RRoman

Well, since Hollands "population problem" seems to consist of having the highest population density in the western world, the best way to solve that would be to encurage gay marriage.
Once the population has reached reasonable levels again, the influx of Christian immigrants will turn Holland once again into a wonderful paradise for all moral people, once we outlaw those pesky drugs and homosexuality and reintroducing a wonderful set of laws based on the bible.
Of course, judging by what you say is important for a good "moral infrastructure," we should also outlaw divorce.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): What?! Please just answer my question, yguy. If you can.
What does cross dressing or transexualism have to do with gay marriage?

NHGH

Two points here:

1) I'm not sure the term "evangelical gays" is appropriate here. Certainly, if you're trying to suggest a parallel with evangelical Christians, it's very misleading, since gays do not generally attempt to convert others in the way that evangelical Christians do. But I'll assume here that you merely meant gays who are outspoken in favor of gay rights, which leads us to

2) I don't see the significance of your observation that the degree of gay-friendliness in the media is "disproportionate" to number of gays in the general populace. I think that a very plausible explanation of this fact is that, while gays themselves are a fairly small minority of the general population, there is a much larger segment of the population, arguably a substantial majority, which is not gay but supports gay rights (I count myself among their number).

I think we may be getting at the crux of the problem here. (And in the following, I assume that by "traditional marriage" you mean a marriage between a man and a woman, for the purpose of producing offspring. Feel free to correct me if this isn't accurate.)

Why do you believe this? Is it not possible that gays--or for that matter, straight couples not united in a "traditional marriage"--care about the welfare of their partners, rather than seeing them as nothing more than sex objects? Is it not possible that they feel happy for their partners' good fortune in life, and sad for their partners' misfortunes? I can't see why a "traditional marriage", or for that matter any sexual relationship at all, is necessary to feel genuine concern for the welfare of others.

And gays are asking to be allowed to enter into legally sanctioned relationships of precisely this sort--to be legally committed to each other "for better or worse". Why do you find this objectionable?

If this is to have any force as an argument against gay marriage, I think you still need to demonstrate, rather than merely assert or suggest, that all gay relationships are necessarily relationships "based on mutual use".

Fair enough, but I still don't see either a) why people choosing to remain childless is objectionable or b) what gay marriage has to do with any of this.

And just out of curiosity: do you think that we should forbid heterosexual marriage in cases where the prospective partners do not desire children?

Fr.Andrew

(yguy): For about the hundredth time, it's not "gay" relationships per se, but any sexual relationship based on mutual use that is the problem.
(Fr Andrew): What do you mean by a "relationship based on mutual use"?

Autonemesis

We also have fatter wallets and whiter teeth. Did it ever occur to you that advertisers have discovered in recent years that gays have more disposable income compared to child-bearers? This makes it attractive to sponsor shows that cater to this generally well-to-do demographic.

Kind of like the way people have children in order to "carry on the family name" or because they believe they will fulfill themselves, or that because they are so handsome, how could they not also have beautiful children.... and the thousands of other narcissistic, self-indulgent reasons people use to justify having offspring.

Isn't that right?

Why shouldn't they want such an option? Why should people stay in an unhappy marriage? What purpose is served by that?

cheetah

I have started another thread here asking yguy, and anyone else, essentially this question. If anyone is interested, please post!

Gurdur

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
________

Apart from that, aren't you becoming almost as tart as I am ?

RRoman

I think I understand yguys argument now:

1. "Any relationship outside of traditional marriage is selfish at root, because it amounts to using another person strictly for self-gratification." This also includes homosexual relationships.
-Because they are so selfish, they will not have children, as having children would confine them too much, i.e. "you can't do what you want when you want to."
-However, if they do have children, in the case of a homosexual relationship they will grow up "sexually confused" because they lack a male/female role model.
-In the case of another Relationship "outside of traditional marriage," the selfishness of the parents themselves causes an "environment which is increasingly hostile to children," because the children cannot hold the parents in high esteem, as they[the parents] are "using another person strictly for self-gratification."
2. This "sexual confusion" will lead to a drop in birthrates, which will have to be compensated by increasing immigartion.
3. The immigrants will consist mainly of "any group bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism," such as Muslims.
Thus the nation will be destroyed.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

PopeInTheWoods

It sounds to me like he wants the right to drink everyone else's beer....

yguy

I will certainly agree that one side wishes to project its confusion upon the other.