Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Gregory A]

Homosexual marriage sets legal precedent as it is in effect the legislation of homosexuality. That's without the advice of any expert whatever of the impact it might have on society. That great assembled group of non-experts, the UN, deciding these people with their personality-related conditions deserve special rights. Besides, it's Leftism's favorite citizen, the single parent, that is more to blame for the violation of child rights than any type of couple anyhow.

Okay, now I get it. The problem is "these people" especially with their personality related conditions. You could have saved a lot of bother and just opened with your most profound argument.

The UN was the problem. Homosexuality could become a problem but not so much the homosexuals themselves.

Please clarify your second sentence.

Lefthanders encounter a few problems in life as you know. Golf clubs, guitars and other things like having to write left to right the text leading their left hand can be smudged. But one thing technically at least could solve those few problems, and that is the elimination of all right-handers. A near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as most of their family, friends and lovers would be gone, as well 90% of the population with them.

Lesbians encounter a few problems in life as you know. Surrounded by adversaries in the form of men, with only around one woman in one hundred as a potential partner. But one thing technically at least could solve those considerable problems, and that is the elimination of all males. A very near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as half of their family would be gone, all of their adversaries eliminated, the other half of the population made available.

The problem, lesbianism, not lesbians as this is not what they would want.

[Sculptor1]

As opposed to the right's favourite citizen, the man who impregnated the single mother and disappeared to avoid paying child support?

Marriage would decide the man's intent to have children. Whereas a woman getting pregnant when there are contraceptives and then having a child while abortion is available is clearly intentional of bringing a child into existence. It's a legal expectation only that men should pay for a child that they probably never expected and no longer have a part in its family as a father. Shotgun weddings are not traditionally the Left's way of hitching two people together. The Left pushed for free-love in the sixties and then gave single mothers an income so as to avoid partnership with a 'bread-winner. Lesbian marriage allows the couple to have around 2.5 children per year, gay male marriages, zero children.

"The Left" is an abstraction.
You are attributing an abstraction volition, intent and purpose.
This can only lead to a complete misunderstanding of the world about you.

The Left, the socio-political representation of our soft-side, itself a manifestation of the 'X' chromosome's desire to eliminate the mutant 'Y", is a very real force. It interacts with life in strange ways for example it uses the homosexual marriage that it itself had created in the first place, again in three different ways. 1. As a demolition charge designed to help further destroy what was once a foundation stone of conservative values, the conventional marriage. 2. It allows our future leaders the legitimacy of lesbian marriage. 3. To a lesser degree it creates a dead end for some males in that gay men can not have children.

So many misconceptions on one page!! X-chromosomes do not have "desire" either, you are just compounding the same mistake I was pointing out.
No one is trying to eliminate the Y chromosome.
But even if this made any sense. You are still wrong since if it were up to men alone to decide upon marriage there would not no corner stone of conservative values. It is more natural to penetrate and go, and to impregnate as many as possible in the time available.
Marriage is a feminine invention, no doubt. Devised to ensure that the children are cared for whilst the female is vulnerable and unable to find sustenance alone.
And your obvious homophobia is of no consequence, but it does undermine your own prejudice and were I to think you were receptive I would explain in more detail why the very existence of homosexuality works to undermine your set of prejudices that you so clearly display here.

[Sculptor1]

Lesbian marriage allows the couple to have around 2.5 children per year, gay male marriages, zero children.

Gay men make some of the best parents on the planet.
There are good reasons for that, as gay men have to be especially well committed to pass the rigorous vetting process of adoption agencies, or to achieve legal parental responsibility in a "mother" prejudiced legal system.

I'm sure they do. But regardless a gay man does not a mother make.

Not do many women too. But so what?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

• Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
• Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.

One of the following 3 options must be the case:

1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.

I can't accept that any responsible government would allow anyone not prepared to give children the security that marriage...

So you are saying you want both types marriages listed in the OP to be illegal (since neither of the two couples can have children); correct?

In other words, you want both (1) heterosexual elderly interracial couples and (2) lesbian couples to be prohibited from getting married; correct?

[Astro Cat]

Lefthanders encounter a few problems in life as you know. Golf clubs, guitars and other things like having to write left to right the text leading their left hand can be smudged. But one thing technically at least could solve those few problems, and that is the elimination of all right-handers. A near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as most of their family, friends and lovers would be gone, as well 90% of the population with them.

Lesbians encounter a few problems in life as you know. Surrounded by adversaries in the form of men, with only around one woman in one hundred as a potential partner. But one thing technically at least could solve those considerable problems, and that is the elimination of all males. A very near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as half of their family would be gone, all of their adversaries eliminated, the other half of the population made available.

The problem, lesbianism, not lesbians as this is not what they would want.

Excuse me, what?

I am a lesbian and I have a few questions.

1) What do you mean “adversaries in the form of men?” I love men, men are not my enemies. I just don’t want to have sex with them. Where is this coming from?

2) Where in tarnation are you getting this idea of eliminating all men?

3) Why this weird analogy to left-handedness?

4) What is going on with this post in general?

[Astro Cat]

Now I’m not saying this to discourage discussion and I do understand this is a philosophy forum, etc. etc.

But I wonder how some people would feel if their lives and their rights were just constantly discussed and questioned and calmly, coldly, rationally talked about as intellectual exercise (while you wring your hands every day, hoping that your rights don’t get put on a ballot for people to take away)

[LuckyR]

Lefthanders encounter a few problems in life as you know. Golf clubs, guitars and other things like having to write left to right the text leading their left hand can be smudged. But one thing technically at least could solve those few problems, and that is the elimination of all right-handers. A near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as most of their family, friends and lovers would be gone, as well 90% of the population with them.

Lesbians encounter a few problems in life as you know. Surrounded by adversaries in the form of men, with only around one woman in one hundred as a potential partner. But one thing technically at least could solve those considerable problems, and that is the elimination of all males. A very near complete solution. But it's not one they would want though as half of their family would be gone, all of their adversaries eliminated, the other half of the population made available.

The problem, lesbianism, not lesbians as this is not what they would want.

Excuse me, what?

I am a lesbian and I have a few questions.

1) What do you mean “adversaries in the form of men?” I love men, men are not my enemies. I just don’t want to have sex with them. Where is this coming from?

2) Where in tarnation are you getting this idea of eliminating all men?

3) Why this weird analogy to left-handedness?

4) What is going on with this post in general?

People say the darnedest things.

You kind of had to be there.

[LuckyR]

Now I’m not saying this to discourage discussion and I do understand this is a philosophy forum, etc. etc.

But I wonder how some people would feel if their lives and their rights were just constantly discussed and questioned and calmly, coldly, rationally talked about as intellectual exercise (while you wring your hands every day, hoping that your rights don’t get put on a ballot for people to take away)

Oh, they are routinely. You're not alone. Most just don't realize it.

[Astro Cat]

People say the darnedest things.

You kind of had to be there.

Heh I guess so ^_^

Oh, they are routinely. You're not alone. Most just don't realize it.

Oof <3

I am glad for people I see in these conversations standing up for people, at least. Imagine how exhausting it would be if we always had to do it ourselves. I'd be out of spoons every day