Homosexuality and parenthood: your thoughts.

[Salandriagado]

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

No, the problem here is that he is operating on a system of thought, whereas you're regurgitating unfounded biases.

- 400 years ago, the earth, indeed, was considered the center of the Solar system and the Universe; today, we're not at center of anything except the Earth-moon system, and we're not even sure if the Universe has a center.

Slight nitpick here: we are fairly sure if the universe has a centre. It doesn't.

[Indira]

To be frank, I think it's a stupid idea not letting your friends adopt. Can they provide a loving home to a troubled child? Children do better with loving families, research has shown that. Surely a gay couple are better than the state system. I wish your friends luck.

[Sidhae]

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

I assumed that you would be brining something that has real and practical applications in this debate...Since you did say you would if I posted a link to a scientific study. Instead you offer more of this unsubstantiated and irrational ranting.

I wasn't in fact responding to your comment with my "unsubstantiated and irrational ranting", so please grant the proper recipient of my "rant" a chance to respond.

I will read the link you provided and search for counter-arguments sometime later, but for now, you must excuse me. I shall return to this debate tomorrow.

[Iuuvic]

I assumed that you would be brining something that has real and practical applications in this debate...Since you did say you would if I posted a link to a scientific study. Instead you offer more of this unsubstantiated and irrational ranting.

I wasn't in fact responding to your comment with my "unsubstantiated and irrational ranting", so please grant the proper recipient of my "rant" a chance to respond.

I will read the link you provided and search for counter-arguments sometime later, but for now, you must excuse me. I shall return to this debate tomorrow.

I apologize, it gets confusing if you don't quote. All-the-same I doubt you will see much difference in response when you claim that this argument is only a difference in principle as opposed to an absolute absence of evidence on your part.

[Orcoa]

Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

The God Emperor is not proud of you...you heretic

[Grenartia]

1. Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

2. What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots.

3. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

4. What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

1. I can see some sense in your reasoning, actually. I used to think in similar ways. Until around the time I turned 14, my views on LGBT issues were only slightly more tolerant than Rick Santorum's current views. Which is one of the reasons I'm so hard on anti-LGBT issues. Because when I see those people, I see myself when I was at the height of my denial, my homophobia. And I see no excuse for it.

My madness is my own, shaped in an equal and opposite way from the madness of my mother's mother and stepfather. They were severely misinformed, intolerant, and punishment was harsh for anybody who dared to even respectfully question their authority, or dared to prove them wrong. Thankfully, my parents weren't like them. My parents encouraged me to think for myself, even if it challenged their authority (though I was always respectful of them, because they treated me with respect). I've come to realize that ALL authority NEEDS to be questioned openly, until that authority has proven itself worthy to be trusted.

But yes, our mindsets are different. I value the freedom of the individual because the freedom of the individual reflects the freedom of society. I believe that if a society wants an individual to conform to its expectations, then that society deserves to be extinguished. You seem only to care about society, and not the individual.

2. Odd, how similar circumstances (or at least from what I gather, they are) can produce two totally different mindsets.

3. I used to feel the same way, until I realized that both sides do this. Both sides make the other out to be totalitarians, while preaching the cause of liberty. The only difference (at least in America, that I can see), is that one side preaches that religious and economic freedom trumps other civil freedoms. My view is that all freedoms are equally important, as long as those people aren't trying to abuse those freedoms to take other peoples' freedoms away.

Also, I've heard many anti-LGBT polititicans and such claim that "liberals are always talking about civil freedoms, but the minute somebody uses their freedoms to say something that goes against their views, the liberals jump all over them" (or something to that effect)...

But I think they (liberals) are partially justified. For those politicians are using their power and influence to gradually suppress the freedoms of those they don't approve of.

4. Personally, I think that both sides have some points that are justified, but the side with the least justification seems to be the anti-LGBT side. All that the anti-LGBT side claims as justification for keeping people who don't hurt anybody from fulfilling their (the LGBTs) right to the pursuit of happiness is their religious beliefs, which shouldn't be used to make public policy (separation of church and state), and some vague mentionings of family values (which are always left undefined, and its never explained how LGBT rights undermines those values).

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

I can see your point just fine. You think that if society accepts homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered personss as normal, then that will lead to the downfall of western civilization.

Nobody ever does anything that they think is wrong. But just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you actually are. You have no proof that your beliefs are correct.

[Ifreann]

Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

No, no matter how you phrase it, no matter the zeal you've supposedly endured, no matter the wrath supposedly brought down upon you, there is no "light" in denying equal treatment before the law to same-sex couples.

[Orcoa]

Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

No, no matter how you phrase it, no matter the zeal you've supposedly endured, no matter the wrath supposedly brought down upon you, there is no "light" in denying equal treatment before the law to same-sex couples.

I agree, The True light is bring Equal Treatment to all people who wish for it...the darkness is the inequality that you are pushing, That is truly the Devil's work

[Xeng He]

There are two options to resolve this. Option one - to enact strong pro-family laws that would motivate people to marry, stay married and produce at least 3 children, as well as discouraging practices that do not contribute to the national reproduction.


Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

Option 4--we replace the lost people with immigrants/outsourced workers, which ends up making less reproduction better for a developed country, because then, with fewer people there, fewer are replaced.

Or option three - people can also continue with their current self-destructive lifestyle and live in a happy-hippie-fairytale land with their heads stuck up their asses, until they eventually wake up and find themselves relegated to reservations, as is usual for those who have become a minority in their own land.

I'm going to address this thing in particular because it's ridiculous.

America, on the whole, wasn't largely German and Irish from 1783 to a point in the early 1800s. Nowadays, most people in America can claim German or Irish descent. Yet, on the whole, the old, British types aren't doing too badly. There were quite a few wealthy ones of those, even.

For example.

If the transition in population type is handled well, then there's no reason to assume anyone will be relegated to reservations. There are much more direct reasons for that.

As for having a male and female parent, it's very simple - every human being needs a male and a female role model for harmonious development. You cannot really learn manly things, such as how to score with girls, if you have no father whom you could ask for advice of such things. Likewise, you cannot get an insight into women's world and learn what they are attracted to in a man if you have no mother that could tell you from first-hand experience. Fathers also tend to spoil their daughters, and mothers spoil their sons, so a counterpart is needed to balance that. Think of a functional family as the yin/yang symbol - it has two sides, and neither dominates the other.

Trying to have it any other way is, I think, an attempt to make nature conform to ideology, which is obviously doomed to failure.

Why do you think homosexuals can't fulfill either role?

They can most certainly, at least, fulfill the roles of provider and nuturer separately.

[Kryozerkia]

For the most part, you've folks have managed to keep from ripping each other's throats out. Of course, there is always an exception to the rule. In this case, Sidhae with the following gems, here, here and here. There's no reason to refer to Muslims as "towelheads" other than to make incendiary comments. *** Warned for trolling. ***

[Wikkiwallana]

It's at least partly because the idea that homosexuality is the same as pederasty or pedophilia still has traction for some stupid reason.

That reminds me of something I was told a few days ago. That a woman ceases to be a woman if she's a lesbian. I still don't see how sexual preference cancels gender.

Never heard that one before, but it's definitely being added to the list of stupidest ideas I've ever come across.

I guess that's the same with parenthood. That some consider sexual preference as a 'yay/nay' characteristic for how 'suited' one is as a parent. Something I don't see factoring in into that. A gay parent could be as good of a parent as a straight parent. Or not.

It never ceases to amaze me what some people think other people's preferred shape of dangly bits influences.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That reminds me of something I was told a few days ago. That a woman ceases to be a woman if she's a lesbian. I still don't see how sexual preference cancels gender.

Never heard that one before, but it's definitely being added to the list of stupidest ideas I've ever come across.

I guess that's the same with parenthood. That some consider sexual preference as a 'yay/nay' characteristic for how 'suited' one is as a parent. Something I don't see factoring in into that. A gay parent could be as good of a parent as a straight parent. Or not.

It never ceases to amaze me what some people think other people's preferred shape of dangly bits influences.

I guess it's the fact that they can't find a 'reasonable' excuse for saying homosexuals make bad parents. Hence, the senseless claims and appeals to 'sexual orientation' as a cancelling factor for parenting suitability.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

To be frank, I think it's a stupid idea not letting your friends adopt. Can they provide a loving home to a troubled child? Children do better with loving families, research has shown that. Surely a gay couple are better than the state system. I wish your friends luck.

They are trying to fight this through legal channels. I agree with what you say. If they're able to provide a loving, stable home, preventing them from adopting is senseless. They are, in fact, better than the state. And with so many children in the foster care system just wanting to have a loving home, I find it a tad obscene that my friends can't adopt merely based on their sexuality.

[Sidhae]

1. Isn't that strange... We live on the same planet, possibly even on the same continent, yet we represent two completely alien mindsets. You cannot see any sense in my reasoning, and I cannot see anything but madness in yours. And the funny thing, I'm not certain if that madness is even genuinely yours, or merely the madness of those amongst whom you grew up (and I think it's pretty safe to assume you think the same of me).

2. What leads me to believe that this is someone else's madness is because I used to think much the same way once. Something about it felt wrong, and I couldn't figure out what, because I lived in what was supposed to be a picture-perfect world that was only spoiled by hate and intolerance of a few ignorant bigots.

3. Until I slowly came to realize that the most hateful, intolerant and willingly-ignorant bigots are those same people who preach tolerance and liberty. They will only follow their principles as long as everybody agrees with them, but don't you ever dare committing the heresy of questioning their teachings, or they will come down upon you with the zeal worthy of Spanish Inquisition and wrath that would make the Nazis proud.

4. What do you think of it? Do you believe their teachings are indeed true, and it's merely me that has strayed from the one true path of light out of ignorance, despair or bitterness? Or maybe that there might also be some light on the dark path of heresy?

1. I can see some sense in your reasoning, actually. I used to think in similar ways. Until around the time I turned 14, my views on LGBT issues were only slightly more tolerant than Rick Santorum's current views. Which is one of the reasons I'm so hard on anti-LGBT issues. Because when I see those people, I see myself when I was at the height of my denial, my homophobia. And I see no excuse for it.

My madness is my own, shaped in an equal and opposite way from the madness of my mother's mother and stepfather. They were severely misinformed, intolerant, and punishment was harsh for anybody who dared to even respectfully question their authority, or dared to prove them wrong. Thankfully, my parents weren't like them. My parents encouraged me to think for myself, even if it challenged their authority (though I was always respectful of them, because they treated me with respect). I've come to realize that ALL authority NEEDS to be questioned openly, until that authority has proven itself worthy to be trusted.

But yes, our mindsets are different. I value the freedom of the individual because the freedom of the individual reflects the freedom of society. I believe that if a society wants an individual to conform to its expectations, then that society deserves to be extinguished. You seem only to care about society, and not the individual.

2. Odd, how similar circumstances (or at least from what I gather, they are) can produce two totally different mindsets.

3. I used to feel the same way, until I realized that both sides do this. Both sides make the other out to be totalitarians, while preaching the cause of liberty. The only difference (at least in America, that I can see), is that one side preaches that religious and economic freedom trumps other civil freedoms. My view is that all freedoms are equally important, as long as those people aren't trying to abuse those freedoms to take other peoples' freedoms away.

Also, I've heard many anti-LGBT polititicans and such claim that "liberals are always talking about civil freedoms, but the minute somebody uses their freedoms to say something that goes against their views, the liberals jump all over them" (or something to that effect)...

But I think they (liberals) are partially justified. For those politicians are using their power and influence to gradually suppress the freedoms of those they don't approve of.

4. Personally, I think that both sides have some points that are justified, but the side with the least justification seems to be the anti-LGBT side. All that the anti-LGBT side claims as justification for keeping people who don't hurt anybody from fulfilling their (the LGBTs) right to the pursuit of happiness is their religious beliefs, which shouldn't be used to make public policy (separation of church and state), and some vague mentionings of family values (which are always left undefined, and its never explained how LGBT rights undermines those values).

What is of substance here is the apparent inability to see the point the other is trying to make, which is perhaps caused by me and my partner of conversation operating on two principally-different systems of thought. I'm trying to understand if that is the case.

I can see your point just fine. You think that if society accepts homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered personss as normal, then that will lead to the downfall of western civilization.

Nobody ever does anything that they think is wrong. But just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you actually are. You have no proof that your beliefs are correct.

Interestingly, neither does the liberal view have any true proof besides theories. So far, no country can judge from practical experience whether supporting homosexuals and the likes brings benefits or not.

Which makes me think it's more of a matter of ideology than anything else.

I think it's a passing trend to consider homosexuality and similar things natural and normal. It has been that way in the past too. Even the Greeks weren't unanimous over the issue during their history, their own views ranging from encouragement to condemnation. As you said, that doesn't make condemners of homosexuality right, but neither does that really make them wrong.

Personally, I doubt all these civil rights are really such a good thing. It's nice to have them, of course, but I think no individual should be above the collective interests of the nation. Freedom can only be appreciated if there are restrictions to it.

As for the two different mindsets, yes, most curious indeed. I too happen to come from a single-parent family, and my story is no different than for millions of others. There wasn't even much pressure to embrace liberal views from family or society for me, but I eventually came to favour time-tested traditional values instead of these new ones.

I guess time will show which one of us is right.

[Grenartia]

1. I can see some sense in your reasoning, actually. I used to think in similar ways. Until around the time I turned 14, my views on LGBT issues were only slightly more tolerant than Rick Santorum's current views. Which is one of the reasons I'm so hard on anti-LGBT issues. Because when I see those people, I see myself when I was at the height of my denial, my homophobia. And I see no excuse for it.

My madness is my own, shaped in an equal and opposite way from the madness of my mother's mother and stepfather. They were severely misinformed, intolerant, and punishment was harsh for anybody who dared to even respectfully question their authority, or dared to prove them wrong. Thankfully, my parents weren't like them. My parents encouraged me to think for myself, even if it challenged their authority (though I was always respectful of them, because they treated me with respect). I've come to realize that ALL authority NEEDS to be questioned openly, until that authority has proven itself worthy to be trusted.

But yes, our mindsets are different. I value the freedom of the individual because the freedom of the individual reflects the freedom of society. I believe that if a society wants an individual to conform to its expectations, then that society deserves to be extinguished. You seem only to care about society, and not the individual.

2. Odd, how similar circumstances (or at least from what I gather, they are) can produce two totally different mindsets.

3. I used to feel the same way, until I realized that both sides do this. Both sides make the other out to be totalitarians, while preaching the cause of liberty. The only difference (at least in America, that I can see), is that one side preaches that religious and economic freedom trumps other civil freedoms. My view is that all freedoms are equally important, as long as those people aren't trying to abuse those freedoms to take other peoples' freedoms away.

Also, I've heard many anti-LGBT polititicans and such claim that "liberals are always talking about civil freedoms, but the minute somebody uses their freedoms to say something that goes against their views, the liberals jump all over them" (or something to that effect)...

But I think they (liberals) are partially justified. For those politicians are using their power and influence to gradually suppress the freedoms of those they don't approve of.

4. Personally, I think that both sides have some points that are justified, but the side with the least justification seems to be the anti-LGBT side. All that the anti-LGBT side claims as justification for keeping people who don't hurt anybody from fulfilling their (the LGBTs) right to the pursuit of happiness is their religious beliefs, which shouldn't be used to make public policy (separation of church and state), and some vague mentionings of family values (which are always left undefined, and its never explained how LGBT rights undermines those values).




I can see your point just fine. You think that if society accepts homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered personss as normal, then that will lead to the downfall of western civilization.

Nobody ever does anything that they think is wrong. But just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you actually are. You have no proof that your beliefs are correct.

Interestingly, neither does the liberal view have any true proof besides theories. So far, no country can judge from practical experience whether supporting homosexuals and the likes brings benefits or not.

Which makes me think it's more of a matter of ideology than anything else.

I think it's a passing trend to consider homosexuality and similar things natural and normal. It has been that way in the past too. Even the Greeks weren't unanimous over the issue during their history, their own views ranging from encouragement to condemnation. As you said, that doesn't make condemners of homosexuality right, but neither does that really make them wrong.

Personally, I doubt all these civil rights are really such a good thing. It's nice to have them, of course, but I think no individual should be above the collective interests of the nation. Freedom can only be appreciated if there are restrictions to it.

As for the two different mindsets, yes, most curious indeed. I too happen to come from a single-parent family, and my story is no different than for millions of others. There wasn't even much pressure to embrace liberal views from family or society for me, but I eventually came to favour time-tested traditional values instead of these new ones.

I guess time will show which one of us is right.

Multiple studies have been done since homosexuality has been removed from the list of mental disorders, and each one of them has determined that same-sex couples are just as capable of raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. I'd think that well-raised kids are a sign that a country isn't going to go down a well anytime soon, don't you?

And condemning homosexuality IS wrong. Homosexuality hurts nobody, and does no damage at all to anything. So why is the denial of their rights justifiable?

Freedom with too many limits can't really be called freedom. Personally, as long as you're not taking away anybody else's rights to life, liberty, privacy, etc, or causing anybody to do so, I feel you should be able to do anything you want.

I suppose so.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Bigots shouldn't be in charge of whether or not children can have a family. They try to ban abortion, and now they try to ban adoption. They also don't seem to mind leaving children in the care of registered sex offenders. I hate bigots.

[Distruzio]

Bigots shouldn't be in charge of whether or not children can have a family. They try to ban abortion, and now they try to ban adoption. They also don't seem to mind leaving children in the care of registered sex offenders. I hate bigots.

One wonders.... is it intentional?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Bigots shouldn't be in charge of whether or not children can have a family. They try to ban abortion, and now they try to ban adoption. They also don't seem to mind leaving children in the care of registered sex offenders. I hate bigots.

One wonders.... is it intentional?

I would say so, with some.

We have a tendency to let our prejudices dictate how we react to things, even if our reactions are negative.

[Iuuvic]

Interestingly, neither does the liberal view have any true proof besides theories. So far, no country can judge from practical experience whether supporting homosexuals and the likes brings benefits or not.

This has been addressed multiple times; proof has been given to you multiple times. You’re obviously confusing theory with observational fact here. A literal mound of evidence, it seems, could be placed directly in your hands and all you would say is “this is just a theory.” No, it’s not a theory it's an observerd truth.

[Brodskopolis]

There's no reason why your friends shouldn't adopt. I have friends with two mothers, who are extremely capable and loving parents and whose sons have turned out splendidly.

[Ovisterra]

I see no reason why homosexuality automatically renders one a bad parent. Let 'em adopt.

[NyxNyke]

On the one hand I agree, let them adopt. On the other there are some long term issues at play. History has shown that cultures that become too self centered get destroyed from the inside. Then they fall to an external threat. The underlying problem here is the threat to marriage is love. Marriage in not about personal love, it is about family. We have a divorce rate of 50%! Why its that? Because we marry for selfish reasons, not to have and raise a family.

[Bottle]

On the one hand I agree, let them adopt. On the other there are some long term issues at play. History has shown that cultures that become too self centered get destroyed from the inside. Then they fall to an external threat. The underlying problem here is the threat to marriage is love. Marriage in not about personal love, it is about family. We have a divorce rate of 50%! Why its that? Because we marry for selfish reasons, not to have and raise a family.

The idea that it's only a family if you make babies is not only shallow and ignorant, it's also ahistorical. That has never been the traditional concept of family, not since ancient humans were discovering fire. Kindly stop trying to re-write human tradition to serve your radical agenda.

[New England and The Maritimes]

On the one hand I agree, let them adopt. On the other there are some long term issues at play. History has shown that cultures that become too self centered get destroyed from the inside. Then they fall to an external threat. The underlying problem here is the threat to marriage is love. Marriage in not about personal love, it is about family. We have a divorce rate of 50%! Why its that? Because we marry for selfish reasons, not to have and raise a family.

The idea that it's only a family if you make babies is not only shallow and ignorant, it's also ahistorical. That has never been the traditional concept of family, not since ancient humans were discovering fire. Kindly stop trying to re-write human tradition to serve your radical agenda.

Add to it that the real reason for the divorce rate is more likely kids thinking they have to "get married and start a family," figuring out that they don't actually love the person, and deciding to split up because staying with someone you can't stand to be around your whole life is just too ridiculous a thing to expect from anybody.

The reason divorce rates were lower in the past wasn't from some sense of honorable commitment, it was necessity. In the "Good ole days" women rarely graduated high school, were regularly abused and taught that their place in society was right on the bottom, and as such had no hope of supporting themselves. Women stayed with people they didn't care for because the alternative was starving to death or being looked down on as a stupid evil whore.

A high divorce rate is a good thing. It means people who would not be able to work together to raise a child no longer have to try. It means less instances of spousal abuse, which also helps with child abuse, and probably lower levels of alcohol and drug abuse as well, since neither party feels like they have to "cope" with the fact that they hate their spouse. It promotes a better environment for children.

[Sidhae]

Interestingly, neither does the liberal view have any true proof besides theories. So far, no country can judge from practical experience whether supporting homosexuals and the likes brings benefits or not.

Which makes me think it's more of a matter of ideology than anything else.

I think it's a passing trend to consider homosexuality and similar things natural and normal. It has been that way in the past too. Even the Greeks weren't unanimous over the issue during their history, their own views ranging from encouragement to condemnation. As you said, that doesn't make condemners of homosexuality right, but neither does that really make them wrong.

Personally, I doubt all these civil rights are really such a good thing. It's nice to have them, of course, but I think no individual should be above the collective interests of the nation. Freedom can only be appreciated if there are restrictions to it.

As for the two different mindsets, yes, most curious indeed. I too happen to come from a single-parent family, and my story is no different than for millions of others. There wasn't even much pressure to embrace liberal views from family or society for me, but I eventually came to favour time-tested traditional values instead of these new ones.

I guess time will show which one of us is right.

Multiple studies have been done since homosexuality has been removed from the list of mental disorders, and each one of them has determined that same-sex couples are just as capable of raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. I'd think that well-raised kids are a sign that a country isn't going to go down a well anytime soon, don't you?

And condemning homosexuality IS wrong. Homosexuality hurts nobody, and does no damage at all to anything. So why is the denial of their rights justifiable?

Freedom with too many limits can't really be called freedom. Personally, as long as you're not taking away anybody else's rights to life, liberty, privacy, etc, or causing anybody to do so, I feel you should be able to do anything you want.

I suppose so.

Still, even in times when homosexuality was accepted, homosexuals wouldn't adopt children or officially marry (most usually because they weren't exclusively homosexual and were married to a woman with whom they had children). Why should they insist on it now? It's not like they lose much by not being able to legally marry or adopt anyway.

I would suggest instead having them marry someone of opposite sex for reproduction, and letting them practice their desires for pleasure - the way Romans and Greeks did it. The nation gets it's share of new children, and nobody can whine about being repressed either.

I think individual freedom should be subordinate to the interests of the nation and state. You are what you are only thanks to it, and the reason you even have any rights or freedoms is because the state is there to grant them to you. Which would logically mean it is a greater power than you, and you as a citizen must subject your will and personal desires to that power which has endowed you with rights.

Personally, I don't even like the term "rights", because there really aren't any. "Freedoms" or "privileges" would be a more accurate description of these things many of us take for granted and abuse at times. The current situation, where individual freedoms are often placed above the collective interests of the people, is not only absurd but outright dangerous - for how long do you think the state will be able to enforce it's granted freedoms, if everybody only cares about their freedoms and not the state that is the only force which keeps them in effect? Should the state collapse, society would quickly revert to the primeval "rule of the fist", where the level of one's personal freedom would be literally determined by the strength of one's sword arm and will. It has happened before, and eventually will happen again.