Philosoft

This is interesting. Ordinarily, when you institute a model or framework for some aspect of democratic society, it is necessary to also institute punitive measures for those who don't conform to the model. Since this presents an unpleasant juxtaposition, however, you resort to a flawed analogy.

During WWII, it was a much easier case to make that the conservation of certain resources was a necessary sacrifice for the war effort. These days, it is certainly not obvious that man-headed two-parent households are objectively "better." Your proposed model of "forced voluntarism" is more akin to the quasi-mandatory Pledge recitation in public schools, IMO.

Yeah, and entire branches of science are based, I assume, on fancies of conspiratorial atheistic agendas. Spare us.
As I said before, inner-cities are poor examples because they are replete with interconnected causes of violent subculture. To suggest that simply adding present fathers to the mix is a cure-all is naive.

dk

I have no idea what you're talking about, please provide your source. By the way, in science laws that stand the test of time are called reliable, and new research is called the bleeding edge.

Kimpatsu

Take your pick of research.
The reeal problem here is that you are citing sources which were not scientific; they had an anti-gay agenda, and went out and "found" evidence to support their beliefthat homosexuality is morally wrong. This is not science, which is not concerned with ethics.

keyser_soze

You have yet to show how same-sex marriages would impact civilization. Where is it you believe that you have done so? Please link to it. When it's all boiled down, your agenda is obvious. At least put an effort into NOT appearing to be a bigot. I know you're trying, but it's not working, so I suspect you just need to work at it a bit more. I know you feel there is some sort of atheist-gay-jew-minority conspiracy going on to usurp your whiteness dominated western country, but I'm afraid that it's really just a figment of your imagination(btw, I'm white and conservative and your stance smacks of the klan type outfits that are spread all over the midwest). You need to do a couple things...You need to address the information provided that showed a lower rate of pregnancy and disease in countries where sex ed. and general acceptance of homosexual lifestyles are common place. It's been asked a lot, please address it. Second, you need to take a serious look at what you've written over the last few pages, because unless you're blind, or have been hit multiple times by a blunt object...it should be fairly obvious--even to you, that the material is not only biased, it's seriously close to hate spewing. Sure, it's nicely disguised, and the usual "god" rhetoric is left out...but it's just as obvious that it's there under the surface. If you proclaimed yourself and atheist and a liberal, I would assume from your writing that you are part of one of those fundamentalist groups, right wing, ultra conservative "pro-life", etc... You are most obviously looking for someone to agree, so I would advise you to go to christian forums or baptist forums...or the klan pages...Maybe even try www.godhatesfags.com. I think your views would be more "mainstream" in such places, than over here, where thinking is our way of living, and where your rhetoric and skewed information is seen exactly for what it is.

dk

I have no idea what you'r talking about or how it relates to the nuclear family apart from gay marriage. I understand ethics to be a science that applies moral principles to the particulars. A good place to start would be, to explain how gay people procreate?


By the way I have never heard any sociological evidence that gays are less wealthy, less educated or systematically denied access to any university or professional association. I am at a loss to understand why gays suffer such overwhelming and unique health risks, but it appears these health risks stem from risky sexual behavior & disproportionately high IDU drug use and suicide rates.

All these social ills showed a sharp, dramatic and steady rise in the 1960s until the 1990s where they leveled off. They appear to be in response to changes engineered by the Great Society under the mentorship of social visionaries that have been proven unreliable by history. They inadvertently weakened the bonds of the nuclear family causing all kinds of unintended side affects, that negate any net benefit to anyone. Specifically the so called reforms championed by the sexual revolution, no fault divorce and failed Federal Welfare program (that awarded a stipend to poor women head of household w/ children) created many new problems. Gay marriage would mark the abandoment of the nuclear family for the xfamily.

Does this seem a wise course to anyone?

It seems to me the unpredicted outcomes realized would give any prudent person cause to pause, evaluate the whole enterprise. Nobody wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that appears to be just what occurred.

Kimpatsu

As anyone involved with gay rights will tell you, sperm and egg donors, as well as IVF doctors, abound.

Treacle Worshipper

dk,
If you're still interested, here are some links about HIV/AIDS & sex ed in the UK.

This table and this table both show that the incidence of gay men acquiring HIV/AIDS in the UK is decreasing.

This is a pdf file from the Public Health Laboratory Service, which collects these statistics, and it appears they come from lab reports.

This gives a prose summary of current HIV/AIDS statistics in the UK, including the point that “In 1999, for the first time the rate of heterosexually acquired infections overtook the rate of HIV infections acquired by men who have sex with men.”

This is a list of UK-based HIV/AIDS organizations (information, educaton, fundraisers, medical).

The Terrance Higgins Trust is also worth looking at.

There is concern about cottaging & cruising, but there doesn't seem to be anything about providing places for people to go for anonymous sex, which you indicate happens in the States.

TW

dk

keyser_soze: You have yet to show how same-sex marriages would impact civilization.
Where is it you believe that you have done so? Please link to it.
dk: First of all, same sex marriage doesn’t exist, but is being discusses as a hypothetical. This thread explores same sex marriage on the merits and dangers the enterprise presents to civilization. It’s the Gay Rights Movement that brings a grievance to the table of public debate, and therefore the burden of evidence falls upon them.

keyser_soze: When it's all boiled down, your agenda is obvious. At least put an effort into NOT appearing to be a bigot. I know you're trying, but it's not working, so I suspect you just need to work at it a bit more. I know you feel there is some sort of atheist-gay-Jew-minority conspiracy going on to usurp your whiteness dominated western country, but I'm afraid that it's really just a figment of your imagination(btw, I'm white and conservative and your stance smacks of the Klan type outfits that are spread all over the Midwest).
dk: Alas, it appears you’ve been duped. I’ve steadfastly throughout this discussion maintained that race, ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with gay marriage. All my arguments focus upon the conflict between the character, values and freedom of the Nuclear Family verses Gay Culture, Gay Leadership and Gay Communities. It appears to me you’re the one imposing an agenda upon me, that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

keyser_soze: You need to do a couple things...You need to address the information provided that showed a lower rate of pregnancy and disease in countries where sex ed. and general acceptance of homosexual lifestyles are common place. It's been asked a lot, please address it.
dk: Sure, but this has nothing to do with gay marriage. The lower birth rates in Western Civilization stems from social doctrines advanced by Malthus’s Principle of Population applied by Darwin to biology, his cousin Galvin to Eugenics (biometrics), and Spenser to Sociology. Margaret Sanger in the US (founder of PP) with money from Robber Baroness Katherine McCormick funded the contraceptive pill using improvised Puerto Rican women as lab rats. It was altogether a scandalous episode marked by lax scientific methods, unethical experiments, manipulated data, and overstated conclusions. The pill was brought to market as Enovid and distributed by Eugenicists as a snake oil cure for all female problems great and small. Despite the claims of Planned Parenthood the pill proved unreliable, with awful side affects stemming from massive doses of hormones. In 1972 to address the 10s of thousands of pregnant college coeds the US Supreme Court legalized abortion as a backstop. Planned Parenthood was then awarded $billions of dollars by the Federal and State government to teach children about promiscuous sex and voluntary eugenics, under the guise of “Safe Sex” and “Family Planning”. The rest is history, but today Europe can’t raise enough healthy children to field an army to protect its borders, maintain its infrastructure or run its Industrial Complex. This presents Western Civilization with a grave economic problem as the baby boomers reach retirement age and go on the public dole. As baby boomers leave the workforce they not only aggravate the existing skilled labor shortage but burden the remaining workers with their health care and living expenses. Ironically, it has been the Eugenicists that have built Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb, more accurately called THE UNDER POPULATION PROBLEM. The age demographics suggest an belittled tax base of overburdened workers will be forced to support an aging population of retirees that plan to live 40 years on the public dole. Truth stranger than fiction.

keyser_soze: Second, you need to take a serious look at what you've written over the last few pages, because unless you're blind, or have been hit multiple times by a blunt object...it should be fairly obvious--even to you, that the material is not only biased, it's seriously close to hate spewing. Sure, it's nicely disguised, and the usual "god" rhetoric is left out...but it's just as obvious that it's there under the surface. (snip).
dk: Again you impose upon me propositional attitudes to waylay the facts, don’t shoot the messenger. I am a Catholic and make no bones about it, I hold that reason and faith exist in tension, not contradiction. It’s the PGM proponents that’ve gone limp wristed and can’t toe the line.

yguy

It is to me and many others. As obvious as it is to you that incestuous marriages are detrimental to society.

To say that taking fathers out of the black community didn't have disastrous results is insane.

dk

Sorry, gays can't procreate with IVF, because they aren't equiped with a womb. Unmarried women that use IVF reproductive services severe the bond between father and child, and therefore weaken the bonds that hold the nuclear family together. IVF procedures are expensive, intrusive, unreliable and impractical for all but a few women. Many women spend up to $100,000 for a baby, and walk away empty handed. Most rendered infertile by stds that ate their guts out.