OphidiaPhile
Well-Known Member
- Sep 26, 2008
- 2,919
- 188
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I know a lot of couples that have not had nor want kids, their marriages are next to be banned.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.
Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:
Both require the gender difference.
- The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
- Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.
I know a lot of couples that have not had nor want kids, their marriages are next to be banned.
They aren't. It's just a simple matter of
H O M O P H O B I A
By virtue of their gender difference, male and females can get married.
If sterilization is part of the marriage, then the couple is marrying for all the wrong reasons (usually money or some other trite reason),
but since the gender difference is still present; thus, the potential for procreation still manifests, the marriage should be allowed to proceed.
Face it. If your youngest daughter were to come home with an elephant, you'd say, "cool elephant! So where are you gonna keep your new pet?" And if she were to say, "He's not my pet mom, he's my fiance", you'd likely throw a fit.
Again, sound lawmaking demands we take the ideal into consideration and reject the exceptions to the rule.
But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.
In the instance where the mother is a schitzophrenic and the father is an abusive drunkard, even two hippo's--no, make that two gay hippo's-- would be better parents to the child than the biological alternative.
But we're not talking about abusive biological parents, and we're not talking about hippos, either. We're talking about the ideal, and whether or not the ideal should take legal presidence over the non-ideal.
The ideal is a legally married man and woman raising a child as part of a family. The non-ideal would be a single mom, a gay couple or two hippopotamus's raising that child.
When we write laws, we have to take the ideal into account. Since there is no biological difference between the races of man, an interracial couple may also be a part of the ideal.
Hopefully, this will address staccato and everyone else.
Since when did I ever say that abnormal behavior is "undesirable"?
Can you please stop reading between lines? You are illiterate when you do so.
Someone said I was abnormal once because I was spending so much time at the office pouring over balance sheets and what not. I told her I'm doing what I like to do, even if it was downright maniacal (it's a word).
There are neuroses that would be considered abnormalities, yet are not at all undesirable. My mind may be abnormal in the fact that it can generate a number of high-grade ideas on just about any topic conceivable to man. But is this undesirable? Some would say yes; others, no.
As I was telling toocurious in a P/M: gay people have the highest standard of living and the highest quality of life than anyone else, anywhere in the world. For this reason, the abnormality of homosexuality can be perceived as an asset rather than a liability.
The homosexual is not abnormal. His sexual orientation is.
Then, if normalcy or a lack thereof carries no prescriptive value, what does the relative normalcy of homosexuality have to do with the price of tea in China? Why even bring it up, if "normal" or "not normal" has no prescriptive weight?
Like I told you in the PM, I am indifferent to these things. Things that have meaning to other people go by me without my noticing, such as fashions or professional sports. I'm frugal and somewhat a minimalist, much like Einstein was.
If the previous poster wanted to ascribe a value to abnormality (in his case, the value was "undesirable"), then so be it. He may also find value in watching sports, or reading about the latest fashion trends. I don't.
Why is it that when we identify a human activity that is clearly abnormal we are called homophobes? Can't we just be called the people who identify abnormal human behavior?
It's one thing to think to yourself, gee, that doesn't seem very normal, now does it? Just as I don't think it's normal to be sexually excited by vomiting into someone's mouth, but some people enjoy it immensely. If a law ever came up that stated people who have a regurgitation fetish would not be legally permitted to marry because their relationship is "abnormal", I wouldn't vote in favor of said law. What people do is their business. Not mine. I don't care who gets married so long as consenting adults are involved. I could care less if it's one man, one woman; two men; two women; two women and a man, etc. The only reason to be opposed to the extent of voting to pass a law that prohibits consenting adults the right to marry would be based on a phobia of some sort.
We live in a democracy. Some people will participate in that process and some won't (there's research that indicates the democratic process is genetic--half-baked sounding, I know). I will, and I'll vote for or against whatever and whomever I think will best serve the democracy.
I'm voting for:
Obama/Biden
Proposition 8
Proposition 4
Proposition 2
Against:
Most things Republican, whatever they may be.
Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.
Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:Both require the gender difference.
- The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
- Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.
We live in a democracy. Some people will participate in that process and some won't (there's research that indicates the democratic process is genetic--half-baked sounding, I know). I will, and I'll vote for or against whatever and whomever I think will best serve the democracy.
I'm voting for:
Obama/Biden
Proposition 8
Proposition 4
Proposition 2
Against:
Most things Republican, whatever they may be.
In the words of Dr. Evil, "How about, no, Scott? Okay?"
Honestly, if I could vote in the American election, I would vote against proposition eight because I find the reasoning behind it to be mostly, if not wholly, religious in nature. Totally unfounded.
So, religious people are not part of a democracy?
So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?
Please enlighten me?
So, religious people are not part of a democracy?
So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?
Please enlighten me?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?