|
On March 12 2013 09:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 09:32 dcemuser wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. To be fair, your statement and his are quite different, especially considering his use of the word "horrified" (and his statements in the unquoted paragraph that follows the quoted one). It is human to have unreasonable expectations (to a certain extent) but as a parent you can't let that be expressed (ever) to your child that you are upset that they are different from what you would have liked. Also, in terms of analogies, your second one about social/attractive/etc is far better than your first. No no, it's a joke, since being horrified your child is going to be black is obviously silly since you do have control over that outcome, so to say. :o
I'd be horrified if my child was black, at least assuming my wife is white.  Gay is fine.
edit: damn I dont much like having this filler post at the top of a page. I'd replace it if I had anything insightful to say !
|
On March 12 2013 09:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 09:32 dcemuser wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. To be fair, your statement and his are quite different, especially considering his use of the word "horrified" (and his statements in the unquoted paragraph that follows the quoted one). It is human to have unreasonable expectations (to a certain extent) but as a parent you can't let that be expressed (ever) to your child that you are upset that they are different from what you would have liked. Also, in terms of analogies, your second one about social/attractive/etc is far better than your first. No no, it's a joke, since being horrified your child is going to be black is obviously silly since you do have control over that outcome, so to say. :o
I didn't mean you, silly, I meant the person you quoted.
|
On March 12 2013 09:58 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 08:46 Rassy wrote:
Dont realy get this tbh, are there no laws against discrimination already,wich would prevent anny unequall treatment in most situations?
Besides the gay mariage i realy dont see what other rights people are looking for? (i realy dont know this so if someone could list them i would apreciate, i didnt see them annywhere listed in the thread either)
There will always be some small differences btw, but they have little to do with discrimination.
Transgenders wont be able to compete in womens leagues in most sports for example but that is not what this thread is about i guess.
Annyway:if annyone could give me a small list of "hot" isues for transgender equality i would be happy.
As far as i can see now it is "only" the gay mariage and things that are connected to that (adopting children)
dcemuser United States. March 12 2013 03:56. Posts 2662
PM Profile Report Quote
Ty for this post, that was quiet informative.
Didnt realise there was so much science behind it, my opinnion about transgender in general became a lot more postive i have to admit. Trans issues currently (what I'd put anyways): Lack of anti-discrimination laws. In many states you can be fired on the spot for being trans, and there's no legal repercussions. Trans people have died because they've been denied medical treatment in emergency situations based on being trans alone. Housing discrimination still happens way too much. Even prison placements and the like can be pretty horrific. Bathroom restrictions. There's many cases where students/workers are forced to use their gender-assigned-at-birth bathrooms, regardless of their physical appearance, genital situation, etc. This is usually drummed up by some fear that trans people are secretly just trying to get into places to rape people. Medical restrictions. In many situations, insurance companies will completely deny coverage related to transition medical costs, including hormones, psychiatric consultation, surgeries, etc. Which is, in my subjective opinion, completely fucking utter bullshit. Marriage laws. Even many straight trans couples can't marry due to "technically gay" laws. It ends up in some states (such as Ohio) that trans people can't marry anyone (marrying same gender = gay. marrying someone of opposite gender = technically gay. zzz) Media portrayal. Not really legal based, but society still enjoys mocking the hell out of trans people (trans women, more specifically.) This leads to a lot of demonization and violence. That's just a quick few. There's probably more I can't think of right now. Currently in many parts of the United States, trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%.
Bathroom and change rooms are something we need to change anyway. With the gay population being noticed and accepted, it's about to we recognize the current system there isn't working. As it stands now, any perverted homosexual (yes they exist, get off your high horse), can take advantage of their situation.
I imagine more issues come with being trans than most of us recognize, as we usually just see the social side. I'm sure within they're full of all sorts of conflict, doubt, and other bad things which would lead to suicide.
|
But...if we have equality for them gays then we'd have to accept that they are actual human beings...
Anyways. Interesting notes about trans people above, I haven't personally known anyone who is transgender so I don't have any experience, but I've always assumed it's a very difficult life, even for those who are able to undergo the operation. Interesting note about the marriage thing too, it never occurred to me that would be a problem.
I have never understood the anti-gay arguments, honestly. I have tried to see it from both points of view, but it's hard when one side is just so disconnected from reality. The last time I checked the point of the Western way of life was to allow people to be free, to live their lives as long as they aren't hurting others. Now, forcing gay and transgender people to live by the rules of a specific religion that they may or may not believe in seems more than a little dictatorial. A message to y'all - if you allow gay marriage, you don't have to get married to someone of the same sex. You don't even have to agree with it! You can hate it with all your little hateful heart and feel a warm glow from Jesus. It is simply allowing them the freedoms you currently enjoy. It is enforcing the human rights people should be allowed to enjoy.
Whenever I see a thread like this I can't help but think of the line from V for Vendetta, when a character asks 'Why do they hate us?' Speaking as a straight married man, my marriage isn't under threat if Ted can marry Ben.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc.
this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life)
1 is clearly undefendable...
2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life.
|
Government marriage is government endorsement of particular lifestyles. A good government should endorse lifestyles that tend to benefit society, and try to dissuade people from lifestyles than tend to be a detriment. (Binge drinking and smoking are both legal in the U.S., but the government attempts to dissuade them.)
Marriage between a fertile female and a fertile male tends to promote the creation of new babies, in a way that (I suggest) a marriage between two men does not. So, there's a reason to endorse hetero marriage but not male-male marriage. (Female-female marriage probably promotes baby-making since you only need a sperm donor.)
However, I don't think 'make more babies' is desirable to promote. I'd rather our population shrink. What I do support and want the government to endorse is better raising of children. Stable partnerships are good for raising children, and with adoption, such partnerships can raise children without creating the baby themselves. So, I do not think any government is warranted in favoring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage, unless they have a dearth of babies.
(Poly marriages are more complicated to consider simply because there are more partners involved -- there may be additional advantages and drawbacks that manifest in a poly marriage but not in a monogamous one.)
One can also consider it a matter of 'rights', but the idea of government-backed marriage as a 'right' seems rather weak.
|
On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life.
I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice.
It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such.
|
On March 13 2013 02:29 Severedevil wrote:
Government marriage is government endorsement of particular lifestyles. A good government should endorse lifestyles that tend to benefit society, and try to dissuade people from lifestyles than tend to be a detriment. (Binge drinking and smoking are both legal in the U.S., but the government attempts to dissuade them.)
Marriage between a fertile female and a fertile male tends to promote the creation of new babies, in a way that (I suggest) a marriage between two men does not. So, there's a reason to endorse hetero marriage but not male-male marriage. (Female-female marriage probably promotes baby-making since you only need a sperm donor.)
However, I don't think 'make more babies' is desirable to promote. I'd rather our population shrink. What I do support and want the government to endorse is better raising of children. Stable partnerships are good for raising children, and with adoption, such partnerships can raise children without creating the baby themselves. So, I do not think any government is warranted in favoring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage, unless they have a dearth of babies.
(Poly marriages are more complicated to consider simply because there are more partners involved -- there may be additional advantages and drawbacks that manifest in a poly marriage but not in a monogamous one.)
One can also consider it a matter of 'rights', but the idea of government-backed marriage as a 'right' seems rather weak.
With the advent of modern medicine and how it has ramped population growth to unprecedented levels, any arguments about protecting marriage as a heterosexual reproductive union are frivolous at best. Having a child is no challenge at all, gay or straight, it is simply a matter of time and money.
And if we are ever in need of extra people for whatever reason, marriage is just about the last thing you want. Fidelity is a terrible idea for effective population growth, what you want in that scenario is just the maximum amount of people having unprotected sex, any emotional attachment or affiliation is irrelevant. Our species was reproducing just fine before the concept of marriage was invented, and will likely do so long after it has met its already overdue demise.
|
On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such.
I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory.
|
On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory.
While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right."
|
I think in one way it could possibly even be a good thing to have a LGBT child - if you accept and love them unconditionally still and support them through their hardships, that can build a tremendously strong bond between you and your child.
Either way, even if no one preferred having a LGBT child, just let it fully sink in that it's entirely a possibility, it's in the pack of cards and neither you nor your future child have a choice over how they are born. It happens now and then, it might just happen to occur in your family and it's better to take that into perspective now than to be terribly shocked if it does actually happen.
|
On March 13 2013 16:54 Lynda wrote:
I think in one way it could possibly even be a good thing to have a LGBT child - if you accept and love them unconditionally still and support them through their hardships, that can build a tremendously strong bond between you and your child.
Either way, even if no one preferred having a LGBT child, just let it fully sink in that it's entirely a possibility, it's in the pack of cards and neither you nor your future child have a choice over how they are born. It happens now and then, it might just happen to occur in your family and it's better to take that into perspective now than to be terribly shocked if it does actually happen.
Oh I'm not going to argue with anyone you said, just pointing out that I think part of it is intrinsic human nature to the majority. I would care much less, for example, if it were to happen to a grandchild than a child of my own, I think.
|
On March 13 2013 08:43 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 02:29 Severedevil wrote:
Government marriage is government endorsement of particular lifestyles. A good government should endorse lifestyles that tend to benefit society, and try to dissuade people from lifestyles than tend to be a detriment. (Binge drinking and smoking are both legal in the U.S., but the government attempts to dissuade them.)
Marriage between a fertile female and a fertile male tends to promote the creation of new babies, in a way that (I suggest) a marriage between two men does not. So, there's a reason to endorse hetero marriage but not male-male marriage. (Female-female marriage probably promotes baby-making since you only need a sperm donor.)
However, I don't think 'make more babies' is desirable to promote. I'd rather our population shrink. What I do support and want the government to endorse is better raising of children. Stable partnerships are good for raising children, and with adoption, such partnerships can raise children without creating the baby themselves. So, I do not think any government is warranted in favoring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage, unless they have a dearth of babies.
(Poly marriages are more complicated to consider simply because there are more partners involved -- there may be additional advantages and drawbacks that manifest in a poly marriage but not in a monogamous one.)
One can also consider it a matter of 'rights', but the idea of government-backed marriage as a 'right' seems rather weak. With the advent of modern medicine and how it has ramped population growth to unprecedented levels, any arguments about protecting marriage as a heterosexual reproductive union are frivolous at best. Having a child is no challenge at all, gay or straight, it is simply a matter of time and money. And if we are ever in need of extra people for whatever reason, marriage is just about the last thing you want. Fidelity is a terrible idea for effective population growth, what you want in that scenario is just the maximum amount of people having unprotected sex, any emotional attachment or affiliation is irrelevant. Our species was reproducing just fine before the concept of marriage was invented, and will likely do so long after it has met its already overdue demise.
I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing angrily with him or you just didn't read his post xD also I would think that marriage would be beneficial to population growth, simply from a societal benefit perspective, but it's not exactly an argument I've heard a ton about.
|
On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right."
I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level).
|
On March 14 2013 11:35 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 09:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 13 2013 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On March 13 2013 04:45 Sawajiri wrote:On March 12 2013 18:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 12 2013 09:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 11 2013 23:29 Grumbels wrote:On March 11 2013 19:13 Kickboxer wrote:
As a moderately tolerant person (has gay acquaintances but not close friends, never ridicules gay people but would be horrified if future child turns out to be one) I think the main problem of the LGBT movement in western countries is their insistence on being perceived as "normal" as opposed to a group of people with a serious albeit 100% harmless defect.
What if you would apply the same logic to another sensitive issue: "I would never ridicule black people, but I'd be horrified if my future child would turn out to be one." (yes, this is a joke :p) I don't really think there's anything wrong with the statement. I would also much prefer much children to be heterosexual, if I could somehow have a choice. Just as I'd prefer my children to be born with 10 fingers. Not something they can control, and lack of that trait won't make me love them any less, but I'd still prefer it. I'd also prefer my children to be social, attractive, etc. this is a pretty bad line to take though, because you seem to be equating homosexuality with 1. severe defect (lack of fingers) 2. a defective life in some way (lack of social life) 1 is clearly undefendable... 2. is a bit better, but still, there is no reason why a gay person cannot have a fulfilling and perfect life. I hear you, but I also understand what the person above you wrote. Obviously homosexuality should not be equated with crime or anything of the sort, but I think it's only natural for a person to prefer heterosexual children, if they had a choice. It's simply about wanting to position your child where it would be unlikely to be discriminated against and face hardships due to something they cannot help. Heterosexuality is a privilege and boosts the likelihood of having a more struggle-free life. Of course, it should not be that way -- ideally, having a sexuality other than hetero should not in any way or form make it harder for the average person to succeed. As long as it's the reality, though, it's not necessarily bigoted for someone to prefer having heterosexual children, so long as they would also love and support a non-heterosexual child equally should he or she turn out to identify as such. I feel the same and see no shame in it. Hoping your child doesn't go through what gays go through is not being discriminatory. While that's a significant part, it's also simply partly selfish. Simply for me. Partially because I see some value in biological grandchildren. I'm not exactly sure why, it might just be a biological trait. It's preference and it's not dealbreaking, just as I'd prefer a nonsterile child over a sterile one. But even all that aside, there's something beyond the discrimination and grandchild potential in me that would simply *prefer* a heterosexual child. I don't think I can help the feeling. I'm not even saying it's "right." I totally understand you position and I don't think you're somehow "wrong" to think that (and I assume many people would share your viewpoint) but I slightly disagree personally. From my own perspective, the bond that I could form with my child if it were gay I think would be a benefit, as well as the likely crowd that my child would associate with. The way I see it, I would not want my child to grow up poor in a bad area of town type atmosphere regardless of their sexuality. If they were gay though, I would think that they would likely grow up being much more informed about various social issues, and would likely make friends with much more accepting people. Obviously no parent wants their child to be bullied, so I think that taking my kids to a school that deals better with bullying and whatnot would be a top priority and thus would partially nullify their danger if they were gay. I can also totally understand wanting to pass on your own genes, but for me I would probably want 3 children or so, so not only would it be highly unlikely that they all gay, but I would also be accounting for if any one of them were to die at a young age. I wouldn't say I have a "preference" one way or another as to my child's gender or sexual preference, as I can definitely see both positives and negatives for any situation. I mean, I could see how someone might prefer a male child over a female one, but I also think that the benefits outweigh any slight differences in the problems they might encounter in life (and I would add that the country I live in definitely makes an impact on my relative neutrality here. I admit I would have a very different viewpoint if I were living in a less accepting society/income level).
Hmmm you're right. Multiple children would definitely cause less of an issue on the gene front as long as the rest are hetero. In that case, I'm not sure I would mind as much (wow my viewpoint changing from someone else's Internet post?! Even if it was pointing out the obvious...).
|
On March 14 2013 11:19 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 08:43 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 02:29 Severedevil wrote:
Government marriage is government endorsement of particular lifestyles. A good government should endorse lifestyles that tend to benefit society, and try to dissuade people from lifestyles than tend to be a detriment. (Binge drinking and smoking are both legal in the U.S., but the government attempts to dissuade them.)
Marriage between a fertile female and a fertile male tends to promote the creation of new babies, in a way that (I suggest) a marriage between two men does not. So, there's a reason to endorse hetero marriage but not male-male marriage. (Female-female marriage probably promotes baby-making since you only need a sperm donor.)
However, I don't think 'make more babies' is desirable to promote. I'd rather our population shrink. What I do support and want the government to endorse is better raising of children. Stable partnerships are good for raising children, and with adoption, such partnerships can raise children without creating the baby themselves. So, I do not think any government is warranted in favoring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage, unless they have a dearth of babies.
(Poly marriages are more complicated to consider simply because there are more partners involved -- there may be additional advantages and drawbacks that manifest in a poly marriage but not in a monogamous one.)
One can also consider it a matter of 'rights', but the idea of government-backed marriage as a 'right' seems rather weak. With the advent of modern medicine and how it has ramped population growth to unprecedented levels, any arguments about protecting marriage as a heterosexual reproductive union are frivolous at best. Having a child is no challenge at all, gay or straight, it is simply a matter of time and money. And if we are ever in need of extra people for whatever reason, marriage is just about the last thing you want. Fidelity is a terrible idea for effective population growth, what you want in that scenario is just the maximum amount of people having unprotected sex, any emotional attachment or affiliation is irrelevant. Our species was reproducing just fine before the concept of marriage was invented, and will likely do so long after it has met its already overdue demise. I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing angrily with him or you just didn't read his post xD also I would think that marriage would be beneficial to population growth, simply from a societal benefit perspective, but it's not exactly an argument I've heard a ton about.
I'm mostly agreeing and then offering a brief commentary. Not sure how you would infer anger from what I wrote.
|
On March 15 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:19 StayPhrosty wrote:On March 13 2013 08:43 McBengt wrote:On March 13 2013 02:29 Severedevil wrote:
Government marriage is government endorsement of particular lifestyles. A good government should endorse lifestyles that tend to benefit society, and try to dissuade people from lifestyles than tend to be a detriment. (Binge drinking and smoking are both legal in the U.S., but the government attempts to dissuade them.)
Marriage between a fertile female and a fertile male tends to promote the creation of new babies, in a way that (I suggest) a marriage between two men does not. So, there's a reason to endorse hetero marriage but not male-male marriage. (Female-female marriage probably promotes baby-making since you only need a sperm donor.)
However, I don't think 'make more babies' is desirable to promote. I'd rather our population shrink. What I do support and want the government to endorse is better raising of children. Stable partnerships are good for raising children, and with adoption, such partnerships can raise children without creating the baby themselves. So, I do not think any government is warranted in favoring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage, unless they have a dearth of babies.
(Poly marriages are more complicated to consider simply because there are more partners involved -- there may be additional advantages and drawbacks that manifest in a poly marriage but not in a monogamous one.)
One can also consider it a matter of 'rights', but the idea of government-backed marriage as a 'right' seems rather weak. With the advent of modern medicine and how it has ramped population growth to unprecedented levels, any arguments about protecting marriage as a heterosexual reproductive union are frivolous at best. Having a child is no challenge at all, gay or straight, it is simply a matter of time and money. And if we are ever in need of extra people for whatever reason, marriage is just about the last thing you want. Fidelity is a terrible idea for effective population growth, what you want in that scenario is just the maximum amount of people having unprotected sex, any emotional attachment or affiliation is irrelevant. Our species was reproducing just fine before the concept of marriage was invented, and will likely do so long after it has met its already overdue demise. I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing angrily with him or you just didn't read his post xD also I would think that marriage would be beneficial to population growth, simply from a societal benefit perspective, but it's not exactly an argument I've heard a ton about. I'm mostly agreeing and then offering a brief commentary. Not sure how you would infer anger from what I wrote.
Your post can definitely appear to be misinterpreting his post and trying to counter it incorrectly. Keyword "appear" as I realized what you were saying, but I definitely had to reread the original quote.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%.
If so many people were not so self centered and inconsiderate, completely unable to empathize outside of their small social groups, the world would be a much better place. Alas, it is not - and some people deserve the middle finger or a fist to the face if they push it (:
|
On March 15 2013 11:37 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%. If so many people were not so self centered and inconsiderate, completely unable to empathize outside of their small social groups, the world would be a much better place. Alas, it is not - and some people deserve the middle finger or a fist to the face if they push it (:
Is that the case? I've not made up my mind on this issue, but I suspect these people have such high suicide rates because of misery brought on by transsexualism, itself. Reality being opposed to what you feel is going to cause big problems with an issue as important as gender and sexuality and I think that transsexualism is probably best described as a mental illness (and a serious one at that). Maybe transsexual suicide rates wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting, thus allowing them better support, but I doubt that prejudice is the primary cause.
|
On March 15 2013 11:55 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:37 Cyro wrote: trans people have it pretty shit. Probably why the suicide rate is like 25-50%. If so many people were not so self centered and inconsiderate, completely unable to empathize outside of their small social groups, the world would be a much better place. Alas, it is not - and some people deserve the middle finger or a fist to the face if they push it (: Is that the case? I've not made up my mind on this issue, but I suspect these people have such high suicide rates because of misery brought on by transsexualism, itself. Reality being opposed to what you feel is going to cause big problems with an issue as important as gender and sexuality and I think that transsexualism is probably best described as a mental illness (and a serious one at that). Maybe transsexual suicide rates wouldn't be so high if people were more accepting, thus allowing them better support, but I doubt that prejudice is the primary cause.
Well, you'd be wrong. Because all the medical evidence contradict you. Transsexual suicide rates are most drastically lowered by having accepting family, and followed by that, accepting friends. It is also well documented that hormone therapy greatly increases the quality of life for transsexuals. But, yea, go on assuming the reason transsexuals commit suicide is because you "feel" like they have a mental illness.
Those with strong support networks are closer to the national average when it comes to suicide. However, few do have strong support networks precisely because of the beliefs that the quoted poster has. That transsexualism is a mental illness at odds with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
