genodragon1 wrote:If procreation, and merely that, is a goal, then it'd actually make more sense to forbid marriage entirely, as monogamous relationships restrict one to only one partner. If two people who wanted to hook up didn't do so out of respect to marriage, that is actually less procreation.
You forget part of my sentence here. I mentioned procreation
and building a stable home to raise the children. Before divorce was authorised for any reason (in 1975 in France), it was actually a strong contract between the two members of the couple, encouraging them to stay together and walk through difficulties, rather than break up at the first disagreement.
It's perhaps not the only way to raise children happy, but it's the one most strongly anchored in our culture and that's why I believe marriage is here to protect it.
genodragon1 wrote:But, you also forget that with artificial insemination and adoption, kids can be born or know the feeling it is to have a stable home that otherwise wouldn't happen as long as there are restricted rights for homosexuals. Furthermore, if you must be able to procreate to have certain rights, what does that say to people born or are somehow made sterile? When the woman of a straight couple has a hysterectomy, does that invalidate the marriage?
You do realise that your two sentences compensate each other ? ^^
Children can very well be adopted by a sterile couple, I don't see how the operation is not possible "as long as there are restricted rights for homosexuals".
As for artificial insemination, I'm not entirely against it as long as the "real" (genetic) parents are also the ones to bear and raise the child - otherwise it seems morally wrong, but that's a matter of personal opinion so I won't really argue on that.
Also, just as information : one of the 4 conditions of marriage in the catholic religion (which is mine) is the
will to have children. But if it turns out not to be possible, the marriage isn't considered null. Love can be lived without children, though it's probably harder.
And I think the same about homosexuals : they can live their love even if they don't have children, and so on. Here, I was only talking about the pragmatic part of civil marriage.
genodragon1 wrote:Since when did the population get so low that we need to encourage procreation to survive?
That's why I added the note about overpopulation : it is indeed changing, since compared to a few centuries ago, the mortality rate has drastically decreased, and the population increased incredibly fast. I admit that this point about numbers is becoming less and less relevant with time, but I still think it played its role historically.
However, the point about education and growing up is as relevant as ever nowadays.
genodragon1 wrote:- What I speak of in terms of less rights consists of (but not limited to) many things. The first is (I think this was repealed recently, but it may apply to other countries) to where homosexuals are not allowed to be open about their lifestyle, lest it get them fired or kicked out of the military. The second is actually a legal loophole that politicians refuse to close: when a homosexual is in a critical state in the hospital, the partner is not allowed to make decisions in his/her lover's stead (if the one in critical state cannot speak for themselves), and are not even allowed to SEE their partner, while many others are allowed in (imagine being in a delicate position where someone who didn't like you was able to call the shots instead of your lover who cares about you).
On these points, it's "gratuitous" ostracisation of homosexuals, and I agree with you when you say it should change. As I said, I do understand that love can appear anywhere, and the second point you mention hurts it for no reason.
On the financial points, I still think they are not necessary for their happiness - but the decision to remove the privileges or marriage (or expand them to everyone) depends on states, and whether they think it's an evolution of their society they want to encourage or not.
genodragon1 wrote: we aren't so nationalistic to the point that we want everyone to be a pure-blooded American (and even then, one would have to define what an American looked like, anyway~).
Oh, don't worry, the French don't have an obsession with "pure blood" either - well, most of them anyway. However, there is a general French culture that is much stronger that the one in the US, since the US is based on multiculturalism from the beginning.
genodragon1 wrote:- While having poor eyesight bars you from being a fighter pilot (which, let me tell you, is somewhat laughable considering how peaceful and passive you seem to be), it doesn't cause people to look down on you. It's like comparing slightly imperfect hearing with the plight of black people. Having imperfect hearing may prohibit someone from some tasks, but that same person can still walk down the street without people wondering if s/he's a criminal.
Again, I agree on the fact that looking down on them is bad. Looking down on anyone is bad, for that matter. And this is a behavioural issue - people's behaviours have to be more open to respecting others.
However, my point was about the gay marriage itself - refusing marriage to gay people does not necessarily mean looking down on them, just like refusing me as a pilot does not mean looking down on me.
genodragon1 wrote:Unless you consider homosexuality a genetic defect or a disease, you cannot, in turn, compare it to any ailment.
Well, to me it doesn't really matter whether to call it a disease or not : I have the same respect for the rights of diseased people as for the ones of others, so... If it hurts their sensibility, then let's just not call it so, but it does not really change the meaning of my argument.
genodragon1 wrote:(which, let me tell you, is somewhat laughable considering how peaceful and passive you seem to be)
"seem to" is the right keyword here ^^
When I talk about internal or international politics, my discourse tends to shock many of my friends as I am able to consider violence in order to reach certain objectives...
Back on the subject though, I've always been fascinated by fighters - and at the time I was too young to consider that it might involve killing people.
Not that I consider myself completely incapable of killing, but well, I wouldn't be comfortable with it, I think.
genodragon1 wrote:- ... I'm sorry, what? It may be socially acceptable to, say, be a homosexual male in fashion design, but there are very few circles where being a homosexual is truly tolerated, much less trendy.
Oh, I didn't mean it as everyday life being easy for them - and especially not all of them.
I was thinking of the way some militant groups go into gay parades and yell about the fact that they are gay, and so on. These ones just want (and often get) the media's attention - it does not really look like their gayness is natural and motivated by love. It sounds quite contrary to those that you describe, those that only ask for a normal life and consideration, which I agree they should have.
genodragon1 wrote:- I know you agree that the homosexual has a right to a happy life, but there are still many things that prohibit the homosexual from being so, whether it's intolerance from communities, a learned discomfort of those around you, the implied "you stay silent, I don't fire you", et cetera and so forth.
Unfortunately, and I certainly do not approve of this situation.
You see, I consider myself a man of Reason and Religion - and my religion promotes love about everything else. So whenever there is no logical justification to discrimination, I don't wish for people to be hurt unnecessarily.
Talking about making the gay marriage official, my reason tells me it's a bad thing; however, regarding intolerance, I have no reasonable justification, so I'm against it and wish for people to be more open minded.
Sorry Bad, I won't answer you right now, it's 1:30am for me, I should go to sleep xD
(and there I fall back on my participation to the International Politics Thread 
)
