What Would You Change In Your Country If You Were In Power

[SGWilko]

Theoretical of course, but how would you change things for the better.

Here in the UK, I would like to see;

Transport. Renationalised - From trains, buses, tubes, trams canals and taxis. I would like to see a government owned company created that designs, builds, runs and maintains stock for the UK transport network. This would create many jobs, and, as the network is run 'not for profit' any money made can be ploughed back further enhancing services. Have a countrywide network of overhead cables shared by buses trams and taxis that would greatly reduce emissions associated with running an engine in each vehicle.

Energy Production. Again, re-natinalise and consider clean coal burning techniques to utilise the remaining supplies while a new generation of Thorium power stations that cannot suffer China Syndrome is built. Mandate that every home have a split between solar power and heating on the roof to reduce bills and bolster supply network.

National Service. Much mooted in recent days, make this military linked and compulsory for the young out of work for extended periods. This fulfills the role of recruitment for the MOD (to a degree) and will stand individuals in good stead for the future. They would be off the street and learning discipline and management skills.

Schooling. Whilst I see the academy model a good way of re-invigorating failing schools, there needs to be alternatives. Open to suggestions!

Unemployment/Benefits. The older unemployed population should have some form of local community scheme they can get involved with so that not only do they get the opportunity to earn a basic wage that replaces benefits, but they are providing a service to the local area.

Local Goverment. That company that central government started to build public transport vehicles, well, that also builds the vehicles for refuse collection etc, and they would be hybrid vehicles that can run on overhead cables, batteries or a small efficeient engine - perhaps hydrogen.

Local Amenities. A post office or sub post office in every town, and facilities in remote villages for a mobile service.

Freight back on the railways or canals, and cheap public transport would see more people re-discovering the benefits of efficient and regular services.

Herein comes the point where I wake up, it was all just a dream!

[BDunnell]

Your views on nationalising public transport I couldn't agree more with.

National Service — no. For one thing, armed forces today have to be highly professional organisations, otherwise they simply cannot operate effectively. My idea of 'highly professional' is not an unemployed youth who doesn't want to be there — and I'd add that it is perfectly possible for someone to be out of work for an extended period for reasons other than laziness, let's not forget. For another, they have little need for recruitment any more. And, finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again — the main argument against using the forces as a means of improving the behaviour of young people is the centre of Aldershot on a Friday or Saturday night.

A post office or sub-post office in every town? Do away with the very concept of market forces, and you may have a point.

[Daniel]

Local government. Let them control rubbish pickups, flowers displays in roundabouts and nothing else.

[Sonic]

Well I'd get myself out of power for one thing! Seriously scary idea! I'd screw this place in a heartbeat.

[Firstgear]

Longer summers & shorter winters. Actually, I think I'd get rid of spring completely and go straight from winter to summer. Other than that, maybe sprinkle the odd mountain amongst the prairies and we're good to go.

[schmenke]

Lower the tax on liquor :dozey:

[SGWilko]

Lower the tax on liquor :dozey:

Move over here - it's pathetically underpriced here, and most shopkeepers seem happy to serve cider in large bottles to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

[slinkster]

I have far too many ideas to list here... but to add to this- I'd completely re-build Royal Mail. They absolutely suck.

And the CPS. Scrap them and hand prosecutions back to the Police.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Your views on nationalising public transport I couldn't agree more with.

National Service — no. For one thing, armed forces today have to be highly professional organisations, otherwise they simply cannot operate effectively. My idea of 'highly professional' is not an unemployed youth who doesn't want to be there — and I'd add that it is perfectly possible for someone to be out of work for an extended period for reasons other than laziness, let's not forget. For another, they have little need for recruitment any more. And, finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again — the main argument against using the forces as a means of improving the behaviour of young people is the centre of Aldershot on a Friday or Saturday night.



:up:

Lets just think back to a professional army fighting against a conscripted army. The Falklands War.

[tfp]

I have far too many ideas to list here... but to add to this- I'd completely re-build Royal Mail. They absolutely suck.

And the CPS. Scrap them and hand prosecutions back to the Police.

:up: +1 I nearly had my driving licence revolked thanks to the bloody CPS.
Oh, cheaper council tax and more bank holidays :D

[Rollo]

How's this for Australia?

Utilities: Renationalised
The Utility Companies were owned by the various State Governments, and in some cases have been privatised. Victorians saw their electric bills more than triple after privatisation and more than sevenfold increase in the number of blackouts as maintenance of infrastructure has been shirked.
All Water, Gas, Electric and Telephony (which includes internet) to be brought under Federal Govt control again.

Telstra returned an $8bn profit in 1996 and has progressively been sold off for a total of $30.7bn since it was privatised in 1997. Since privatisation the whole Telephony and Internet industry has never returned anything approaching $8bn in total corporate profits, and had Telstra remained in Government hands it would have returned more than it's total sale price in less than just four years. Telephony is one of those markets which suffers from commodity hell; the thing is that the infrastructure required to underpin in Australia it is so vast because of physical distance, that only a Government entity would dare attempt it.

A National Rail Strategy - Develop one!
Australia as a collection of 6 states and territories have always been at perpetual war when it comes to what they control, consequently although there have been plans for High-Speed Rail in Australia since the mid-1970s, no state governments can ever agree to doing anything about it.

Motor Industry
Detroit can go jump!
During the GFC, Holden was still returning a profit whilst Detroit was floundering. Detroit was receiving bail-out money from the United States Government, whilst Holden although it was still returning a profit received bail-out money from the Australian Govt. which was then sent to Detroit.
Why the hell were Australians sending our tax dollars to bail out an American firm? It's bad enough that American taxpayers were bailing out a ill-run company, but to make Australians do so as well is reprehensible.
I'd have the Federal Government resume Holden for $1, and tell Detroit where it can go and how to get there.

Defence
ANZUS - Repeal It - in all the years of operation, Australia has contributed over and excess of the benefits gained.
F35 - Cancel it. Australia can build better aircraft anyway. I can't think of a single example where the American version of the same aircraft has been better than the Australian one.
Eurofighter Typhoon - buy it - in various variants.
Challenger 2 Tank - buy it as due replacements for the Abrams M1 when they come up.

The Emissions Trading Scheme
I would prefer a carbon trading scheme to a punitive tax on carbon because it would allow the market to find its own price for carbon emissions. Also, it would give an incentive to farmers to actually repair the more than 200 years of damage which has been done to the enviornment because of over-farming.
A lot of farmers would jump at the chance to claim income from turning their properties into carbon sinks.

[SGWilko]

Ah yes - utilities.

All back under govt control, so that when the road gets dug up, it is one company that deals with all the services, and will avoid the same bit of road being dug umpteen times, usually just after it has been resurfaced........

The national service idea mooted by me was not a replacement for MOD recruitment, but you will certainly get some suitable folk who will end up signed up. It was more af a means to get 'em off the streets/congregating at bus stops more than anything else i.e. giving them something better to do!

[CarlMetro]

Bring back the death penalty, ban Mondays and the redistrubution of wealth.

[SGWilko]

Bring back the death penalty, ban Mondays and the redistrubution of wealth.

Nah - maybe cut off a hand for the most severe punishment. Avoids the scenario (which, cannot be rectified with the death penalty) of;

you are in A&E and you see a chap walk out with his hand crudely stitched back onto his arm, so you shout "I see you won your appeal then".......

[Malbec]

The national service idea mooted by me was not a replacement for MOD recruitment, but you will certainly get some suitable folk who will end up signed up. It was more af a means to get 'em off the streets/congregating at bus stops more than anything else i.e. giving them something better to do!

I'm against military national service but I do see where you're coming from.

We could have a larger version of the German Zivildienst that they had for conscienscious objectors, basically instead of doing one year of military service they had to do two years of doing social care, working in care homes, looking after disabled people and stuff like that.

Basically what a lot of the kids that caused havoc in the riots need is a sound disciplinary/reward structure. Behave badly and be punished, perform well and get the rewards. Anything that emulates that would be quite useful IMO.

[Malbec]

Defence
ANZUS - Repeal It - in all the years of operation, Australia has contributed over and excess of the benefits gained.
F35 - Cancel it. Australia can build better aircraft anyway. I can't think of a single example where the American version of the same aircraft has been better than the Australian one.
Eurofighter Typhoon - buy it - in various variants.
Challenger 2 Tank - buy it as due replacements for the Abrams M1 when they come up.


Why replace the Abrams with a tank of a similar vintage?

While I agree with Australia buying the Typhoon as long as the US doesn't sell its F22s (as a British taxpayer I want some return on investment too) I don't get how Australia could develop a better plane than the F35 without bankrupting itself? Also not being facetious but what was the last purely Australian developed aircraft?

[SGWilko]

basically instead of doing one year of military service they had to do two years of doing social care, working in care homes, looking after disabled people and stuff like that.

That would solve SO MANY current issues with the flailing elderly care system in this country right now, that it ought to be implemented straight away.

[Daniel]

Why replace the Abrams with a tank of a similar vintage?

While I agree with Australia buying the Typhoon as long as the US doesn't sell its F22s (as a British taxpayer I want some return on investment too) I don't get how Australia could develop a better plane than the F35 without bankrupting itself? Also not being facetious but what was the last purely Australian developed aircraft?

I don't really remember anything after this? CAC Boomerang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCAC_Boo merang&ei=zCdOTvLsAoLNhAevqJz5Bg&usg=AFQjCNFF_mAqzENb5OjW9V_RQwU9a0OShA)

[Malbec]

I don't really remember anything after this? CAC Boomerang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCAC_Boo merang&ei=zCdOTvLsAoLNhAevqJz5Bg&usg=AFQjCNFF_mAqzENb5OjW9V_RQwU9a0OShA)

Thats what I was thinking of and it wasn't that great either....

[Daniel]

Thats what I was thinking of and it wasn't that great either....

Definitely. Not quite sure where Rollo got that idea from TBH.

Any design of aircraft in Australia is pretty much purely limited to light aircraft like this -> Eagle Aircraft Eagle 150 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Aircraft_Eagle_150)

[Rollo]

Why replace the Abrams with a tank of a similar vintage?

There must be some reason for it, but when the Australian Army first ran the M1A1 they experienced niggling running issues, so much so that now instead of running JP8 they use Diesel.
Australia chose the M1A1 to replace the Leopard 1 tanks in 2003, which it never ever used in combat ever. It's interesting that 1RAR had the Leopard 2, the Challenger 2 and the M1A1 to pick from and magically because John Howard thought he had a "special relationship" with Bush like Blair did, Australia bought the M1A1.

Also, for some bizarre reason, the Challenger 2 even after seeing operation in the Balkans and Iraq, has only ever suffered 3 losses ever and one of those was due to friendly fire.



Also not being facetious but what was the last purely Australian developed aircraft?

Also also not being facetious but specifically I said that I can't think of a single example where the American version of the same aircraft has been better than the Australian one. I didn't say that there had been a purely Australian developed aircraft, that's your extension.

Originally the F35 was supposed to be delivered in 2012, then it became 2015, now it's out to 2018. The FA-18s that the RAAF in theory should be replaced by 2015. I'd rather replace the FA-18 with aircraft which actually can be delivered, rather than an aircraft in continual development hell.

[Malbec]

There must be some reason for it, but when the Australian Army first ran the M1A1 they experienced niggling running issues, so much so that now instead of running JP8 they use Diesel.
Australia chose the M1A1 to replace the Leopard 1 tanks in 2003, which it never ever used in combat ever. It's interesting that 1RAR had the Leopard 2, the Challenger 2 and the M1A1 to pick from and magically because John Howard thought he had a "special relationship" with Bush like Blair did, Australia bought the M1A1.

Also, for some bizarre reason, the Challenger 2 even after seeing operation in the Balkans and Iraq, has only ever suffered 3 losses ever and one of those was due to friendly fire.

Well, there have been far fewer Challenger 2s around to be lost....

While I don't know too much about the subject I do know the Challenger and its successor have both been spectacularly unsuccessful on the export market unlike their German counterparts (sound familiar?) and I suspect there is a very good reason for that, not least its main gun which is rifled and therefore has a smaller range of ammunition available for it.


Also also not being facetious but specifically I said that I can't think of a single example where the American version of the same aircraft has been better than the Australian one. I didn't say that there had been a purely Australian developed aircraft, that's your extension.

Originally the F35 was supposed to be delivered in 2012, then it became 2015, now it's out to 2018. The FA-18s that the RAAF in theory should be replaced by 2015. I'd rather replace the FA-18 with aircraft which actually can be delivered, rather than an aircraft in continual development hell.

Ahh ok, so you're saying that the Australian F111 or F/A18 were better than their US versions then? Presumably thats simply up to the Australians speccing up their kit because unlike the Americans they need their aircraft to cover a wider variety of roles?

Out of curiosity to what extent has the Australian aviation industry been involved in developing their own version of the F/A18 and F111 then? The F35 might be flawed and over-budget but I'd still stick with it. Sharing the development costs amongst most of the Western world sounds like a better option than Australia developing an aircraft all on its own. Its not as if Australia faces a current threat that requires the F/A18s to be replaced right now.

[Captain VXR]

1) Legalise weed and alternatives for over 18s e.g. K2, as well as all other illegal drugs deemed to be no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not physically addictive unlike tobacco, and no more dangerous a drug than alcohol and it creates less anti social behaviour, so why not? Increases in tax revenue would be made, crime associated with dealing and distribution would go down, it would become less of a gateway drug as people would buy it from shops and not dealers, so be less likely to be offered harder drugs like crack and LSD. Dealers don't ask for ID, legal high shops and 'coffee' shops etc would have to. Medical uses are well documented, and I would rather use cannabis as a pain killer than prescribed opiates/cocaine based drugs. Don't agree with using weed? Don't use it, but don't force your choice on other people.

2) Decriminalise personal possession of all other illegal drugs. Throwing addicts and recreational users into prison does nothing except put vulnerable people into close contact with hardened criminals, and those addicted should instead have to go to compulsary rehab, and be treated as the victims of unscrupulous dealers profiteering off the desperate and weak minded. Increasing penalties for production, smuggling, transporting and dealing would hopefully deter people from being involved in the illegal narcotics trade.

3) Identify skills shortages in the UK, and improve education in those areas so we do not have to rely on immigrants as much and try to lower unemployment.

4) Make education more suited to real life - less analysis of poems, more work experience - 4 weeks instead of 1, lessons on the highway code, driving, the law etc. Don't let the bible brigade get in the way of open, more detailed sex education - follow the example of the Netherlands which incidentally has a lower teen pregnancy rate.

5) Allow 16 year olds to purchase and consume weak alcoholic drinks e.g. beer and cider. This gradually introduces them to drink, and lets them see getting a couple of pints as something normal, rather something that they can only occasionally get, and therefore abuse in large quantities. Its stupid to not allow someone to get any drink one day, and then the next day, on their 18th birthday to suddenly get wrecked on loads of absinthe etc.

6) Make all schools secular to try to stop religious indoctrination and segregation, and nationalise private schools so that the most gifted rather than the most wealthy have the opportunity to attend them.

7) Vastly increase punishments for animal cruelty and neglect, especially when the abuser fits the profile of a future serial killer.

8) End the bribing of farmers to only grow x amount of crops, and instead use the surplus for foreign aid and bio fuels.

9) Military intervention in Somalia to drive Al Shabab out, and secure food aid transport routes.

10) Lobby the UN to impose sanctions on countries that execute people who have not killed, not attempted to kill anyone.

11) Reintroduce the death penalty for the very worst serial killers, terrorists and war criminals.

12) Formally recognise Palestine, Taiwan and Somaliland as independent sovereign nations and open formal diplomatic relations.

13) Ban NIMBYs from moving within 20 miles of race circuits, airports, concert halls, busy roads/railways etc so they cannot complain about the 'excessive noise' they generate and go back to moaning about asylum seekers they read about in the Daily Mail/Express.

14) Allow full gay marriage with religious groups allowed to opt out if they wish.

15) Less speed cameras, more traffic cops on patrol.

16) Widen all motorways to four lanes with staggered speed limits of 60, 70, 80 and 90 so that people pick a speed, stick to it and don't prevent faster vehicles from overtaking. Fines could be given for bad driving if people are traveling slower than the limit of the lane to their left (or right if you come from one of the multitude of countries that use the wrong side of the road) and that lane is clear.

17) Make having car insurance optional to lower costs, but include harsh penalties and fines if you cause an accident that cover all of the damage caused.

18) Create boot camps as an optional alternative to prison for less serious offenses.

[BDunnell]

The national service idea mooted by me was not a replacement for MOD recruitment, but you will certainly get some suitable folk who will end up signed up. It was more af a means to get 'em off the streets/congregating at bus stops more than anything else i.e. giving them something better to do!

Hence my point about the behaviour of those squaddies who have made Aldershot a hell-hole on a Friday or Saturday evening. I'm not sure the Army is 'something better to do'.

[BDunnell]

I don't really remember anything after this? CAC Boomerang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCAC_Boo merang&ei=zCdOTvLsAoLNhAevqJz5Bg&usg=AFQjCNFF_mAqzENb5OjW9V_RQwU9a0OShA)

In terms of combat aircraft there has been little. The GAF Nomad utility aircraft was pretty good though.

[BDunnell]

We could have a larger version of the German Zivildienst that they had for conscienscious objectors, basically instead of doing one year of military service they had to do two years of doing social care, working in care homes, looking after disabled people and stuff like that.

I dislike that notion, too. It assumes that everybody needs, in some sense, turning into a better person. And, again, I would rather my elderly relatives were cared for by professionals.

[ioan]

I dislike that notion, too. It assumes that everybody needs, in some sense, turning into a better person. And, again, I would rather my elderly relatives were cared for by professionals.

:up:

Exactly. The Zivildienst was and still is, at least in Austria, a way for the govrnement to get hard work done the cheap way, more or less for free.

This year they were very close to ditch the compulsory military service (for economical reasons) but they didn't because that would mean no more Zivildienst and that would cost them a lot of money that they would have to pay to professionals in social care.

[Rollo]

17) Make having car insurance optional to lower costs, but include harsh penalties and fines if you cause an accident that cover all of the damage caused.

If insurance is made with more options out, then because of negative self-selection by people wanting to be insured, insurance companies either try to reduce their exposure to large claims by either raising premiums or limiting coverage.
With less people paying into the system, insurance must therefore rise to cover the claims; not lower.

For motor insurance, the most efficient position is if people carry compulsory third party insurance, because at that point the calculated risk of something bad happening within the population of motor cars, is identical to the calculated risk of something bad happening within the population of motor cars.

[BDunnell]

:up:

Exactly. The Zivildienst was and still is, at least in Austria, a way for the govrnement to get hard work done the cheap way, more or less for free.

This year they were very close to ditch the compulsory military service (for economical reasons) but they didn't because that would mean no more Zivildienst and that would cost them a lot of money that they would have to pay to professionals in social care.

In Germany, as far as I'm aware, the Zivildienst came about not for those reasons but to provide a genuine alternative to doing military service. I don't know the figures, but certainly none of my German friends took the military option, pacifism being a strong feature of German life. But your point is a good one.

[markabilly]

make the second amendment stand for something.....me and president perry are going to require every certified citizen, who were born in the USA, that they must wear his side arm, but no more concealed silliness, must wear it on the outside for all the honest world to see.

and pass special shooting exams every year, or pay big taxes on their booze, income, health care, and social security.

Just to keep everyone safe from accidental discharges :D


and sell the national highway system to some Spanish company so they can toll the snot out of everyone......

[Bob Riebe]

Make it a law that anything sold in the U.S. of A. used British Standard Whitworth nuts and bolts and that all non-incandescent light bulbs have left-hand threads.

[Roamy]

within 90 days of conviction I would execute all Meth dealers.

[SGWilko]

within 90 days of conviction I would execute all Meth dealers.

That should 'crystalise' opinions!!! ;)

[Gregor-y]

Also also not being facetious but specifically I said that I can't think of a single example where the American version of the same aircraft has been better than the Australian one. I didn't say that there had been a purely Australian developed aircraft, that's your extension.
Just try it; we'll do to your aviation industry what we did to Canada's! ;)
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8686/noradsm.jpg
This time I think we call it 'Star Wars.'

[anthonyvop]

within 90 days of conviction I would execute all Meth dealers.

Funny but I would legalize Meth along with Pot and most other recreational drugs....Let Darwin do his stuff.

I would also Legalize Prostitution & Gambling.

Get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes.

Institute a Flat Tax. Not deductions. No escape. Everyone pays...including churches.

Declare Marriage a Private, spiritual manner and get the Government out of the Marriage business. Want it legal? Draw up a contract.

Institute a Right to work law nationally.

End all government subsidies of private entities. Everyone from GE to Planned Parenthood.

Declare Oil and Gas a Strategic Resource and allow drilling for it ANYWHERE without question as long as property rights are respected.

Any government Official or employee convicted of a crime shall serve an extra 5 years, no exceptions, above the regular sentence

Ban all mention or consideration of Race, Creed, color, sex or sexual orientation in all aspects of Government.

I can go on and on.

[BDunnell]

I can go on and on.

Oh, please do.

On second thoughts — don't.

[Rollo]

Just try it; we'll do to your aviation industry what we did to Canada's! ;)


Oh that's okay. Australia flew the Mirage III as a fighter-bomber for a while. Dassault hadn't planned for that so the RAAF had to write their own avionics suite. They even flirted with a Rolls-Royce Avon variant, but it didn't see production.

It's not like any F-35s have been delivered to date anyway. What's the loss?

[Roamy]

Funny but I would legalize Meth along with Pot and most other recreational drugs....Let Darwin do his stuff.

I would also Legalize Prostitution & Gambling.

Get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes.

Institute a Flat Tax. Not deductions. No escape. Everyone pays...including churches.

Declare Marriage a Private, spiritual manner and get the Government out of the Marriage business. Want it legal? Draw up a contract.

Institute a Right to work law nationally.

End all government subsidies of private entities. Everyone from GE to Planned Parenthood.

Declare Oil and Gas a Strategic Resource and allow drilling for it ANYWHERE without question as long as property rights are respected.

Any government Official or employee convicted of a crime shall serve an extra 5 years, no exceptions, above the regular sentence

Ban all mention or consideration of Race, Creed, color, sex or sexual orientation in all aspects of Government.

I can go on and on.

Gee we agree except for the Meth

[Roamy]

well I may be a little shaky on the corp taxes

[Rollo]

Get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes.

Institute a Flat Tax. Not deductions. No escape. Everyone pays...including churches.


Two questions:

1. If you get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes, would you propose a corresponding rise in income tax via your Flat Tax to make up the shortfall?
2. Churches are Corporate. Many churches have holding companies for property ownership purposes. Would you reclassify them?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Make a clear distinction between private and public, which would stop the government from interfering with anybody's privacy and stop outlandish groups and individuals from making their petty obsessions public issues.

[Retro Formula 1]

1. Ban on any new power stations unless they are Nuclear.

2. Work Fair. You get 6 months benefit and then have work on community projects for 20 hours per week to continue receiving an allowance.

3. Community services such as refuse collection, road sweeping, local association gardening and up keep to be supported by people on Work Fair.

4. Defence. Reduce the armed forces by 60% and the budget by 40% to result in a highly trained, highly equipped specialist fighting force that is capable of striking anywhere quickly, protecting the homeland but is not suited for large scale, long term overseas invasions.

5. Redeploy the 40% saved from the defence budget into developing new jobs and training schemes in the UK to train the youth and reduce unemployment.

6. Immigration. Introduce strict criteria on economic immigration with minimum standards of literacy, language and skills.

7. Social education for delinquents. 3 strikes for under 25's and your off to boot camp. 30 day minimum drilling to install discipline, cleanliness, compliance and set boundaries followed by a minimum 30 day course on social education, basic skills and career advice. If they haven't got a job on leaving then put them straight onto the Workfair programme to avoid them being left in limbo.

8. Prisons. No more cushy cells with X-box and all mod cons. Basic cells and hard labour unless you are on a training or education scheme. Compulsory drug rehab and progressive release schedule for all prisoners to ensure they have a support network. 2nd time in prison minimum 12 months and 3rd time 5 years.

9. Investment in youth and community projects to channel young peoples energy and keep them focused on positive habits while helping to grow positive community spirit.

10. Human Rights act. Withdraw from the legislation but adhere to the principles. However, never again let it stifle common sense such as deporting hate clerics or illegal immigrants that commit crimes even if it puts them in danger. Not our fault.

[Malbec]

And, again, I would rather my elderly relatives were cared for by professionals.

General care for the elderly or even hospital patients does not require much training at all and I'd hesitate to call them professional skills. Learning how to change bedsheets, clean up possessions, assist someone taking a bath or going to the toilet, accompanying them on walks and keeping them company are important tasks with too few people willing to do them.

Hospitals too could do with a good supply of people for menial tasks. Hospital portering is mainly about wheeling patients in their beds around the hospital. Its a boring job, badly paid but not having enough porters brings the system to its knees.

I'm sure there are many other areas that could benefit from having a steady supply of young people. Whether or not the entire population should be involved is another issue, instead of being made compulsory for all it could be part of a welfare to work scheme instead.

[anthonyvop]

Two questions:

1. If you get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes, would you propose a corresponding rise in income tax via your Flat Tax to make up the shortfall?

A flat rate with no deductions would more than cover any shortfall coming from the abolition of the Corporate tax. Most "experts" have the Flat Tax pegged at between 12 -17% to cover all necessary expenses.


2. Churches are Corporate. Many churches have holding companies for property ownership purposes. Would you reclassify them?
They would pay the property tax on their HUGE real estate holdings

[anthonyvop]

1. Ban on any new power stations unless they are Nuclear.

2. Work Fair. You get 6 months benefit and then have work on community projects for 20 hours per week to continue receiving an allowance.

3. Community services such as refuse collection, road sweeping, local association gardening and up keep to be supported by people on Work Fair.

4. Defence. Reduce the armed forces by 60% and the budget by 40% to result in a highly trained, highly equipped specialist fighting force that is capable of striking anywhere quickly, protecting the homeland but is not suited for large scale, long term overseas invasions.

5. Redeploy the 40% saved from the defence budget into developing new jobs and training schemes in the UK to train the youth and reduce unemployment.

6. Immigration. Introduce strict criteria on economic immigration with minimum standards of literacy, language and skills.

7. Social education for delinquents. 3 strikes for under 25's and your off to boot camp. 30 day minimum drilling to install discipline, cleanliness, compliance and set boundaries followed by a minimum 30 day course on social education, basic skills and career advice. If they haven't got a job on leaving then put them straight onto the Workfair programme to avoid them being left in limbo.

8. Prisons. No more cushy cells with X-box and all mod cons. Basic cells and hard labour unless you are on a training or education scheme. Compulsory drug rehab and progressive release schedule for all prisoners to ensure they have a support network. 2nd time in prison minimum 12 months and 3rd time 5 years.

9. Investment in youth and community projects to channel young peoples energy and keep them focused on positive habits while helping to grow positive community spirit.

10. Human Rights act. Withdraw from the legislation but adhere to the principles. However, never again let it stifle common sense such as deporting hate clerics or illegal immigrants that commit crimes even if it puts them in danger. Not our fault.

Wow....We would not get along.

BTW #7 has been done before. Only they were called Gulags and reeducation camps not Boot Camps and Social education!

[Bob Riebe]

Two questions:

1. If you get rid of the Corporate and estate taxes, would you propose a corresponding rise in income tax via your Flat Tax to make up the shortfall?
2. Churches are Corporate. Many churches have holding companies for property ownership purposes. Would you reclassify them?He would run into the Constitution with the State taxing religious enterprises.
Some taxes could be levied probably, but if he tries to tax church members tithing, he would hit a brick wall.
At the same time many of the feel good enterprises being touted here, are built on pixie dust feel good ideas.

It is the ones such as cutting defense by over half, but by some miracle workders here want, yet equipping it with the most technologically advance equipment.
What we have now is not the most advanced, it is the best we can afford.
We will not have the number of F-22 fighters needed to keep the advantage we had with the F-15 because the current budget writers refused to fund it, so how is one going to build enough f-22s to regain that advantage while cutting defense by over half?

At the same time the ONLY way to truly defend the home front is to have system that stops ANY ballistic missiles from penetrating our airspace to the point that the EMP will not frying our communication and transportation systems.
Many defense journals have spoken of this being a fact no one is mentioning, ever which was only amplified by the glitches that computer failures on the F-22 showed so plainly.
An issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology several years ago said the Chinese do not need a fighter as good as the F-22 as all they have to do is set off a nuke in the air that will not shoot down the U.S. fighters but fry their digital systems and then the U.S. pilots will be working over time just keeping the plane in the air and old fighters such as the Mig 21 will have a field day.
Now one want so finance it now, but by some miracle cutting defense by over fifty percent will?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

He would run into the Constitution with the State taxing religious enterprises.
Some taxes could be levied probably, but if he tries to tax church members tithing, he would hit a brick wall.
At the same time many of the feel good enterprises being touted here, are built on pixie dust feel good ideas.

It is the ones such as cutting defense by over half, but by some miracle workders here want, yet equipping it with the most technologically advance equipment.
What we have now is not the most advanced, it is the best we can afford.
We will not have the number of F-22 fighters needed to keep the advantage we had with the F-15 because the current budget writers refused to fund it, so how is one going to build enough f-22s to regain that advantage while cutting defense by over half?

At the same time the ONLY way to truly defend the home front is to have system that stops ANY ballistic missiles from penetrating our airspace to the point that the EMP will not frying our communication and transportation systems.
Many defense journals have spoken of this being a fact no one is mentioning, ever which was only amplified by the glitches that computer failures on the F-22 showed so plainly.
An issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology several years ago said the Chinese do not need a fighter as good as the F-22 as all they have to do is set off a nuke in the air that will not shoot down the U.S. fighters but fry their digital systems and then the U.S. pilots will be working over time just keeping the plane in the air and old fighters such as the Mig 21 will have a field day.
Now one want so finance it now, but by some miracle cutting defense by over fifty percent will?

Why would China want to start a war with the U.S.?

[BDunnell]

I'm sure there are many other areas that could benefit from having a steady supply of young people. Whether or not the entire population should be involved is another issue, instead of being made compulsory for all it could be part of a welfare to work scheme instead.

I see nothing wrong with that notion.

[BDunnell]

Wow....We would not get along.

Tony, I can't imagine anyone on here not having a whale of a time with you. No need to feel sorry for yourself.

[Bob Riebe]

Not the topic of the thread--- but probably for similar reasons they went to war with Russia in 1969 and Vietnam in 1979; not to mention we are allied to Taiwan.

[anthonyvop]

He would run into the Constitution with the State taxing religious enterprises.
Some taxes could be levied probably, but if he tries to tax church members tithing, he would hit a brick wall.
At the same time many of the feel good enterprises being touted here, are built on pixie dust feel good ideas.



This is a hypothetical thread. The politics involved in accomplishing these wishes aren't relevant to the thread.

[Retro Formula 1]

Wow....We would not get along.



I can't believe it but for once, I actually agree with you :p

[Garry Walker]

1) Flat tax rate on income. Everyone pays the same percentage.
2) Move towards nuclear energy, ban on wind energy.
3) Bring back death penalty and execute all those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting and drug dealing. General move towads harsh punishments, make prisons prisons again, not the luxury crap they have at so many prisons now. No TV, no X-box, no internet, but harsh conditions. No parole, you do the full time
4) Ban on immigration, except for very skilled labour. We have enough of our own people with low IQ who can do jobs like cleaning.
5) Ban on affirmative action and quotas. The best man or woman must get the job.
6) No multiculturalism.
7) Promote the traditional family consisting of a man, woman and children.
8) Ban on gay marriage, gay adoption and all gay prides.
9) Less art in school, more subjects that are actually useful in life. More attention to Physical Education at schools, the current generation of children is far too obese, lazy and computer addicted.
10) Deport all illegal immigrants, deport all immigrants convicted of a crime. I couldnt care less about their "human rights", they have broken the law.
11) No welfare for those who can work, but choose not to. If you aren`t working, you aren`t useful for the society. Simple as that.
12) Ban on islam, tear down all islamic buildings. No funding or tax cuts for other religions (churches).
13) Mandatory army service for all males except those with disability.
14) Have a national holiday week called "beat a communist week" where you can beat up any commie as much as you like without any punishment following :D
15) End of foreign aid to african countries.
16) Dismantle unions
17) Radical reform in uni education, cutting of many laughable and useless courses.
18) Abolish inheritance tax and property taxes.
19) Massive overhaul of public sector.
20) More speed cameras.

Flame away :D

[BDunnell]

1) Flat tax rate on income. Everyone pays the same percentage.
2) Move towards nuclear energy, ban on wind energy.
3) Bring back death penalty and execute all those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting and drug dealing. General move towads harsh punishments, make prisons prisons again, not the luxury crap they have at so many prisons now. No TV, no X-box, no internet, but harsh conditions. No parole, you do the full time
4) Ban on immigration, except for very skilled labour. We have enough of our own people with low IQ who can do jobs like cleaning.
5) Ban on affirmative action and quotas. The best man or woman must get the job.
6) No multiculturalism.
7) Promote the traditional family consisting of a man, woman and children.
8) Ban on gay marriage, gay adoption and all gay prides.
9) Less art in school, more subjects that are actually useful in life. More attention to Physical Education at schools, the current generation of children is far too obese, lazy and computer addicted.
10) Deport all illegal immigrants, deport all immigrants convicted of a crime. I couldnt care less about their "human rights", they have broken the law.
11) No welfare for those who can work, but choose not to. If you aren`t working, you aren`t useful for the society. Simple as that.
12) Ban on islam, tear down all islamic buildings. No funding or tax cuts for other religions (churches).
13) Mandatory army service for all males except those with disability.
14) Have a national holiday week called "beat a communist week" where you can beat up any commie as much as you like without any punishment following :D
15) End of foreign aid to african countries.
16) Dismantle unions
17) Radical reform in uni education, cutting of many laughable and useless courses.
18) Abolish inheritance tax and property taxes.
19) Massive overhaul of public sector.
20) More speed cameras.

Flame away :D

I'm not going to bother. Your attitudes describe you better than anyone else's comments ever could.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

8) Ban on gay marriage, gay adoption and all gay prides.

Why?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm not going to bother. Your attitudes describe you better than anyone else's comments ever could.

I think of it as possible script ideas for an Alan Partridge film. :p

[Garry Walker]

Why?
Because a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That is the only normal way, that is the only way society can keep on going. I will never back down from that view. I also think a child needs a father and a mother, not two mothers or two fathers. And yes, I know many fathers (and mothers) abandon their children and that is not perfect either.


I'm not going to bother. Your attitudes describe you better than anyone else's comments ever could.
Here, have some, dunnell. Maybe you will feel better then.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-SsUt2vKb8U/TAf9TFNE-wI/AAAAAAAAAKk/FPSNS_Rgj70/s400/tampons.jpg

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

That is the only normal way, that is the only way society can keep on going.

So if we let gays marry society will come to an end? I fail to see how.

Allowing gay marriage will just mean that most marriages are between a man and a woman, and a small percentage are between same sex couples. Hardly a society ending problem.

[Garry Walker]

So if we let gays marry society will come to an end? I fail to see how.

Allowing gay marriage will just mean that most marriages are between a man and a woman, and a small percentage are between same sex couples. Hardly a society ending problem.

It is hardly a society ending problem if they cannot marry.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It is hardly a society ending problem if they cannot marry.

It's an unfair, unequal and partly unhappy society though.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm not going to bother. Your attitudes describe you better than anyone else's comments ever could.Yes but number 20 shows him to be really just another Big Brother Liberal wanting to force you to do as the government wishes.

[SGWilko]

1) Flat tax rate on income. Everyone pays the same percentage.
2) Move towards nuclear energy, ban on wind energy.
3) Bring back death penalty and execute all those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting and drug dealing. General move towads harsh punishments, make prisons prisons again, not the luxury crap they have at so many prisons now. No TV, no X-box, no internet, but harsh conditions. No parole, you do the full time
4) Ban on immigration, except for very skilled labour. We have enough of our own people with low IQ who can do jobs like cleaning.
5) Ban on affirmative action and quotas. The best man or woman must get the job.
6) No multiculturalism.
7) Promote the traditional family consisting of a man, woman and children.
8) Ban on gay marriage, gay adoption and all gay prides.
9) Less art in school, more subjects that are actually useful in life. More attention to Physical Education at schools, the current generation of children is far too obese, lazy and computer addicted.
10) Deport all illegal immigrants, deport all immigrants convicted of a crime. I couldnt care less about their "human rights", they have broken the law.
11) No welfare for those who can work, but choose not to. If you aren`t working, you aren`t useful for the society. Simple as that.
12) Ban on islam, tear down all islamic buildings. No funding or tax cuts for other religions (churches).
13) Mandatory army service for all males except those with disability.
14) Have a national holiday week called "beat a communist week" where you can beat up any commie as much as you like without any punishment following :D
15) End of foreign aid to african countries.
16) Dismantle unions
17) Radical reform in uni education, cutting of many laughable and useless courses.
18) Abolish inheritance tax and property taxes.
19) Massive overhaul of public sector.
20) More speed cameras.

Flame away :D

Bugger - the flint has gone!

I'd vote for ya big boy!!! :laugh:

[SGWilko]

I'm not going to bother. Your attitudes describe you better than anyone else's comments ever could.

You might be missing the point of my theoretical non serious thread a tad.........

[Daniel]

Because a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That is the only normal way, that is the only way society can keep on going. I will never back down from that view. I also think a child needs a father and a mother, not two mothers or two fathers. And yes, I know many fathers (and mothers) abandon their children and that is not perfect either.

Garry, I understand where you're coming from, you obviously don't believe what homosexuals is doing is right. But does it really matter? That's what they are choosing to do with their lives and it doesn't impact upon me at all, if it makes them happy then why not allow them to do it.

For those who think that homosexuality is unnatural, think again Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

I feel that it would be much better for an orphan to have a set of devoted same sex parents who treat them well and raise them properly than for them to spend their time in the care of the state.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That's what they are choosing to do with their lives and it doesn't impact upon me at all, if it makes them happy then why not allow them to do it.



I'm not happy with your wording there, Daniel.

Choosing what? Choosing to be gay or choosing to marry?

[BDunnell]

Yes but number 20 shows him to be really just another Big Brother Liberal wanting to force you to do as the government wishes.

So on that basis you think I should be supportive of him, right?

[BDunnell]

Because a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That is the only normal way, that is the only way society can keep on going. I will never back down from that view. I also think a child needs a father and a mother, not two mothers or two fathers. And yes, I know many fathers (and mothers) abandon their children and that is not perfect either.

Do you think that gay people are abnormal, then?

[Captain VXR]

3) Bring back death penalty and execute all those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting and drug dealing. General move towads harsh punishments, make prisons prisons again, not the luxury crap they have at so many prisons now. No TV, no X-box, no internet, but harsh conditions. No parole, you do the full time

We talking about someone selling a bit of weed to their friends or someone offloading heroin to hundreds of addicts?

[Garry Walker]

Yes but number 20 shows him to be really just another Big Brother Liberal wanting to force you to do as the government wishes.
I have never ever in my life before been called a liberal. Never.


Garry, I understand where you're coming from, you obviously don't believe what homosexuals is doing is right. But does it really matter? That's what they are choosing to do with their lives and it doesn't impact upon me at all, if it makes them happy then why not allow them to do it.
To make myself clear, I will not promote or tolerate the beating up of someone just because he is gay. It is their right to be in consensual relationship and if they so wish, it is not my business.
But I will stand 100% firm in marriage being only between those who can have children, that is always a man and a woman.



For those who think that homosexuality is unnatural, think again Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals) Some animals kill their young, some animals eat their own faeces. Just because animals do it, doesnt mean it is natural and that humans should do it.

[SGWilko]

Do you think that gay people are abnormal, then?

You have man, and you have woman. To reproduce to sustain the species man and woman must reproduce. That is natural.

Chutney Ferrets cannot, no matter how hard they try, reproduce. I admit, they write and sing a good tune, but, apart from doing spermy poos, that's about it. No harm done, one up the bum is not natural.

[Garry Walker]

Do you think that gay people are abnormal, then?
I think that homosexuality is not normal, yes.


We talking about someone selling a bit of weed to their friends or someone offloading heroin to hundreds of addicts?

Obviously the latter. But I have very little tolerance of the former either.

[BDunnell]

To make myself clear, I will not promote or tolerate the beating up of someone just because he is gay. It is their right to be in consensual relationship and if they so wish, it is not my business.
But I will stand 100% firm in marriage being only between those who can have children, that is always a man and a woman.

But why? 'Because it's what I think' or 'It's just wrong' is an answer, but it's not a good one. Leave aside the lack of reproduction. What, exactly, is wrong with the concept of a child being brought up by two same-sex parents? What is it that worries you so much about it? Why should it be a concern that a child should grow up in a household with two same-sex parents?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

But I will stand 100% firm in marriage being only between those who can have children, that is always a man and a woman.



So now infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

So why not a contract for gays that is equal to marriage in all but name?

[BDunnell]

I think that homosexuality is not normal, yes.

Why? Define 'normal'. And, while you're about it, let us know why you believe adhering to 'normality' is automatically a good thing.

[BDunnell]

You have man, and you have woman. To reproduce to sustain the species man and woman must reproduce. That is natural.

Chutney Ferrets cannot, no matter how hard they try, reproduce. I admit, they write and sing a good tune, but, apart from doing spermy poos, that's about it. No harm done, one up the bum is not natural.

Is this another example of your famous 'non-politically-correct' 'sense of humour' in action again?

And reproduction is not what I would call 'natural' in the strictest sense of the word. It is a choice on the part of those involved, as opposed to happening automatically. Do you believe that an opposite-sex couple that chooses not to reproduce is unnatural?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You have man, and you have woman. To reproduce to sustain the species man and woman must reproduce. That is natural.



So in your opinion then it is natural for someone to have sex with someone who they are not sexually attracted to?

[SGWilko]

So in your opinion then it is natural for someone to have sex with someone who they are not sexually attracted to?

Depends - survival of the fittest does not really apply to homo sapiens as we run roughshod over every other living species.

We can afford to be choosy, provided the species is not threatened.

If it was, no doubt any port in a storm would suffice....

[SGWilko]

Is this another example of your famous 'non-politically-correct' 'sense of humour' in action again?

And reproduction is not what I would call 'natural' in the strictest sense of the word. It is a choice on the part of those involved, as opposed to happening automatically. Do you believe that an opposite-sex couple that chooses not to reproduce is unnatural?

Nothing political about sexual reproduction.

Famous - me? Oh goody!

[Garry Walker]

But why? 'Because it's what I think' or 'It's just wrong' is an answer, but it's not a good one. Leave aside the lack of reproduction. What, exactly, is wrong with the concept of a child being brought up by two same-sex parents? What is it that worries you so much about it? Why should it be a concern that a child should grow up in a household with two same-sex parents?
Because in my view a child is best brought up when he/she has both a mother and a father. Men and women are very different in various ways and we were created with both sexes having weaknesses and strengths that the other sex usually doesnt have. So a man and a woman will "help out" eachother and help eachother to raise the child in the best manner. There are also times when a child needs a father or a mother figure in his/her life and when you have to parents of the same sex, that just wont work out.



So now infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Because they are still a man and a woman who in their essence can have children. Maybe they can be cured. Two men and two women on their own cannot. Simple.


So why not a contract for gays that is equal to marriage in all but name?

So that it would be like a marriage, just with a different name? No.

[BDunnell]

Because in my view a child is best brought up when he/she has both a mother and a father. Men and women are very different in various ways and we were created with both sexes having weaknesses and strengths that the other sex usually doesnt have. So a man and a woman will "help out" eachother and help eachother to raise the child in the best manner. There are also times when a child needs a father or a mother figure in his/her life and when you have to parents of the same sex, that just wont work out.

Your view is, if I may say so, extraordinarily simplistic. And quite what experience you base it on I can't imagine.

[Garry Walker]

Why? Define 'normal'. Look it up from the dictionary.



And, while you're about it, let us know why you believe adhering to 'normality' is automatically a good thing.

A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because they are still a man and a woman who in their essence can have children. Maybe they can be cured. Two men and two women on their own cannot. Simple.



So that it would be like a marriage, just with a different name? No.

But why does marriage have to be about having children?

Marriage is about two people who love each other.

Why should two people who are romantically in love with each other not be allowed the right to marry?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Look it up from the dictionary.



A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.

It would be a very sad world if everyone had to conform to being normal. So how would you describe someones DNA as being normal?

Every living thing is different, that is what makes the world interesting.

[Garry Walker]

Your view is, if I may say so, extraordinarily simplistic. And quite what experience you base it on I can't imagine.

I know I (or anyone else) dont have the intellectual capacity that you possess, so you will just have to accept us stupid creatures as we are.


What experience do you base your views on btw?

[BDunnell]

A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.

Wikiquote is very useful, isn't it?

[Garry Walker]

Your view is, if I may say so, extraordinarily simplistic. And quite what experience you base it on I can't imagine.


But why does marriage have to be about having children?

Marriage is about two people who love each other.

Why should two people who are romantically in love with each other not be allowed the right to marry?

Should a man be allowed to have 5 wives? All wives agree with their being 4 more wives for their husband, all consensual. Do you think such marriages should be allowed?

[SGWilko]

Wikiquote is very useful, isn't it?

Will it help me wade through all my double glazing proposals?

[BDunnell]

What experience do you base your views on btw?

My views are based on being firm in the knowledge that people of one sexual orientation are not inferior to the other.

[Daniel]

I'm not happy with your wording there, Daniel.

Choosing what? Choosing to be gay or choosing to marry?

Perhaps my wording was a little clumsy, I didn't mean that people necessarily choose to be gay or anything.

SGWilko, I think your jokes on this subject are not funny in the slightest, at lest Garry seems to be able not not through names around......

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Should a man be allowed to have 5 wives? All wives agree with their being 4 more wives for their husband, all consensual. Do you think such marriages should be allowed?

As I said in the post you quoted. Marriage is between two people. :erm:

[BDunnell]

Should a man be allowed to have 5 wives? All wives agree with their being 4 more wives for their husband, all consensual. Do you think such marriages should be allowed?

Such marriages are allowed in countries where that is part of the culture.

[Garry Walker]

Wikiquote is very useful, isn't it?
Thanks, I have never been to that site before, but I will go now.


It would be a very sad world if everyone had to conform to being normal.
The next time I am at the dinner table, I will make sure to let go of some really nasty farts and afterwards take a **** on the table. If asked why I did that, I will just say you said it would be sad if everyone had to conform to being normal.

[BDunnell]

SGWilko, I think your jokes on this subject are not funny in the slightest, at lest Garry seems to be able not not through names around......

I suspect the intention is to portray those of us who object to them as being humourless. The Jim Davidson defence.

[BDunnell]

The next time I am at the dinner table, I will make sure to let go of some really nasty farts and afterwards take a **** on the table. If asked why I did that, I will just say you said it would be sad if everyone had to conform to being normal.

So, let's get this clear. Are you equating the normality of being a homosexual with the normality of someone who takes a **** on the table?

[Garry Walker]

As I said in the post you quoted. Marriage is between two people. :erm:
Why discriminate? Provided those 6 people love eachother, why not let them get married? Why discriminate against them?


Such marriages are allowed in countries where that is part of the culture.
Do you agree with such marriages?

[Garry Walker]

So, let's get this clear. Are you equating the normality of being a homosexual with the normality of someone who takes a **** on the table?

Seriously, dude, have you ever in your life laughed or a made a joke?

[BDunnell]

Seriously, dude, have you ever in your life laughed or a made a joke?

Your comments are in no way humorous or jokey. They are purely unpleasant, offensive and ignorant.

[BDunnell]

Do you agree with such marriages?

I have never given the matter a moment's thought.

[SGWilko]

The next time I am at the dinner table, I will make sure to let go of some really nasty farts and afterwards take a **** on the table. If asked why I did that, I will just say you said it would be sad if everyone had to conform to being normal.

I am sorry, but Rhuprect the monkey boy just sprung to mind with that analogy. :laugh:

[Garry Walker]

Your comments are in no way humorous or jokey. They are purely unpleasant, offensive and ignorant.

Coming from you, I can only take that as a compliment.

[SGWilko]

Your comments are in no way humorous or jokey. They are purely unpleasant, offensive and ignorant.

That'll be a no then will it?

[BDunnell]

Coming from you, I can only take that as a compliment.

Oh, save us from your coruscating wit!

[BDunnell]

That'll be a no then will it?

I choose to find things other than sexism, racism and homophobia amusing.

[SGWilko]

Oh, save us from your coruscating wit!

I've got that on my shed roof I think......

[Garry Walker]

I have never given the matter a moment's thought.

Use your obviously highly developed intellectual powers and give it a few thoughts, then report back.

[SGWilko]

I choose to find things other than sexism, racism and homophobia amusing.

I laugh at funny stuff.

[Bob Riebe]

Garry, I understand where you're coming from, you obviously don't believe what homosexuals is doing is right. But does it really matter? That's what they are choosing to do with their lives and it doesn't impact upon me at all, if it makes them happy then why not allow them to do it.

For those who think that homosexuality is unnatural, think again Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

I feel that it would be much better for an orphan to have a set of devoted same sex parents who treat them well and raise them properly than for them to spend their time in the care of the state.Ah the Wiki such an inrellectual well researched internet source....
Oh well.
Chimps murder other chimps, so murder is a natural act also?

If you are going post a source, post one with some sort of credentials.

Are people born gay or straight? Much of the current media sources assume the question is a solved scientific problem with all the evidence pointing toward a biological (probably genetic) basis for a homosexual orientation. Contrary to this perception, the question has been poorly studied (or studied poorly), although there is some evidence on both sides of question. In addition, many of the initial studies, which were highly touted by the media as "proof" for a biological basis for homosexuality, have been contradicted by later, more thorough studies. This evidence falls into four basic categories:

Brain structure
Possible hormonal influences
Concordance of homosexuality in twins
Concordance of genetic markers in siblings

Why does it matter?

Until a few years ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are gay. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one's race, over which we have no control.
Sexual orientation - brain studies

Since sexual attraction begins in the brain, researchers first examined the question of sexual orientation by comparing the anatomy of brains from males and females. These studies showed that male and female brains showed sexual dimorphism in the pre-optic area of the hypothalamus, where males demonstrated a greater than two-fold difference in cell number and size compared to females.1 A second study found that two of four Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH) were at least twice as large in males as females.2 Since the INAH was involved in sexual dimorphism, it was hypothesized by Simon LeVay that there might be differences in this region in heterosexual vs. homosexual men. Postmortem examination of the brains of AIDS patients vs. control male subjects (presumed to be heterosexual) showed that the presumably heterosexual men exhibited INAH3 that were twice the size of both females and presumably homosexual men who had died of AIDS.3 The study has been criticized for its uncertainty of sexual orientation of the subjects, and potential complications caused by the AIDS virus (which does infect the human brain), and also by lowered testosterone levels found in AIDS patients. A popularized Newsweek cover story, "Is This Child Gay?"4 characterized LeVay as a "champion for the genetic side," even though the study involved no genetic data at all.

A subsequent study by Byne, et al. examined the question of INAH3 size on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status.5 The study found large differences in INAH3 volume on the basis of sex (with the male INAH3 being larger than the female INAH3). However, the volume of IHAH3 was decreased in male heterosexual men who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm3 compared with 0.123 mm3 in male controls). There was no statistically significant difference between IHAH3 sizes of male heterosexuals vs. male homosexuals who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm3 and 0.096 mm3, respectively). The study also found that there were no differences in the number of neurons in the INAH3 based upon sexual orientation, although researchers found significant differences between males and females, as in other studies.5 It was obvious from this study that LeVay's study was fatally flawed due to the AIDS complication, and that there were no differences in the INAH3 based upon sexual orientation.

The role of the hypothalamus in sexual orientation was further studied by Swaab, et al. Other researchers had hypothesized that differentiation of the hypothalamus occurred before birth. However, Swaab's study showed that the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) of more than 100 subjects decreased in volume and cell number in the females only 2-4 years postnatal. This finding complicated the findings of the brain studies, since not only chemical and hormonal factors, but also social factors, might have influenced this process.6

A study by Allen and Gorski examined the anterior commissure of the brain, finding that females and homosexual males exhibited a larger size than heterosexual males.7 However, later studies using larger sample sizes found no such differences.8

Complicating the issue of brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the problem that sexual experiences themselves can affect brain structure.9 So, the question will always be whether homosexual practice changes the brain or whether the brain results in homosexual practice.
Hormonal influences

Since sexual differentiation occurs within the womb, as a result of hormonal influences, it has been hypothesized that homosexuality may result from a differential hormone balance in the wombs of those who eventually exhibit a homosexual orientation. Since hormonal levels within the womb are not available, proxies for hormonal influences have been used to examine the question of how hormonal influences might impact sexual orientation. These proxies include differences in skeletal size and shape, including the ratio of the long bones of the arms and legs relative to arm span or stature and the hand bones of adults (the ratio of the length of the various phalanges).
Digit ratio vs. orientationDigit ratio vs. orientation

Studies have shown that ratios of digit length are predictors of several hormones, including testosterone, luteinizing hormone and estrogen.10 In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D). However, in men, the index finger is usually shorter than the fourth. It has been shown that this greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds. It has been hypothesized that the sex difference in the 2D:4D ratio reflects the prenatal influence of androgen on males. A study by Williams, et al. showed that the 2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men for either hand.11 However, homosexual women displayed significantly smaller 2D:4D ratios compared with heterosexual women (see figure to right). It has been hypothesized that women exposed to more androgens in the womb tend to express a homosexual orientation. However, since these hormone levels were never measured, one is left with the proxy of finger lengths as a substitute. Studies have found that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation.12 This study also found that homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers among their older siblings (229 brothers: 163 sisters) compared with the general population (106 males: 100 females). Males who had two or more older brothers were found to have lower 2D:4D ratios,11 suggesting that they had experienced increased androgens in the womb. Why increased androgens would predispose both males and females to be homosexual was not explained in the study.

Another study examined the length of long bones in the arms, legs and hands. Both homosexual males and heterosexual females had less long bone growth in the arms, legs and hands, than heterosexual males or homosexual females.13 Accordingly, the researchers hypothesized that male homosexuals had less androgen exposure during development than male heterosexuals, while female homosexuals had greater steroid exposure during development than their heterosexual counterparts. Of course, with regard to male homosexuality, this study directly contradicted the presumed results of the Williams study above, which "showed" that males with multiple older brothers (who tended to be homosexual) experienced increased androgen exposure.

A study of one homosexual vs. two heterosexual male triplets found that the homosexual triplets scored more on the female side of the Masculinity-Femininity scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,14 suggesting a possible hormonal influence (decreased androgens) involved in male homosexual orientation.

All of the studies reporting possible hormonal influence on homosexuality suffer from the lack of any real evidence that hormones actually play any role in sexual orientation. The fact that contradictory studies report increased11,15 vs. decreased13-14 androgens as a basis for homosexuality doesn't provoke confidence that the proxies are really true. Obviously, a study that documented real hormone levels, as opposed to proxies, would probably provide more definitive data.....

[Garry Walker]

Oh, save us from your coruscating wit!

We all can't be such sophisticated aristocrats such as yourself.

[Daniel]

I suspect the intention is to portray those of us who object to them as being humourless. The Jim Davidson defence.

:laugh:

Whatever it is it's not really welcome on this forum.

[BDunnell]

Ah the Wiki such an inrellectual well researched internet source....
Oh well.
Chimps murder other chimps, so murder is a natural act also?

If you are going post a source, post one with credentials.

If you are going to criticise others for not being sufficiently intellectual, do try to spell the word correctly. It does the force of your argument a power of good.

[Daniel]

Ah the Wiki such an inrellectual well researched internet source....
Oh well.
Chimps murder other chimps, so murder is a natural act also?

If you are going post a source, post one with credentials.

Thing is Bob, you can't exactly compare murder and homosexuality.

Anyway, feel free to search elsewhere if you want to see animals being homosexual :) It happens, even outside of wikipedia!

[Bob Riebe]

So on that basis you think I should be supportive of him, right?Nah--it just shows he has a liberal wild hair tickling part of his though process.

[BDunnell]

Nah--it just shows he has a liberal wild hair tickling part of his though process.

There are alternative explanations.

[SGWilko]

There are alternative explanations.

Your point being?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well, we managed two pages discussing gay rights until the name calling began. Not too bad.

[SGWilko]

Well, we managed two pages discussing gay rights until the name calling began. Not too bad.

I thought it was same sex parenting/marriage/reproduction (or lack, thereof) that was being discussed.

[SGWilko]

Nah--it just shows he has a liberal wild hair tickling part of his though process.

The spelling police will be along shortly no doubt.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I thought it was same sex parenting/marriage/reproduction (or lack, thereof) that was being discussed.

Well, adoption and marriage are two of the biggest issues under the gay rights umbrella..... :erm:

[SGWilko]

Well, adoption and marriage are two of the biggest issues under the gay rights umbrella..... :erm:

Why do you suppose that is?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why do you suppose that is?

Because straight people get them without any questions asked and gays don't. I think this is wrong.

[SGWilko]

Because straight people get them without any questions asked and gays don't. I think this is wrong.

Let us say then, that two infertile gay men adopt a child, and in thus doing so, a married heterosexual couple who are unable to conceive naturally are denied the chance to adopt.

Where does the moral high ground stand in that hypothetical situation?

I do not believe that a same sex couple that could never naturally concieve sould adopt.

I do however believe that, from birth, some folk are predisposed to being homosexual.

I have had this conversation many times with my ex office manager, who was gay. He was not offended in any way by my opinions, and he would often use slang terminology - queen, poof etc.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Let us say then, that two infertile gay men adopt a child, and in thus doing so, a married heterosexual couple who are unable to conceive naturally are denied the chance to adopt.

Where does the moral high ground stand in that hypothetical situation?



I believe that both couples should have an equal chance to adopt. The couple that gets to adopt should be who the adoption agency thinks is best.

If there is a legitamate reason that the homosexual couple is chosen over the hetero couple then why should we object?

[Retro Formula 1]

PML

Bit of high class provocation, forum indignation, knee jerk reaction, confused rationale and a guest appearance from the spelling Police.

All pretty predictable but fun to watch anyway.

Now, shall we stick our peckers back in our pockets. You guys make me giggle :laugh:

[Bob Riebe]

Thing is Bob, you can't exactly compare murder and homosexuality.

Anyway, feel free to search elsewhere if you want to see animals being homosexual :) It happens, even outside of wikipedia!

Why not?

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

,,,Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man

Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]

Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:

It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]

Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:

For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]

The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:

It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]

The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology

Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21]

To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]

Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24]

Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]

Conclusion

In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

[Bob Riebe]

If you are going to criticise others for not being sufficiently intellectual, do try to spell the word correctly. It does the force of your argument a power of good.Sorry, I type much faster than computers can print it out, at times, and I often do not use spell check. It is not so bad now but when I used to have to write papers in long-hand my thought process sometimes was way ahead of my fingers, and words would sometimes be omitted.
At least now if one does a good proof-read, one does not have to rewrite x number of pages.
At the same time mentioning typos, does make one try to be a bit more careful, and it does not really bother me.
The devil is in the details.

Addendum:
At least where I be raised, criticize has a z, not an s.

[Daniel]

PML

Bit of high class provocation, forum indignation, knee jerk reaction, confused rationale and a guest appearance from the spelling Police.

All pretty predictable but fun to watch anyway.

Now, shall we stick our peckers back in our pockets. You guys make me giggle :laugh:
\
You really are an insuffereable so and so.

[SGWilko]

PML

Bit of high class provocation, forum indignation, knee jerk reaction, confused rationale and a guest appearance from the spelling Police.

All pretty predictable but fun to watch anyway.

Now, shall we stick our peckers back in our pockets. You guys make me giggle :laugh:

I feel quite sure some petticoats have been raised....! :laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Addendum:
At least where I be raised, criticize has a z, not an s.

American English versus English. ;)

[Garry Walker]

Nah--it just shows he has a liberal wild hair tickling part of his though process.

So I have been called a liberal twice in the same day. I didnt think that day would ever arrive.

[Daniel]

So I have been called a liberal twice in the same day. I didnt think that day would ever arrive.

I think the term liberal is a bit silly tbh. Get Bob, yourself and I to answer 100 questions about our views on certain things like capital punishment, immigration etc etc and I'm sure there'll be some segments where you or Bob rate as "liberals". It's a silly term tbh....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For the unemployed (who are able to work) to recieve benefits they would have to do at least 10 hours a week of community service. Basic stuff like litter picking or cleaning graffiti.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Anybody would care to explain me what is that, being gay? I'm honestly getting confused. I mean I can imagine that it is about being attracted to the individuals of same sex with you, but in what way? In other words, whar realm does this thing belong to: politics, culture, psychology or what?

[Daniel]

Anybody would care to explain me what is that, being gay? I'm honestly getting confused. I mean I can imagine that it is about being attracted to the individuals of same sex with you, but in what way? In other words, whar realm does this thing belong to: politics, culture, psychology or what?

I think someone needs to have a chat to Rudy about the birds and the birds :mark:

[Rudy Tamasz]

I seriously want to hear an answer. We keep throwing this word "gay" around assuming we know the meaning and the context, and I am not sure this is the case.

This thread is about ideas that each of us would implement if being in power. I.e. it is about politics. I want to hear what kind of political connotation the fact of being attracted to the individuals of the same sex bears.

Tell it like it is. In clear terms. Don't mumble, "Every one knows that". I really don't know.

[Malbec]

I seriously want to hear an answer. We keep throwing this word "gay" around assuming we know the meaning and the context, and I am not sure this is the case.

This thread is about ideas that each of us would implement if being in power. I.e. it is about politics. I want to hear what kind of political connotation the fact of being attracted to the individuals of the same sex bears.

Tell it like it is. In clear terms. Don't mumble, "Every one knows that". I really don't know.

I'll have a go.

There's a pretty broad spectrum of what gay rights means.

At one end it means having the right not to be killed, beaten, imprisoned or otherwise persecuted for having a relationship with someone of the same sex.

In the middle it means not losing your job or being treated differently to someone who is straight in a field where sexuality has no importance whatsoever.

Then there are the implications of long term relationships that are not legally recognised as marriage, and this includes other groups such as close friends who live together in a platonic relationship or heterosexual couples who don't marry for whatever reason. Where gay relationships aren't legally recognised gay couples normally do not get to inherit from the other if one dies without a will (unlike a marriage) and the partner does not get access to the other if they are seriously unwell. They are not given access to tax breaks that married couples are entitled to, and in most countries there are lots of small print benefits for married couples that gay couples are barred access to. The push for civil partnerships is partly driven by the insistence that gay partners (and straight but unmarried couples too) should be allowed many of the same benefits married couples get.

There are plenty of gray areas, banning gays from the military for example where it is argued that knowing that your colleague is gay might disrupt morale or the right of gay couples to adopt.

I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed out but that should help.

[slinkster]

Let us say then, that two infertile gay men adopt a child, and in thus doing so, a married heterosexual couple who are unable to conceive naturally are denied the chance to adopt.

Where does the moral high ground stand in that hypothetical situation?

I do not believe that a same sex couple that could never naturally concieve sould adopt.

I do however believe that, from birth, some folk are predisposed to being homosexual.

I have had this conversation many times with my ex office manager, who was gay. He was not offended in any way by my opinions, and he would often use slang terminology - queen, poof etc.

I've seen MANY examples of same sex couples who don't deserve/can't cope/should never ever have even bothered having children. Their sexuality, being absolutely NOTHING to do with how good-a parent you can be, but more so their personalities, moral values (or lack of), beliefs and attitudes.

I completely agree that a child needs good role models of both genders but this doesn't necessarily have to be parents- teachers, grandparents, extended family all play a part in how a child is raised.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'll have a go.

There's a pretty broad spectrum of what gay rights means.

At one end it means having the right not to be killed, beaten, imprisoned or otherwise persecuted for having a relationship with someone of the same sex.

In the middle it means not losing your job or being treated differently to someone who is straight in a field where sexuality has no importance whatsoever.

All valid points. I don't see, though, how these rights are different from normal human rights that apply to everybody in a free country. In non-free countries people are treated differently and abused for various reasons, not just being gay. I see no point in singling out what you call gay rights from human rights in general.


Then there are the implications of long term relationships that are not legally recognised as marriage, and this includes other groups such as close friends who live together in a platonic relationship or heterosexual couples who don't marry for whatever reason. Where gay relationships aren't legally recognised gay couples normally do not get to inherit from the other if one dies without a will (unlike a marriage) and the partner does not get access to the other if they are seriously unwell. They are not given access to tax breaks that married couples are entitled to, and in most countries there are lots of small print benefits for married couples that gay couples are barred access to. The push for civil partnerships is partly driven by the insistence that gay partners (and straight but unmarried couples too) should be allowed many of the same benefits married couples get.

Marriage is a civil institution regulated by law. It is, so to speak, the legal side of a union between spouses that represents that union to the rest of the society. The notion of marriage reflects the social roles of spouses, rather than their personalities or sexual preferences. These social roles are complex sets of functions addressing the issues of property, income, household, children, healthcare, certain cultural practices. In most cases these functions are performed differently by people belonging to different genders who complement each other. I.e. people marry each other not because of sex and sexuality, but because of gender and gender roles that they play within the society.

As you correctly pointed out, many forms of relationships such as close friends who live together in a platonic relationship or heterosexual couples who don't marry for whatever reason are not recognized as marriages. In my view that happens exactly because their relationships do not carry out some of those social functions that I mentioned. Same thing applies to gay couples. They do not assume the gender roles that men and women play in traditional marriage and the society, therefore, does not recognize their relationship as a valid marriage.

In brief, people can have whatever relationships they want, but they need to make a really strong point to convince everybody else their relationship legally quaifies as marriage.

[Rollo]

The notion of marriage reflects the social roles of spouses, rather than their personalities or sexual preferences. These social roles are complex sets of functions addressing the issues of property, income, household, children, healthcare, certain cultural practices. In most cases these functions are performed differently by people belonging to different genders who complement each other. I.e. people marry each other not because of sex and sexuality, but because of gender and gender roles that they play within the society.

As you correctly pointed out, many forms of relationships such as close friends who live together in a platonic relationship or heterosexual couples who don't marry for whatever reason are not recognized as marriages.

There has been a rumbling sort of debate in Australia to do with changing the definition of marriage within the Marriage Act 1961, and the underlying reason for the institution of marriage which keeps of being brought up again (and I know that this is going to sound terrible archaic) is to do with the establishment of families and the production of children.
It harps back to the basic idea of Kinship.

From a biological standpoint, children are a product of their parents. In a homosexual union this is physically impossible. I'm wondering what legal rights to property a child living in a family with a homosexual union has with regards to the effects of the member who is not their biological parent.
Then then question of if you allow a homosexual union as marriage at law, them why not a case of brother and sister? If such a thing were to occur, we know that they can produce children; there's a curious historical link as well. Some of the Egyptian Pharaohs in the Ptolemaic dynasty married their brothers and sisters; even Cleopatra married her younger brother Ptolemy XIII. Again this is exactly due to property rights because if you marry your own siblings, the amount of potential heirs and claimants to estates decreases.
Certainly I think that marrying my sister would be a pretty squick-worthy idea.

[SGWilko]

All valid points. I don't see, though, how these rights are different from normal human rights that apply to everybody in a free country. In non-free countries people are treated differently and abused for various reasons, not just being gay. I see no point in singling out what you call gay rights from human rights in general.



Marriage is a civil institution regulated by law. It is, so to speak, the legal side of a union between spouses that represents that union to the rest of the society. The notion of marriage reflects the social roles of spouses, rather than their personalities or sexual preferences. These social roles are complex sets of functions addressing the issues of property, income, household, children, healthcare, certain cultural practices. In most cases these functions are performed differently by people belonging to different genders who complement each other. I.e. people marry each other not because of sex and sexuality, but because of gender and gender roles that they play within the society.

As you correctly pointed out, many forms of relationships such as close friends who live together in a platonic relationship or heterosexual couples who don't marry for whatever reason are not recognized as marriages. In my view that happens exactly because their relationships do not carry out some of those social functions that I mentioned. Same thing applies to gay couples. They do not assume the gender roles that men and women play in traditional marriage and the society, therefore, does not recognize their relationship as a valid marriage.

In brief, people can have whatever relationships they want, but they need to make a really strong point to convince everybody else their relationship legally quaifies as marriage.

Safety in numbers - hence perhaps the 'gay rights' movement I suppose.

Trouble is, everybody is so busy clambering over themselves not to upset anybody - beit religion/faith or sexual orientation, that the underlying fact that only a man and a woman can naturally conceive gets lost.

[BDunnell]

Safety in numbers - hence perhaps the 'gay rights' movement I suppose.

Trouble is, everybody is so busy clambering over themselves not to upset anybody - beit religion/faith or sexual orientation, that the underlying fact that only a man and a woman can naturally conceive gets lost.

Why should there be any reason for anyone to say anything that relates to a person's sexual orientation that is in any way upsetting?

[BDunnell]

All valid points. I don't see, though, how these rights are different from normal human rights that apply to everybody in a free country. In non-free countries people are treated differently and abused for various reasons, not just being gay. I see no point in singling out what you call gay rights from human rights in general.

Nor, generally, do I. There can be no justification in the modern world for treating gay people any differently from anybody else. This includes marriage, adoption rights and so on, which rather negates the rest of your argument about the reasons why a gay couple's relationship might not be legally defined as being worthy of becoming a marriage.

[BDunnell]

There has been a rumbling sort of debate in Australia to do with changing the definition of marriage within the Marriage Act 1961, and the underlying reason for the institution of marriage which keeps of being brought up again (and I know that this is going to sound terrible archaic) is to do with the establishment of families and the production of children.

I fail to understand, except for reasons of tradition which I would have thought can be done away with now, the importance of the production of children as, as you put it, an underlying reason for the institution of marriage. I have certainly never viewed it thus — indeed, I would consider the production of children as more of a by-product of a relationship. By the 'traditional' definition, a married couple that did not produce children would be somehow abnormal. I don't care much for ideas like that.



Then then question of if you allow a homosexual union as marriage at law, them why not a case of brother and sister? If such a thing were to occur, we know that they can produce children; there's a curious historical link as well. Some of the Egyptian Pharaohs in the Ptolemaic dynasty married their brothers and sisters; even Cleopatra married her younger brother Ptolemy XIII. Again this is exactly due to property rights because if you marry your own siblings, the amount of potential heirs and claimants to estates decreases.
Certainly I think that marrying my sister would be a pretty squick-worthy idea.

One may as well say that if you allow anything, why not anything else.

I'd add that it is totally wrong to sweep under the carpet, as many seek to do, the fact that inbreeding is alive and well in certain areas.

[SGWilko]

Why should there be any reason for anyone to say anything that relates to a person's sexual orientation that is in any way upsetting?

Because the human race is flawed. Get an otherwise personable individual drunk, then stand back and admire the change in attitude. A&E on a Friday/Saturday night will give you a pergect example as to just how flawed we are as a race.

[Daniel]

Why should there be any reason for anyone to say anything that relates to a person's sexual orientation that is in any way upsetting?

Because it's not "natural" man! Even though animals do it, because it's not in the "good" book it's just not on!

I wouldn't say I was exactly homophobic before I saw this, I found it strange and perhaps a bit uncomfortable, but this episode -> Homer's Phobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer's_Phobia) of the Simpsons really changed my views and made me think "What harm does someone being gay do to me?" and I couldn't honestly think of anything. As long as no one is harming anyone and they're not inbreeding..... it doesn't really bother me.

[Daniel]

Because the human race is flawed. Get an otherwise personable individual drunk, then stand back and admire the change in attitude. A&E on a Friday/Saturday night will give you a pergect example as to just how flawed we are as a race.

I'm not quite sure I understand the logic?

[SGWilko]

I fail to understand, except for reasons of tradition which I would have thought can be done away with now, the importance of the production of children as, as you put it, an underlying reason for the institution of marriage. I have certainly never viewed it thus — indeed, I would consider the production of children as more of a by-product of a relationship. By the 'traditional' definition, a married couple that did not produce children would be somehow abnormal. I don't care much for ideas like that.


One may as well say that if you allow anything, why not anything else.

I'd add that it is totally wrong to sweep under the carpet, as many seek to do, the fact that inbreeding is alive and well in certain areas.

Is inbreeding right then?

[SGWilko]

Because it's not "natural" man! Even though animals do it, because it's not in the "good" book it's just not on!

I wouldn't say I was exactly homophobic before I saw this, I found it strange and perhaps a bit uncomfortable, but this episode -> Homer's Phobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer's_Phobia) of the Simpsons really changed my views and made me think "What harm does someone being gay do to me?" and I couldn't honestly think of anything. As long as no one is harming anyone and they're not inbreeding..... it doesn't really bother me.

Your opinion is swayed by a cartoon? Yikes, that is scary! :eek:

[Daniel]

Your opinion is swayed by a cartoon? Yikes, that is scary! :eek:

You're missing the point. You probably grew up with cartoons which were aimed at toddlers and small children.

The only difference between the Simpsons and your average live action sitcom is the fact that one is live action and the other is a cartoon.

[Daniel]

Is inbreeding right then?

What a stupid question. Obviously it's not right, you only need to look at the results of inbreeding to know that it's wrong.

[SGWilko]

You're missing the point. You probably grew up with cartoons which were aimed at toddlers and small children.

The only difference between the Simpsons and your average live action sitcom is the fact that one is live action and the other is a cartoon.

I hope you don't actually believe that Daniel. Sitcoms are not real life either you know........

[SGWilko]

What a stupid question. Obviously it's not right, you only need to look at the results of inbreeding to know that it's wrong.

OK - is safe sex between siblings right then - no risk of abnormal offspring there?

[Daniel]

I hope you don't actually believe that Daniel. Sitcoms are not real life either you know........

I think you're missing the point. Something doesn't have to be "real life" to make you think.

[Daniel]

OK - is safe sex between siblings right then - no risk of abnormal offspring there?

In theory no, but condoms do break. I think you're trying to shift the spotlight somewhat. Homosexuality hurts no one and only offends those with stone age morals.

[SGWilko]

In theory no, but condoms do break. I think you're trying to shift the spotlight somewhat. Homosexuality hurts no one and only offends those with stone age morals.

I'm not shifting, more trying to elaborate on a concept that was explored earlier by Rudy. As to the issue with samesex copulation behaviour in animals - a dog will try and shag your leg, so I don't think it is a conscious thing in the animal kingdom.

Remember, human's are supposed to have developed intelligence, and can diffrenciate between right and wrong, animals only know instinct.

[Daniel]

I'm not shifting, more trying to elaborate on a concept that was explored earlier by Rudy. As to the issue with samesex copulation behaviour in animals - a dog will try and shag your leg, so I don't think it is a conscious thing in the animal kingdom.

Remember, human's are supposed to have developed intelligence, and can diffrenciate between right and wrong, animals only know instinct.

The problem is that you've not actually proven that homosexuality is wrong and hurtful.

Whilst male animals shag each other, they also kill the young of other males.

Now of course killing anyone is wrong, hence why the vast majority of humans don't do it and there are laws against it.

Show me how two people in a loving relationship together harms anyone? If you prove that then I'm happy to indulge in some crass homophobic humour on a public forum. Till you've done that I'll continue not to be gay myself, but support the rights of gay people to go and do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

[SGWilko]

The problem is that you've not actually proven that homosexuality is wrong and hurtful.

Whilst male animals shag each other, they also kill the young of other males.

Now of course killing anyone is wrong, hence why the vast majority of humans don't do it and there are laws against it.

Show me how two people in a loving relationship together harms anyone? If you prove that then I'm happy to indulge in some crass homophobic humour on a public forum. Till you've done that I'll continue not to be gay myself, but support the rights of gay people to go and do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

You've based your opinion of acceptable homosexual behaviour on the behaviour of animals - going as far as using that as your example of natural behaviour, but, you've then told us that killing is wrong, even though animals do it?

Double standards don't cut the mustard.

I wear glasses, and of course in the past I've been called four eyes, Joe90 etc. Fine - it is just name calling because there is something about me that is different.

Heck, on the 'what do you look like thread', someone jokily mentioned they've been called a c**t before - not so much as an eyelid batted!

It is those double standards again. It is that tippy toeing around the offendable for no other reason than because they've jumped on the 'disgruntled of.....' bandwagon.

[Daniel]

You've based your opinion of acceptable homosexual behaviour on the behaviour of animals - going as far as using that as your example of natural behaviour, but, you've then told us that killing is wrong, even though animals do it?

There's a difference between someone saying Jan Yeo looks like a "morose c**t" and someone making fun of a homosexual person on the basis of their sexuality.

Trying to equate killing someone with same sex relationships is just bonkers.

[SGWilko]

There's a difference between someone saying Jan Yeo looks like a "morose c**t" and someone making fun of a homosexual person on the basis of their sexuality.

Trying to equate killing someone with same sex relationships is just bonkers.

It is behaviour comparisons, not what that behaviour entails. Animals kill to survive, they often kill their young if they are runts/deformed etc.

We don't, and look at the mess we are in - raping our planet with little care for what or who we tread on in the process, entire habitats or species are wiped out for our lifestyle improvements......

One thing is quite clear, and that is that we do not know what is best for us.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Why should there be any reason for anyone to say anything that relates to a person's sexual orientation that is in any way upsetting?

To opine is human. How many straight people had to listen to something like, "How can you date her? She's a whore and slept with a half of town."

I mean, I think it reasonable to make sure everybody's got the same rights, not the same opinions. Different opinions will exist regardless of the fact whether they offend somebody or not.

[SGWilko]

To opine is human. How many straight people had to listen to something like, "How can you date her? She's a whore and slept with a half of town."

I mean, I think it reasonable to make sure everybody's got the same rights, not the same opinions. Different opinions will exist regardless of the fact whether they offend somebody or not.

Oh shoot - you've met her too? :laugh:

[Daniel]

One thing is quite clear, and that is that we do not know what is best for us.

OK let's assume you're right (actually you are but I digress), then who is going to tell us what to do? ;)

[SGWilko]

OK let's assume you're right (actually you are but I digress), then who is going to tell us what to do? ;)

The unfortunate reality is no-one.

[Malbec]

I wear glasses, and of course in the past I've been called four eyes, Joe90 etc. Fine - it is just name calling because there is something about me that is different.

Heck, on the 'what do you look like thread', someone jokily mentioned they've been called a c**t before - not so much as an eyelid batted!

It is those double standards again. It is that tippy toeing around the offendable for no other reason than because they've jumped on the 'disgruntled of.....' bandwagon.

I see, so you think that whether gay couples are allowed to form a legal partnership is on the same level as you being called four eyes? Ok then.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Nor, generally, do I. There can be no justification in the modern world for treating gay people any differently from anybody else. This includes marriage, adoption rights and so on, which rather negates the rest of your argument about the reasons why a gay couple's relationship might not be legally defined as being worthy of becoming a marriage.

I guess I was not clear enough in trying to get my message across.

A couple examples. A nation goes to war. In a traditional world dads fight while moms take care of children. In a gay couple, who's dad, who's mom and who's doing what?

A child is born. Who does the breastfeeding if they couple does not include a mom? (Just FYI, any maternal and child health expert will tell you it's crucial for the normal development of a child).

How do gay parents split the gender aspects of being roles models for their children? Does one parent have to act as the dad and the husband and another as the mom and wife?

I can go on, but the point I want to make must already be clear. The problem is not sexuality. Sexuality per se is not an issue for the law (in free countries, that is). It is the gender roles that two individuals play in their relationship that either qualify them for marriage or not. An official marriage registered in a townhall is a deal between two individuals as well as between them and the society. If they opt to exclude some important paragraphs from that deal, then there is no deal. However, they are treated equally with everybody else. Like Malbec said, platonic friendships or heterosexual couples who choose not make it official do not qualify for marriage, either. Fair enough.

[SGWilko]

I see, so you think that whether gay couples are allowed to form a legal partnership is on the same level as you being called four eyes? Ok then.

Eeerrrrrrr, no. I was referring to something completely different that Daniel brought up.

[SGWilko]

I guess I was not clear enough in trying to get my message across.

A couple examples. A nation goes to war. In a traditional world dads fight while moms take care of children. In a gay couple, who's dad, who's mom and who's doing what?.

You could even get this scenario;

I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous! - Error Inside (http://errorinside.com/image/i-cant-shoot-him-hes-gorgeous/1637)

[Daniel]

The unfortunate reality is no-one.

then stop trying to tell gay people what they can and can't do perhaps?

[SGWilko]

then stop trying to tell gay people what they can and can't do perhaps?

And stop telling me what I can and cannot say...........

I'm giving this forum my opinion, that is after all the whole point isn't it. If you don't like it - fine - I won't lose any sleep over it.

[SGWilko]

OK let's assume you're right (actually you are but I digress), then who is going to tell us what to do? ;)

Various summits - Kyoto etc have attempted this, but funnily enough, too many countries have their own vested interests to see the 'bigger picture'.

[BDunnell]

You've based your opinion of acceptable homosexual behaviour on the behaviour of animals - going as far as using that as your example of natural behaviour, but, you've then told us that killing is wrong, even though animals do it?

Double standards don't cut the mustard.

I wear glasses, and of course in the past I've been called four eyes, Joe90 etc. Fine - it is just name calling because there is something about me that is different.

Heck, on the 'what do you look like thread', someone jokily mentioned they've been called a c**t before - not so much as an eyelid batted!

It is those double standards again. It is that tippy toeing around the offendable for no other reason than because they've jumped on the 'disgruntled of.....' bandwagon.

I bet that, had I or anyone else said how amusing we found your anecdote about you and your family being terrorised by local youths, or said that we didn't care, or something similar, you would have been quite offended.

Tell me two things. Should I, as a glasses-wearing gay man, have to put up with twice the amount of abuse a non-glasses-wearing straight man would receive just because I happen to be a little short-sighted and not fancy women? Two, why should I, as a gay man, not be able to make the same choice about bringing up children, should I so wish, as a straight man? What makes you think that you know better as to my parenting abilities than I would? Because this, by seeking to suggest that gay couples should not be allowed to bring up children, is in effect what you are saying — that us gay people might think ourselves capable of performing this task, but you know otherwise.

[BDunnell]

And stop telling me what I can and cannot say...........

Stop playing the martyr. No-one is telling you what you can and cannot say. All some of us are doing is pointing out that your opinions are unreconstructed, offensive tosh. There is a major difference, which I'm surprised you cannot grasp.

[BDunnell]

I guess I was not clear enough in trying to get my message across.

A couple examples. A nation goes to war. In a traditional world dads fight while moms take care of children. In a gay couple, who's dad, who's mom and who's doing what?

A child is born. Who does the breastfeeding if they couple does not include a mom? (Just FYI, any maternal and child health expert will tell you it's crucial for the normal development of a child).

How do gay parents split the gender aspects of being roles models for their children? Does one parent have to act as the dad and the husband and another as the mom and wife?

I can go on, but the point I want to make must already be clear. The problem is not sexuality. Sexuality per se is not an issue for the law (in free countries, that is). It is the gender roles that two individuals play in their relationship that either qualify them for marriage or not. An official marriage registered in a townhall is a deal between two individuals as well as between them and the society. If they opt to exclude some important paragraphs from that deal, then there is no deal. However, they are treated equally with everybody else. Like Malbec said, platonic friendships or heterosexual couples who choose not make it official do not qualify for marriage, either. Fair enough.

None of this addresses the crucial question. What is it about the end product in terms of the child that grows up with a same-sex couple that is concerning? (The point about breast milk is well-made, of course.)

[Daniel]

Stop playing the martyr. No-one is telling you what you can and cannot say. All some of us are doing is pointing out that your opinions are unreconstructed, offensive tosh. There is a major difference, which I'm surprised you cannot grasp.

You'd feel a martyr if you were the lone bastion of British white heterosexuality in your area Ben. Where I am there are so many black asian gay immigrant muslims. You can't move around without bumping into one of them!

[SGWilko]

I bet that, had I or anyone else said how amusing we found your anecdote about you and your family being terrorised by local youths, or said that we didn't care, or something similar, you would have been quite offended.

Tell me two things. Should I, as a glasses-wearing gay man, have to put up with twice the amount of abuse a non-glasses-wearing straight man would receive just because I happen to be a little short-sighted and not fancy women? Two, why should I, as a gay man, not be able to make the same choice about bringing up children, should I so wish, as a straight man? What makes you think that you know better as to my parenting abilities than I would? Because this, by seeking to suggest that gay couples should not be allowed to bring up children, is in effect what you are saying — that us gay people might think ourselves capable of performing this task, but you know otherwise.

When my wife was pregnant, we were told from the outset, that breast is best. What that means is that, the antibodies my wife has built up, are passed to our child in the very first week of development. First off, a gay couple cannot physically have children - fact. Secondly, if you have a surrogate mother, neither you or your partner will be able to breast feed your adopted child?

Your child WILL have the mickey ripped out of it at school. Same as the fat kid, the lanky one, the spotty one, the one with glasses. It's gone on and will continue to do so. How will you broach this subject, when your child asks why he does not have a mother? What about the confusion in sex education - they then come home and ask how they were born without a mother?

Did the mother not want them? That in itself is a rejection issue that will be hard to bear.

[SGWilko]

Stop playing the martyr. No-one is telling you what you can and cannot say. All some of us are doing is pointing out that your opinions are unreconstructed, offensive tosh. There is a major difference, which I'm surprised you cannot grasp.

Give over with the martyr baloney already. You don't like my opinion - tough. I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours.

[Rudy Tamasz]

None of this addresses the crucial question. What is it about the end product in terms of the child that grows up with a same-sex couple that is concerning? (The point about breast milk is well-made, of course.)

You've seen my reasoning above. If you are looking for empirical evidence, wait till children staying with gay couples grow up and see what the end product is.

The last point made me realize that advocates of "gay rights" actually had their way and are legally able now to do whatever they want in some countries. Let us see how it works. I'm sure the results will be curious, to say the least.

[Daniel]

When my wife was pregnant, we were told from the outset, that breast is best. What that means is that, the antibodies my wife has built up, are passed to our child in the very first week of development. First off, a gay couple cannot physically have children - fact. Secondly, if you have a surrogate mother, neither you or your partner will be able to breast feed your adopted child?

Your child WILL have the mickey ripped out of it at school. Same as the fat kid, the lanky one, the spotty one, the one with glasses. It's gone on and will continue to do so. How will you broach this subject, when your child asks why he does not have a mother? What about the confusion in sex education - they then come home and ask how they were born without a mother?

Did the mother not want them? That in itself is a rejection issue that will be hard to bear.

Christ almighty, so now having gay parents is as bad as being a fatty?

You really don't have much of an imagination if you can't see how as a parent you'd deal withe the "issues" you've raised.

[Daniel]

Give over with the martyr baloney already. You don't like my opinion - tough. I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours.

Perhaps if your reasons for disliking homosexuality weren't so stupid.....

[BDunnell]

Give over with the martyr baloney already. You don't like my opinion - tough. I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours.

Where has anyone suggested otherwise? I'm not sure I need to repeat myself again.

[BDunnell]

You've seen my reasoning above. If you are looking for empirical evidence, wait till children staying with gay couples grow up and see what the end product is.

The last point made me realize that advocates of "gay rights" actually had their way and are legally able now to do whatever they want in some countries. Let us see how it works. I'm sure the results will be curious, to say the least.

You are someone who believes, from the right-wing point of view, of complete economic freedom, are you not?

[SGWilko]

Perhaps if your reasons for disliking homosexuality weren't so stupid.....

Because my opinion differs to yours? Shock horror.

[BDunnell]

When my wife was pregnant, we were told from the outset, that breast is best. What that means is that, the antibodies my wife has built up, are passed to our child in the very first week of development. First off, a gay couple cannot physically have children - fact. Secondly, if you have a surrogate mother, neither you or your partner will be able to breast feed your adopted child?

Your child WILL have the mickey ripped out of it at school. Same as the fat kid, the lanky one, the spotty one, the one with glasses. It's gone on and will continue to do so. How will you broach this subject, when your child asks why he does not have a mother? What about the confusion in sex education - they then come home and ask how they were born without a mother?

Did the mother not want them? That in itself is a rejection issue that will be hard to bear.

So you know better than I do as to my ability to be a parent? This is what you're saying, right?

[BDunnell]

Because my opinion differs to yours? Shock horror.

No, because they are claptrap from an old-fashioned homophobe.

[Daniel]

So you know better than I do as to my ability to be a parent? This is what you're saying, right?

Completely agree. By SGWilko's reasoning, amputees should not be allowed to bring up children. My parents had all their limbs and they bought me up well! How can someone with only one leg bring up a child to be bipedal? It's madness! It's EU dictated political correctness gone mad!!!!!! The poor kid is going to get made fun of at school along with the kids whose parents are gay, the girl who is lanky and will turn into a supermodel later on in life and the fatty :dozey:

[BDunnell]

Completely agree. By SGWilko's reasoning, amputees should not be allowed to bring up children. My parents had all their limbs and they bought me up well! How can someone with only one leg bring up a child to be bipedal? It's madness! It's EU dictated political correctness gone mad!!!!!! The poor kid is going to get made fun of at school along with the kids whose parents are gay, the girl who is lanky and will turn into a supermodel later on in life and the fatty :dozey:

And yet, according to earlier comments, somehow he feels that such fun-making is just an acceptable fact of life that those of us who are in some way 'different' should just accept. I am deeply confused, I must say.

[SGWilko]

Completely agree. By SGWilko's reasoning, amputees should not be allowed to bring up children. My parents had all their limbs and they bought me up well! How can someone with only one leg bring up a child to be bipedal? It's madness! It's EU dictated political correctness gone mad!!!!!! The poor kid is going to get made fun of at school along with the kids whose parents are gay, the girl who is lanky and will turn into a supermodel later on in life and the fatty :dozey:

I see. So that's your reasoning is it? Is the amputee gay or straight by the way?

Let us say then, that a gay couple adopt a daughter. Who does she turn to, when her body is developing? You don't suppose just for one second that might be a little confusing? Will she feel awkward bringing a boyfriend home - will he feel awkward?

I assume that a heterosexual couple - the father of which loses a leg in combat, can still have children, no?

[Rudy Tamasz]

You are someone who believes, from the right-wing point of view, of complete economic freedom, are you not?

With economy I'm driven by common sense, rather than a certain ideology. I do think that private business should not have too many restrictions on it. I do believe, though, that it is in the best interest of the society to provide some basic safety net for its most disadvantaged groups. Just enough not to die of starvation, but not enough to live a useless life without earning a dime.

[Malbec]

When my wife was pregnant, we were told from the outset, that breast is best. What that means is that, the antibodies my wife has built up, are passed to our child in the very first week of development. First off, a gay couple cannot physically have children - fact. Secondly, if you have a surrogate mother, neither you or your partner will be able to breast feed your adopted child?

Breast feeding is helpful but it is by no means essential for child health. No country saw a significant reduction in child health or development with the introduction of formula milk in the 60s and 70s. Breast feeding helps pass on some antibodies and helps mother-baby bonding. Nothing more.

This 'breast-feeding is essential' claptrap is as counterproductive as the previous 'formula milk is best' nonsense that preceded it. Women should be free to choose which method they want without feeling guilty.

Neither is the fact that someone can't breastfeed be a precluding factor for having children. Should women who have had breast reduction surgery not be allowed to have children because they can't breastfeed? How about women on certain medication?

As for the gay adoption argument, yes there clearly are potential problems with gender identity. However lets have a look at some other factors. A gay couple must really want to have children in order to get them, given that adoption or finding a surrogate mother is a difficult and time consuming process.
On its own the fact that the parents had to make a significant effort is linked to greater involvement in parenting from both partners. This is one hell of an important factor that is often ignored and IMO would make gay parents superior to many 'normal' parents with a single parent, absent father, abusive parenting or sheer parenting incompetence due to an inability or willingness to acquire parenting skills, factors that sadly afflict many heterosexual parents.

[Daniel]

I see. So that's your reasoning is it? Is the amputee gay or straight by the way?

Let us say then, that a gay couple adopt a daughter. Who does she turn to, when her body is developing? You don't suppose just for one second that might be a little confusing? Will she feel awkward bringing a boyfriend home - will he feel awkward?

I assume that a heterosexual couple - the father of which loses a leg in combat, can still have children, no?

Of course not! How can he ever hope to bring up a bipedal child you sick ****er?!?!?!?!

Do kids actually turn to their parents these days? Being born in 1983 I never had the need to ask my parents any of those akward questions.

"Will she feel akward bringing a boyfriend home? Will he feel akward?" Christ man, this is the 21st century, very few people actually have a problem with homosexuality. It's not like if when you go to a girls house and you've started having sex with her that the father goes "Phwoar!!!! What was it like? If I wasn't her father I'd have a go! What was it like? Phwooooooar she's got good legs she has. Phwooooooooooar" unless you live in The Fast Show or something.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Breast feeding is helpful but it is by no means essential for child health. No country saw a significant reduction in child health or development with the introduction of formula milk in the 60s and 70s. Breast feeding helps pass on some antibodies and helps mother-baby bonding. Nothing more.

This 'breast-feeding is essential' claptrap is as counterproductive as the previous 'formula milk is best' nonsense that preceded it. Women should be free to choose which method they want without feeling guilty.

Malbec, you are wrong. I'm afraid that in this time of infinite relativity of everything towards everything else you cannot get the idea that some things are just right, while their opposites are wrong.

[BDunnell]

Let us say then, that a gay couple adopt a daughter. Who does she turn to, when her body is developing? You don't suppose just for one second that might be a little confusing? Will she feel awkward bringing a boyfriend home - will he feel awkward?

My goodness, it's a wonder that you aren't on the phone to the authorities demanding that all children adopted by homosexual couples be placed straight into care, so irresponsible are they clearly being.

It seems to me that you are afraid in some way of people growing up in any sort of circumstances you don't deem utterly conventional.

[BDunnell]

Malbec, you are wrong. I'm afraid that in this time of infinite relativity of everything towards everything else you cannot get the idea that some things are just right, while their opposites are wrong.

On what grounds do you say this with such utter certainty? I must admit to knowing little about breast-feeding and the related issues, and am keen to know, purely out of interest.

[Daniel]

On what grounds do you say this with such utter certainty? I must admit to knowing little about breast-feeding and the related issues, and am keen to know :s tare: , purely out of interest :uhoh:

You just want to see boobies don't you Ben ;) :p

[Daniel]

As for the gay adoption argument, yes there clearly are potential problems with gender identity.

I certainly think that if gay couples were to adopt they should be encouraged to allow the child to "choose" their own sexuality and let nature take its course. I can't imagine anything worse than being gay/straight and growing up in a straight/gay and having someone try and influence your choice of sexuality.

[Rudy Tamasz]

On what grounds do you say this with such utter certainty? I must admit to knowing little about breast-feeding and the related issues, and am keen to know, purely out of interest.

Had some exposure to maternal and child health issues from the professional point of view. I'm also married and have a kid.

[Daniel]

Had some exposure to maternal and child health issues from the professional point of view. I'm also married and have a kid.

I've never seen marriage or child ownership as actual qualifications tbh.

[Malbec]

Had some exposure to maternal and child health issues from the professional point of view. I'm also married and have a kid.

I'm a medical professional Rudy. Breast feeding is helpful but not essential. There is no evidence otherwise. Child mortality is equal between those who were breastfed and those who were fed formula milk.

[BDunnell]

You just want to see boobies don't you Ben ;) :p

Yes, as a means of curing my affliction, trepanning having failed.

[Malbec]

I can go on, but the point I want to make must already be clear. The problem is not sexuality. Sexuality per se is not an issue for the law (in free countries, that is). It is the gender roles that two individuals play in their relationship that either qualify them for marriage or not. An official marriage registered in a townhall is a deal between two individuals as well as between them and the society. If they opt to exclude some important paragraphs from that deal, then there is no deal. However, they are treated equally with everybody else. Like Malbec said, platonic friendships or heterosexual couples who choose not make it official do not qualify for marriage, either. Fair enough.

In a traditional society there are only two legally accepted forms of having bonds between individuals.

One is being a blood relation. This is universal. The other is marriage.

There is absolutely no recognition of any other form of relationship whatsoever.

If gay relationships are allowed then it stands to reason that gay couples should get similar legal protection as married couples, certainly with respect to inheritance or access to the partner in illness. After all it is normal for people who fall in love to want to share their lives completely isn't it, and not be locked out of sharing their lives once one partner dies or falls ill?

[SGWilko]

Do kids actually turn to their parents these days? Being born in 1983 I never had the need to ask my parents any of those akward questions..

Are you trivialising the role of parents now? Will you care who your children turn to for advice when they are growing up?

[Daniel]

Yes, as a means of curing my affliction, trepanning having failed.

If you don't wish to continue your course of treatment (treatment by breast, not trepanning) I'm more than willing to take a treatment for you :up: :p

[BDunnell]

I certainly think that if gay couples were to adopt they should be encouraged to allow the child to "choose" their own sexuality and let nature take its course. I can't imagine anything worse than being gay/straight and growing up in a straight/gay and having someone try and influence your choice of sexuality.

Exactly. I think the most liberal-minded people agree that there are certain limits, such as the case of the poor child in Canada (I think there was one in Sweden a few years ago too) whose parents refuse to divulge its sexuality.

BBC News - Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835)

I am all for alternative views, but I find those parents' actions somewhat self-indulgent and probably unfair on the child. The same cannot be said of allowing a child to grow up with a couple who happen to be of the same sex.

[SGWilko]

I've never seen marriage or child ownership as actual qualifications tbh.

You learn from your parents don't you - you know, real life, not by watching the telly?

[BDunnell]

Are you trivialising the role of parents now? Will you care who your children turn to for advice when they are growing up?

I am sure you think your turning things back on the questioner in this way is terribly clever, but in reality it cuts little ice. You appear to be implying that it is impossible for a child growing up with a gay couple to find anyone to turn to in those circumstances who could possibly meet these needs. Have you ever actually met a gay couple with a child, or come into possession of any other experience relating to this matter, other than what you 'reckon'?

[BDunnell]

You learn from your parents don't you - you know, real life, not by watching the telly?

A child brought up by a gay couple can just as easily learn from its parents, you know.

You have children, don't you? How many?

[Daniel]

Are you trivialising the role of parents now? Will you care who your children turn to for advice when they are growing up?

No, but I don't recognise that it's the only form of advice available to a child non?

If for instance I were the only gay in the village and my adopted daughter asked myself and hubby what the deal was with her boobs, bleeding for a week but not dying and her hairy front bottom then I would see if I could chase down some informative literature for her or a nice female relative or friend who could relay their experiences.

[SGWilko]

A child brought up by a gay couple can just as easily learn from its parents, you know.

You have children, don't you? How many?

Two.

[Malbec]

I am sure you think your turning things back on the questioner in this way is terribly clever, but in reality it cuts little ice. You appear to be implying that it is impossible for a child growing up with a gay couple to find anyone to turn to in those circumstances who could possibly meet these needs.

It also implies that heterosexual parenting is a monolithic quality with no failings whatsoever and fails to address the fact that adopting couples (of whatever orientation) are much more highly motivated parents on average than the norm.

[BDunnell]

Two.

What if one of them turns out to be gay?

[SGWilko]

No, but I don't recognise that it's the only form of advice available to a child non?

If for instance I were the only gay in the village and my adopted daughter asked myself and hubby what the deal was with her boobs, bleeding for a week but not dying and her hairy front bottom then I would see if I could chase down some informative literature for her or a nice female relative or friend who could relay their experiences.

Point is, when I were a lad, I didn't go running to my mother to ask why I woke up with 'morning glory' I asked my dad. Similarly, I rather suspect it was my Mother my sister turned to when she had her first period. There are also very different and complicated relationships/bonds that develop between parents and their children.

[BDunnell]

It also implies that heterosexual parenting is a monolithic quality with no failings whatsoever and fails to address the fact that adopting couples (of whatever orientation) are much more highly motivated parents on average than the norm.

Precisely. When one considers it for even a short period, the argument against is utterly fallacious.

[BDunnell]

Point is, when I were a lad, I didn't go running to my mother to ask why I woke up with 'morning glory' I asked my dad. Similarly, I rather suspect it was my Mother my sister turned to when she had her first period.

And I didn't turn to either of my parents about any of these matters, as I instead learned about them at school and had no desire to discuss such embarrassing matters with my own family. I can hardly be alone in that. Not everyone follows your lines, you know. The world is not utterly homogenised.

[SGWilko]

What if one of them turns out to be gay?

He'll have my unconditional love as a father, but quite what will happen if he wants to get married/adopt I have no idea. Ask me in 20 years I guess.

At the moment he is far too occupied blowing off in his sisters face, stropping and hunting for bits of clay pipe in the garden.

[BDunnell]

He'll have my unconditional love as a father, but quite what will happen if he wants to get married/adopt I have no idea. Ask me in 20 years I guess.

Unconditional love perhaps somewhat tempered by the fact that, as stated earlier, you would consider his preferences to be unnatural and take the view that, compared to his heterosexual sister, he is inherently unsuited to bringing up children. I hope you'd tell him all of that.

[SGWilko]

If you had been born in 1982 like me it would have been a different story.. :p

I feel quite old - explains a lot I guess....

I was born when we went decimal.

[BDunnell]

I feel quite old - explains a lot I guess....

I was born when we went decimal.

Not that much older than me, then — just a few years.

[SGWilko]

Unconditional love perhaps somewhat tempered by the fact that, as stated earlier, you would consider his preferences to be unnatural and take the view that, compared to his heterosexual sister, he is inherently unsuited to bringing up children. I hope you'd tell him all of that.

Lets not jump the gun eh, I might not need to.........

He has no idea what sex is, let alone what being gay means. I think I'll let him enjoy his childhood before destroying his outlook with the reality of modern life - like debt, crime, terrorism etc.

[BDunnell]

Lets not jump the gun eh, I might not need to.........

He has no idea what sex is, let alone what being gay means. I think I'll let him enjoy his childhood before destroying his outlook with the reality of modern life - like debt, crime, terrorism etc.

I agree, but was only saying.

[Daniel]

At the moment he is far too occupied blowing off in his sisters face

:uhoh:

[Daniel]

And I didn't turn to either of my parents about any of these matters, as I instead learned about them at school and had no desire to discuss such embarrassing matters with my own family. I can hardly be alone in that. Not everyone follows your lines, you know. The world is not utterly homogenised.

Exactly my view to things as well :)

[Daniel]

Point is, when I were a lad, I didn't go running to my mother to ask why I woke up with 'morning glory' I asked my dad. Similarly, I rather suspect it was my Mother my sister turned to when she had her first period. There are also very different and complicated relationships/bonds that develop between parents and their children.

But what if your dad was a single parent? Do you not think he could have arranged for someone to have a chat with your sister about the changes in her life?

[SGWilko]

:uhoh:

That's exactly the look on his sisters face......

[Daniel]

Exactly. I think the most liberal-minded people agree that there are certain limits, such as the case of the poor child in Canada (I think there was one in Sweden a few years ago too) whose parents refuse to divulge its sexuality.

BBC News - Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835)

I am all for alternative views, but I find those parents' actions somewhat self-indulgent and probably unfair on the child. The same cannot be said of allowing a child to grow up with a couple who happen to be of the same sex.

That's very sad and dumb.

I wasn't necessarily saying that same sex parents would be more inclined to force their sexuality on the child, I was merely saying that they should be strongly encouraged to allow the child to do what it feels is right for itself.

[SGWilko]

But what if your dad was a single parent? Do you not think he could have arranged for someone to have a chat with your sister about the changes in her life?

Of course Daniel. But as he wasn't, she didn't need to. The choice of talking to the mother is not there in a gay parenting scenario, is it?

[Daniel]

Of course Daniel. But as he wasn't, she didn't need to. The choice of talking to the mother is not there in a gay parenting scenario, is it?
Nor is it part of the scenario if you mum done gone carked it. Don't get me wrong, the idea situation for a child is with the man and woman who lovingly made it and who love each other and so on. Sadly that's not always possible, nor are the parents always so loving.

[SGWilko]

Exactly. I think the most liberal-minded people agree that there are certain limits, such as the case of the poor child in Canada (I think there was one in Sweden a few years ago too) whose parents refuse to divulge its sexuality.

BBC News - Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835)

I am all for alternative views, but I find those parents' actions somewhat self-indulgent and probably unfair on the child. The same cannot be said of allowing a child to grow up with a couple who happen to be of the same sex.

Are they trying to hide the childs sex (I note that the two children are boys????) or their sexual orientation? Surely, they are just kids and their behaviour as to conscious sexual orientation will not become obvious to the children until puberty or even later?

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'm a medical professional Rudy. Breast feeding is helpful but not essential. There is no evidence otherwise. Child mortality is equal between those who were breastfed and those who were fed formula milk.

Let us agree to disagree. The very concept of evidence based practices can be used in a misleading way. It is very difficult to gather evidence that would be both representative and accurate. Strictly speaking, even regimens of treatment of a simple cold that physicians normally prescribe are not completely evidence based. Then you have a dilemma, go ahead and do something or wait till you have enough evidence, which may aswell be never.

[Rudy Tamasz]

In a traditional society there are only two legally accepted forms of having bonds between individuals.

One is being a blood relation. This is universal. The other is marriage.

There is absolutely no recognition of any other form of relationship whatsoever.

If gay relationships are allowed then it stands to reason that gay couples should get similar legal protection as married couples, certainly with respect to inheritance or access to the partner in illness. After all it is normal for people who fall in love to want to share their lives completely isn't it, and not be locked out of sharing their lives once one partner dies or falls ill?

You can formalize some important aspects of your relationship without calling it marriage. You can make your will in a perfectly legal way or you can appoint any one you like your caretaker in case of an illness etc.

As a matter of fact, this is not something even new or inherent in free societies. Romans, who pretty much invented law the way we know it and had been the best damn experts in legal chicanery before the English came, did it that way. They had a succession of emperors (Trajan etc.) who were pretty much gay by their orientation and, being emperors, could formalize their relationship any way they wanted. Yet they chose to stay in a traditional marriage and adopt children into that marriage rather than into their "relationships", because I believe they understood the true meaning of the institute of marriage. The only one who concluded a formal gay marriage of sorts was Nero and you know his reputation.

[Malbec]

Let us agree to disagree. The very concept of evidence based practices can be used in a misleading way. It is very difficult to gather evidence that would be both representative and accurate.

Try pubmed.

Operate without evidence base and you're in the same boat as homeopaths, aromatherapists and witchdoctors.

BTW there is clear evidence that breast feeding is superior to formula feeding in poor countries purely because of affordability, just as there is that formula feeding is superior for malnourished mothers. As you work in the aid industry I'm sure this is what you were thinking about.


Strictly speaking, even regimens of treatment of a simple cold that physicians normally prescribe are not completely evidence based.

Treatment of viral colds in the real world is not evidence based at all and is a poor example. Evidence indicates supportive treatments like hydration and anti-pyretics help but as with all viral illnesses it is for the immune system to sort out.

The differences in treatment for the common cold between individual physicians and different countries and cultures is more indicative of the attitudes towards healthcare in those societies. Ask a Frenchman or an American if their doctor is any good and they will look at whether their doctor prescribes medication whenever they have a malady. Sure enough in France doctors will prescribe antibiotics to their patients who have colds even though they know they are useless. After all, they want those patients to come back for next time too.


Then you have a dilemma, go ahead and do something or wait till you have enough evidence, which may aswell be never.

Which is not a problem with breast vs formula feeding is it? Highly specialised drugs can demonstrate their efficacy with a population cohort of several thousand patients in about 5-10 years. We've had 50 years or so with formula milk and since just about every child that is born has breast or formula milk we are talking about a huge population cohort running into the billions.

[Malbec]

You can formalize some important aspects of your relationship without calling it marriage. You can make your will in a perfectly legal way or you can appoint any one you like your caretaker in case of an illness etc.

Sure you can have a will but the default in a marriage is that the surviving partner inherits all. The default in any other kind of relationship is that blood relatives inherit all. As for having a 'caretaker' by which I presume you mean a legal guardian that has precious little effect when it really counts.

I think you still live in a fairly traditional society. I live in one where many people choose to cohabit and have long term relationships (whether hetero or gay) without choosing to get married. I simply don't see why they should be penalised for having what I think we can all agree are completely legal and legitimate relationships purely because they don't believe in the institution of formal marriage or are banned from doing so.

France has had the pax system for many years, a civil partnership open to all. I think its worked very well. The civil partnership system in Britain is newer but IMO functions well too. I really don't see the problem with these institutions at all.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think you still live in a fairly traditional society. I live in one where many people choose to cohabit and have long term relationships (whether hetero or gay) without choosing to get married. I simply don't see why they should be penalised for having what I think we can all agree are completely legal and legitimate relationships purely because they don't believe in the institution of formal marriage or are banned from doing so.

France has had the pax system for many years, a civil partnership open to all. I think its worked very well. The civil partnership system in Britain is newer but IMO functions well too. I really don't see the problem with these institutions at all.

Should I interpret your words in the sense that sex/gender and the number of partners in a relationship are no longer relevant for qualifying it as a marriage?

[Malbec]

Should I interpret your words in the sense that sex/gender and the number of partners in a relationship are no longer relevant for qualifying it as a marriage?

Thats partly my point Rudy, you seem to see it as if there are only two alternatives, full-on marriage or nothing. I don't agree with this at all. I think there is space for a third alternative which covers forms of relationship not covered by marriage giving legal rights to the partners involved. Whether the partners are straight, gay, platonic friends or even merely business partners of a sort is not something I particularly worry about.

Civil partnerships are not marriages. In France for example, many straight couples opt for pax because they do not like the religious or social connotations of a traditional marriage but want to protect the legal rights of one partner over the other.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Then, if I understand you correctly, the whole discussion is about inheritance, property rights, benefits, tax breaks etc. Then all sorts of activists should be campaigning exactly for that, extending certain provisions of law and benefits to all people regardless of their marital status or absence thereof. Why do they bring marriage into this otherwise ordinary debate is beyond my understanding.

Returning to my initial argument, I still do not see the link some gay rights advocates are trying to make between their sexuality and their right under the law.

[Daniel]

Then, if I understand you correctly, the whole discussion is about inheritance, property rights, benefits, tax breaks etc. Then all sorts of activists should be campaigning exactly for that, extending certain provisions of law and benefits to all people regardless of their marital status or absence thereof. Why do they bring marriage into this otherwise ordinary debate is beyond my understanding.

Returning to my initial argument, I still do not see the link some gay rights advocates are trying to make between their sexuality and their right under the law.

I don't like particularly like cats, but that doesn't mean there should be a mass cat genocide and they should all be burnt. Just because you don't see a link or don't understand, doesn't mean that no one else understands.

[SGWilko]

I don't like particularly like cats, but that doesn't mean there should be a mass cat genocide and they should all be burnt. Just because you don't see a link or don't understand, doesn't mean that no one else understands.

Who's calling for a mass genocide?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Who's calling for a mass genocide?

Exactly. Many people didn't like tax breaks Bush extended to the rich in America. Yet even the staunchest liberals didn't call that a genocide of those ineligible for breaks.

[Daniel]

Who's calling for a mass genocide?

I don't like cats tbh. Well there's one that visits us which is nice enough but the rest I'm not bothered about, well AFF's cat looks cute on Facebook so I'll leave him too. The rest can go :p

I was simply trying to show that just because one person doesn't understand why gay people want to get married doesn't mean that there's no reason it should happen. Just like if I feel like lopping the top of your head off and feasting on the grey matter inside it doesn't necessarily mean that I should. Or does it.....

[Rudy Tamasz]

Just because you don't see a link or don't understand, doesn't mean that no one else understands.

Let's try to talk it through another time. How does your sexuality alter your status under the law? If you strongly believe it does, it is not too hard to come up with a convincing answer, isn't it?

[Daniel]

Exactly. Many people didn't like tax breaks Bush extended to the rich in America. Yet even the staunchest liberals didn't call that a genocide of those ineligible for breaks.

I wasn't saying that this is like some sort of genocide against gay people. That's a rather epic failure to comprehend.

[Malbec]

Then, if I understand you correctly, the whole discussion is about inheritance, property rights, benefits, tax breaks etc. Then all sorts of activists should be campaigning exactly for that, extending certain provisions of law and benefits to all people regardless of their marital status or absence thereof. Why do they bring marriage into this otherwise ordinary debate is beyond my understanding.

My posts are hardly well rounded or provide a summary of what gay rights issues are about. There are many other areas that gay rights extend to.

As for marriage, I think its fair for gay campaigners to ask for a form of legal recognition for their relationships that give them similar protection to married couples don't you think?


Returning to my initial argument, I still do not see the link some gay rights advocates are trying to make between their sexuality and their right under the law.

Errr because they would have their rights protected in full if they were married, but in many countries are unable to marry or have their partnership rights recognised because there is no such option in existence for gay couples?

[Daniel]

Let's try to talk it through another time. How does your sexuality alter your status under the law? If you strongly believe it does, it is not too hard to come up with a convincing answer, isn't it?

The point people are making is that your sexuality SHOULD NOT alter your status under the law!

Evian bottled water mouse Xerox Phaser 8560/8560 MPF solid ink ffs!!!!!!

[SGWilko]

I don't like cats tbh. Well there's one that visits us which is nice enough but the rest I'm not bothered about, well AFF's cat looks cute on Facebook so I'll leave him too. The rest can go :p

I was simply trying to show that just because one person doesn't understand why gay people want to get married doesn't mean that there's no reason it should happen. Just like if I feel like lopping the top of your head off and feasting on the grey matter inside it doesn't necessarily mean that I should. Or does it.....

Let 'em have their partnerships but not a legally recognised marriage (that should be available only to the genuine union between a man and a woman) but not kids. That's the bit I don't agree with or understand. In order to have a child, you have to have a man and a woman. Without the intervention of modern science, without sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, it was impossible to have a baby.

Two men cannot conceive a child and I do not therefore agree that they should have the right to adopt.

No-one has to agree or accept my opinion - but there it is.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I wasn't saying that this is like some sort of genocide against gay people. That's a rather epic failure to comprehend.

Okay, let us look at it from a different standpoint. Before I got married I had had a four-year relationship (with a woman, mind you ;) ) and before that I had a series of rather freewheeling relationships, none of which qualified me for any tax breaks or adoption rights. Did the society had an epic failure by not providing legal recognition of my short- and long-term cohabitations?

[SGWilko]

The point people are making is that your sexuality SHOULD NOT alter your status under the law!

I rather suspect the law concerning marriage is as it is due to the fact that only a man and a woman can bear children. Not based on prejudice, but fact.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The point people are making is that your sexuality SHOULD NOT alter your status under the law

I'm glad there's some common ground that we have. ;)

[Malbec]

I'm glad there's some common ground that we have. ;)

Do you think its right that in many countries gays are specifically banned from serving in the military?

[SGWilko]

Do you think its right that in many countries gays are specifically banned from serving in the military?

Not entirely sure what my opinion is on this until I know what the reasoning behind the ban stems from.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Do you think its right that in many countries gays are specifically banned from serving in the military?

That's discrimination to me. I'm all for the level playing field.

That said, I believe all people at workplace should be professionals first of all. Private matters like sexuality should have little or no place in public areas like business, politics, miltary service etc. If somebody chooses to waive that gay banner in the barrack and manifest his /her sexuality in everybody else's face, he/she must be ready to face a less than friendly attitude. Same thing applies to straight people, some of whom tend to make no distinction between the office and a pickup place.

[Daniel]

Let 'em have their partnerships but not a legally recognised marriage (that should be available only to the genuine union between a man and a woman) but not kids. That's the bit I don't agree with or understand. In order to have a child, you have to have a man and a woman. Without the intervention of modern science, without sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, it was impossible to have a baby.

Two men cannot conceive a child and I do not therefore agree that they should have the right to adopt.

No-one has to agree or accept my opinion - but there it is.
So only bitches should be allowed to have puppies and people shouldn't be allowed to?

You're rigidly trying to make what is legally possible the same as what is biologically possible.

Considering there isn't really a shortage of orphaned children, would these children not be better served by being with a couple that are gay rather than just being left in instituations or with foster parents who might not be able to give them as much attention.

[Malbec]

Not entirely sure what my opinion is on this until I know what the reasoning behind the ban stems from.

I posted that because it seemed Rudy thought gay rights were entirely about inheritance etc and his suggestion that they were not specifically targetted by law.

TBH I'm not sure on this topic either, the military argument is that if you knew your comrade was gay that might make you less willing to sit in a trench with him all night leading to a drop in morale, but then again they have successfully integrated women already so...