Are there any atheists that are against equal rights for LGBT? If so what are your reasons? I'd be fascinated to find out.

Views: 239

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You don't need a contract for a loving happy cohabitation.

What you are ignoring is the strong biological urge to have children that many women and quite a lot of men have.  This gets stronger for women as they get towards the end of their fertile years. 

As a young adult I had no wish whatever to have children.  This slowly changed once I reached 30 and continued until I finally had a child at 47:  impossibly late for most women.  I presume that the culprit was hormones or some biological switch that made the brain think differently.

 

I would not recommend having a child at this age. The pregnancy is physically dangerous for both mother and developing fetus.  Once the baby is born it is exhausting for an older woman and their health can be seriously impaired.

 

I understand your concern over increasing the population level.  I share this concern, too.

If it weren't for the economic push for more consumer fodder in the commercially run U.S.A. that country might consider responsibly reducing its population in some way.  The world is already worryingly over-populated.

And what you seem to be ignoring my dear is that there is no valid modern justification that compels us to indulge into that particular urge!

 

I remember in the 80s when the motto was that men with their particular set of equipment can pee wherever they want, when the urge hits them, but must they?

 

Or the old argument of a man's urge to copulate, whether the woman wants to or not... also an urge which needs NOT be gratified.

 

Since we live in a growth obsessed society, I am not surprised about breeding perks, but I will fight against this societal objective, which implies I will also fight against the breeding perks, in the same vein as I fight against spousal abuse and against corporate hegemony.

 

As for your discourse on marriage, I'll answer here instead of creating multiple entries:

I have searched high and low and read a fair bit about the history of marriage contracts and have found no evidence that civil marriage contracts came before religious marriages contracts. In fact, until the middle ages in Europe, "marriage" was a 2-person personal bilateral agreement. Churches started to institutionalise marriage in the 12th century to combat royal arranged marriages, somehow the church got into its mind that 2 people should have free choice to enter in marriage, imagine that! In China monogamy was mandated by Mao! As for India, it is still the land of arranged marriages. There you go, most of humanity is accounted for. Only by the 17th century and the French revolution did states began to create their own legal dictates on marriage.

 

The concept of two individuals getting together with the aid of government sanctioned perks is entirely a modern fabrication.

 

The point is humans of course may choose to cohabitate and share a life and love each other and even be exclusive to each other, for however many years that works out for them. I don't give a hoot in what sex combination. My issue is with contracts which bind people together, in the name of the law, which a majority of people will break anyway. The contract aspect of marriage has everything to do with perks and nothing to do with love and companionship. The institution that constitutes the modern marriage contract is complete nonsense. The only laws that are really needed are to protect infants from stupid adults, i.e. laws that more or less state that once you create an infant, you are responsible for it, entirely.

 

And since people are "breeding and running" in greater and greater numbers in our society, I'd say we'd do well to focus on that aspect instead giving perks to non parents, in the name of love.

 

Someone explain to me why being in love deserves state sanctioned perks again? And why does love between two adults require a state contract????

 

Of course with the marriage contract issue, in addition to perks, there are are the issues of inheritances and sickness care and such, which if individuals choose to designate a loved one to have priority over blood kin, should depend on written declarations, which hold strength of law. For these we need no marriage contracts, only oaths.

I remember in the 80s when the motto was that men with their particular set of equipment can pee wherever they want, when the urge hits them, but must they?

Yes, they must pee when the urge hits them. It's a matter of health to clear out your urethra and bladder which also allows the kidneys to function and lessens the chances for infections. Must they pee on your rose bush? No. But what you are really getting at is this:

 Or the old argument of a man's urge to copulate, whether the woman wants to or not... also an urge which needs NOT be gratified.

Yeah, his urge will have to be dealt with. Whether or not a woman is involved or it happens right then isn't relevant. It will evacuate on it's own if he ignores it. Not to mention that he'll likely end up fighting erections and have increased testosterone within a few days. But let's hit the nuts and bolts. Are you really equating rape with having children? If your argument is valid in the first place, you wouldn't have to jump through extreme hoops.

 

Population growth is a economic requirement. It can be achieved through immigration (how your country does it) but it must happen. You seem quite concerned with population growth, but have you noticed a world wide trend? Population growth is ending. We will hit around 9 billion, then we are projecting a downward trend. That's if everyone behaves like they have.They don't have to begin to see the world from your viewpoint for this to be the case. They don't have to be negative and see giant dark clouds. Economics and enlightenment is flourishing on it's own. Frankly, your men are rapists and breeders are stupid arguments do nothing but turn people off. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in causing you to be negative and see people as stupid rather than different. 

To your core points, I don't have kids because I don't have the drive. I'd rather adopt. But I am married. If it feels important to my wife, I'm not going to deny her the option of a child because of a political or ethical statement. If we only have one child, we've slowed down the machine. Life and evolution is about incremental changes. Radical changes have radical consequences.

Marriage can be crucial to a relationship. My wife and I wouldn't have made it through some early times without marriage. The commitment to each other was greater than the "aw fuck it" feeling. The reward at the end will be having shared a life with someone whom understands and appreciates that life. Fucking or dating someone new is great. But it doesn't compare to having confidence in the reliability of a lifelong partner and having shared the largess of a life together. As someone whom dated a lot and had a lot of sexual partners, I can confidently say that most of us will take the steady reliable relationship over stepping on landmines twice a year.

Neither of these are a religious issue like you have made it out to be here, or even in your objection to babies in the TA Calendar. Your position is extreme and it requires that you make extreme analogies to support it. This is why you find objection. A simple change to, "Wouldn't if be great if we had less children?" from "fucking breeders" gets you to your hope without alienating people along the way.  

A quick fix of a misrepresentation... I am not so much concerned with 'future' growth as I am with the already existing overpopulation of humans.

 

Your other misrepresentation... equating breeding to rape, duh... read again, I was saying urges need not be acted upon senselessly.

 

So don't try twisting my words :p

 

As for economic growth being 'necessary', that is the opinion of people who value the dogma of neoliberalism. Differing opinions are of course fine among debaters, along as one does not try to pass off opinions as facts...

@ T A A:  You know it's possible to stimulate breast milk flow without giving birth--no hormones needed.  Men and women can lactate just as well as a woman who has given birth.  Google it.  ...crimes against humanity...

Equal rights for all!!

It's about DAM time in my state, New York!

Now for the rest of this Puritan based country....

Apparently there are. I haven't seen any good reasons yet though.

I cant wait for equal rights for homosexuals so that we can quit hearing about this over and over.

 

I mean honestly we dont have to hear about the equal rights of people who prefer doggy style, blondes who sleep with brunettes, or short people who hump tall people so, im quite ready to put to bed so to speak the whole discussion of same gender fucking that really has no bearing on anyone but the people buggering each other.

Blame the puritans and the fundamentalists, not the LGBT community.  We're just trying to live the dream.  Also, you could try changing the channel.
yes...
Philosophically speaking I cannot be "for" marriage and "against" marriage at the same time. On the political playing field, I work against all marriages. Once we get rid of marriage all-together, gays will have the exact same sexual and lifestyle options as heteros.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service