexuality is a choice.
Me: Acting on your homosexual desires is a choice, but homosexuality is a sexual orientation you are born with, and here's proof.
Fluffz:FSDJFSEJGMSA choose not to address that argument and insert factless argument here.

[Fluffz]

Erm, I dont see how that answers any of my questions, rather you gave me a summary that I believe is supposed to prove your point, but instead makes no sense at all. Instead of responding to other people's points, why not respond to my questions directly?

Well that is a problem because i cannot answer your questions. I dont think gays are unequal, and i feel sorry for not being able to make that clear. The choice of a gay person to live with another gay person is what makes this relationship unequal to the man-woman relationship. Unequal in a not non-discriminatory way.
Not the gay person is the one fighting with fists in that analogy, its the gay person that decides to live with another gay person. Their partnership is not equal to marriage because they can never give birth to a kid and have a different approach at raising a kid. These differences are the reason why both sides would benefit from individual laws.

Fluffz:Homosexual action is a choice.
Summa: Acting on your homosexual desires is a choice, but homosexuality is a sexual orientation you are born with, and here's proof.
Fluffz: no need to reply when i agree. Back to the topic at hand: Gay marriage.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I dont think gays are unequal

I think you don't understand what "equal" means, then. Equal means that they are equivalent, plain and simple.

The choice of a gay person to live with another gay person is what makes this relationship unequal to the man-woman relationship. Unequal in a not non-discriminatory way.

How is it "non-discriminatory" if you're saying that they shouldn't be able to do it because they're different? You're DISCRIMINATING on the grounds of sexual preference. How hard is that to understand?

Their partnership is not equal to marriage because they can never give birth to a kid and have a different approach at raising a kid.

How would a gay couple raising a child be any different from a straight couple? Do you really believe that gay parents would "teach" their child to be gay? At worst, they would teach tolerance and acceptance. The argument that gay parents are somehow going to indoctrinate their children into a gay lifestyle is completely baseless and rubbish if you give it a few seconds of thought. Being able to physically poop out a baby doesn't necessarily give you a good parenting method. Pick up a newspaper on any given day, and you'll most likely find a story of some heterosexual woman who doesn't have a lick of parenting sense.