SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, The Barmbeker said:

Nonononono...please don't go there!

Not another session of pseudo intellectual debate on financial rationalisation, taxation, and heteronormative ideas of breeding   to mask outright discrimination and homophobia.

 

[brianp0803]

Does Thailand offer tax benefits to people with children?

Is being married a requirement for receiving the tax benefit or only having children?

 

 

I think in today’s society, being married and having children are two completely separate events.
I can put money in a retirement account and I collect it when I’m 65. This is not based on me having children to support me when I retire(but Thailand is different)

Social Security is the same thing. You put money in while working, and take it out when I retire. This was the original intent before the government took out all the money.

[RJRS1301]

7 minutes ago, The Barmbeker said:

Oh...so tolerance and accepting of YOUR SPECIFIC religion is fine, but the muslims...obvioulsly not!

Interesting!

Is that "the we whiteman idea of sky fairy" (the one embraced by Tammy Faye Baker and Westbro Baptist) as opposed to the "othering" of non white sky fairies?

Whose imaginary "sky friend" is better than what others may decide is their version of imaginary friend ?

?
 

Edited July 19, 2020 by RJRS1301

[PFMills]

On 7/12/2020 at 11:48 AM, Bannoi said:

The survey needs another option.

 

Personally I couldn't give a toss either way.

I am with you on that, but we are obviously in the minority as 29 ‘kin pages on this topic so far...

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

I can put money in a retirement account and I collect it when I’m 65. This is not based on me having children to support me when I retire(but Thailand is different)

Social Security is the same thing. You put money in while working, and take it out when I retire. This was the original intent before the government took out all the money.

 

That is a fundamental misunderstanding how pensions, and social security, are financed.

 

Firstly, the amount people pay into state pension is insufficient to pay out all the claims made. Therefore all governments have to inject cash into the pension systems to keep them afloat. Where does this money come from? Taxation and the capital markets (which are repaid by taxation).

 

It is never the case that you just pay in the amount and get the amount as pension. Even in a private pension. That would not make sense. 

 

Secondly, for the current generation of old people who claim pension it is largely the current younger generation of working taxpayers that finance their pension claims in reality. Hence "generational contract", ie the current older generation has its pension claims paid by the younger working taxpayers, who when they get older have their pension claims paid by the next generation and so on.

 

The pension system was built on that idea. It is not hard to see how this system requires new taxpayers, new pension contributors, ie children.

 

Basically, if everyone acted like gays or heterosexuals who refuse to have children society would die out and all the tax-funded systems, pensions, hospitals, schools, roads, theatres etc could not be paid. Homosexuals claim pension, but do not provide future pension contributors, future taxpayers.

 

So why encourage behaviour that is against the survival of society itself? Tolerate, sure, but encourage? Why? What benefit is gained?

 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Basically, if everyone acted like gays or heterosexuals who refuse to have children society would die out and all the tax-funded systems, pensions, hospitals, schools, roads, theatres etc could not be paid. Homosexuals claim pension, but do not provide future pension contributors, future taxpayers.

Warning warning:

Some gay men and lesbians do and have done for centuries produce their own off spring.

The premise of "if everyone acted likes or heterosexual who refuse to have children, is so far removed from any reality, I think the nurse should make an immediate assessment on your capacity.

 

Just as matter of interest, who would fill the resource gap in the "arts and theatre" if all lesbians and gay men ceased to exist??

 

[pegman]

I don't know of any gay friends or relatives I have but I'm very rigid on all rights for all people. 

[brianp0803]

Logosone’s idea that exponential population growth is necessary to support the economy is scary. Although my investments for my retirement do grow exponentially. That is why I can take out more money when I’m 65 than I invested when I was 25

 

Back to marriage and Thailand.

Separate from tax benefits of having babies(marriage not required) what costs are there to the Thai government of allowing people that won’t have children (gay or straight) to marry?

 

Are tax benefits derived from having Thai children or being married? They are totally separate events.

One advantage of letting foreigner and Thai people get married would allow foreigners to bring in there foreign income to Thailand. I can’t think of any disadvantages to the Thai government.
 

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Warning warning:

Some gay men and lesbians do and have done for centuries produce their own off spring.

The premise of "if everyone acted likes or heterosexual who refuse to have children, is so far removed from any reality, I think the nurse should make an immediate assessment on your capacity.

 

Just as matter of interest, who would fill the resource gap in the "arts and theatre" if all lesbians and gay men ceased to exist??

 

Obviously gay men and women can not "produce their own offspring".  Gay men can adopt children or use surrogacy (illegal in many countries due to the harrowing experience for the mother) and gay women can use a man's sperm (only half their offspring then). But I take your point, some gays raise children.

 

Now unfortunately academics have shown that compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to;

 

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely) 
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

 

As the author of that study, Professor Mark Regnerus from the University of Austin says: "The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well".

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610?via%3Dihub

 

So first of all the number of gay parents who raise children is miniscule, so small in fact as to have no impact and it can be disregarded. However, when that does happen, the above adverse consequences are likely.

 

Is that really something we should encourage?

[Tagged]

On 7/12/2020 at 11:40 AM, Rancid said:

Additionally the New York Times and other publications are now saying that pedophilia is a condition and not criminal, despite the damage to the victims.

Do you have a proper source as a proof?

 

Pedophilia is a ilness, and if a pedophilia commit a crime, he is punished due to his crime he or she does to a minor. Please post a link showing your claim. At its best false news, anything else would be deleted!

[jak2002003]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Obviously gay men and women can not "produce their own offspring".  Gay men can adopt children or use surrogacy (illegal in many countries due to the harrowing experience for the mother) and gay women can use a man's sperm (only half their offspring then). But I take your point, some gays raise children.

 

Now unfortunately academics have shown that compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to;

 

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely) 
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

 

As the author of that study, Professor Mark Regnerus from the University of Austin says: "The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well".

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610?via%3Dihub

 

So first of all the number of gay parents who raise children is miniscule, so small in fact as to have no impact and it can be disregarded. However, when that does happen, the above adverse consequences are likely.

 

Is that really something we should encourage?

That's so stupid. 

 

He could say all the same negative things about children from parents who are black, mixed race, poor, disabled, separated, young, old, obese, working long hours etc etc. So you would say these straight people also should not be allowed to have children.

 

You only want white, rich, well educated people to have children then.

 

Anyway, if anybody researches into this guy's studies they will see that they have been ridiculed and discredited by most other scientists.

 

Logosone..you are just using this flawed study by a guy with a clear agenda, to justify your bigoted and homophobic views.

 

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

Troll post and replies removed

[Logosone]

34 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

The tool replaces hands in all areas, unemployment threatens and the biggest problem in our world is certainly rampant overpopulation.

Lol, yes good luck taxing screwdrivers and robots to fund pensions, hospitals, roads, schools and theatres.

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

No, I'm afraid you'll need children to finance pensions, hospitals, roads, schools and theatres. No other way.

 

That is why the heterosexual family is the backbone of society. Without it there is no society. That is why the family has to be protected. 

[Logosone]

58 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

That's so stupid. 

 

He could say all the same negative things about children from parents who are black, mixed race, poor, disabled, separated, young, old, obese, working long hours etc etc. So you would say these straight people also should not be allowed to have children.

 

You only want white, rich, well educated people to have children then.

 

Anyway, if anybody researches into this guy's studies they will see that they have been ridiculed and discredited by most other scientists.

 

Logosone..you are just using this flawed study by a guy with a clear agenda, to justify your bigoted and homophobic views.

 

Indeed many gay activist academics have tried unsuccessfully to ridicule and discredit Prof Mark Regnerus comprehensive study, however his study hasn’t been retracted. I can’t imagine it being retracted, because it’s not false and no errors were discovered. Despite all the attempts to discredit Regnerus he stands by what he said, and so does his university, so do the journals that have published the study.

 

The study was never retracted.

 

The way the study worked was that he merely asked questions to same-sex and heterosexual couples. The data sort of speaks for itself.

 

It's not a flawed study and I am not homophobic in the slightest, as I have nothing to fear from homosexuals.

 

I am merely reporting an academic study and making clear that gay marriage costs taxpayers a lot of money. 

 

And nobody has illustrated any kind of benefit to the country as a whole in return.

 

What is the benefit to the country as a whole?

 

 

 

 

[Tagged]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I think i know who should seek help.

 

Of course its natural. Do you think being gay is a choice?

 

Marriage itself is not normal or natural.

 

I understand that being a god botherer is straining on logic capabilities.

Marriage or som bounds that keep people together as a couple is normal, but monogamy is not natural for any animal. Homosexuality is part of every mamal animal behavior more or less. 
 

The bible is god sake not our lawbook anymore from where I come from, and hope it never will be again! What a destructive ancient book!  

[ikke1959]

I am wondering what the opinion is for married "normal" couples who don't want children???  Do people treat these people like married gay couples???  So I don't understand what children have to do with legalize a relationship

[jak2002003]

Why are you fixated on this one study and the gay adoption stuff? 

 

Tell us the reason this is so important to you personally? 

 

The guy that did this study is a Christian from Texas. It's completely one sided and seriously flawed study with no other scientists supporting it.

 

You show your biased views...which are confounded by you saying gay people want to legalise the under age sexual abuse of kids. 

 

If you want to look at statistics you will see most sexual a use od children is commited by straight men...and also Christians and religious institutions. 

 

Using your argument it is logical that straight men or Christians should not be able to adopt children. 

 

The rest of your crazy conspiracy theories about genetically engineered babies for lesbians funded by gay super billionaires who are into under age sex....well that just tells everyone how messed up your thinking is. 

 

I would feel safer leaving my children in the care of my gay friends than with you????

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Homosexuality is part of every mamal animal behavior more or less. 

No, homosexual sex is part of some mammals behaviour, but only in humans does a romantic fixation by a male on another male exist. Bonobos are not that concernd about marriage, even if they partake in homosexual sex acts.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Why are you fixated on this one study and the gay adoption stuff? 

 

Tell us the reason this is so important to you personally? 

 

The guy that did this study is a Christian from Texas. It's completely one sided and seriously flawed study with no other scientists supporting it.

 

You show your biased views...which are confounded by you saying gay people want to legalise the under age sexual abuse of kids. 

 

If you want to look at statistics you will see most sexual a use od children is commited by straight men...and also Christians and religious institutions. 

 

Using your argument it is logical that straight men or Christians should not be able to adopt children. 

 

The rest of your crazy conspiracy theories about genetically engineered babies for lesbians funded by gay super billionaires who are into under age sex....well that just tells everyone how messed up your thinking is. 

 

I would feel safer leaving my children in the care of my gay friends than with you????

Well, sorry but the gay rights movement did want to legalise under-age sex with children, the evidence is overwhelming:

 

In 1996, Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 14 years. He was quoted in the OutRage!'s press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them". Leo McKinstry, in The Sun, called the release "a perverts' charter"

 

In 1997 Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian, defending an academic book about "boy-love", calling the work "courageous", before writing:

 

The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

 

I'm not "fixated" on any study, it's just that study is still valid, not retracted and makes some interesting and important points, even if gay rights activists and academics do not like it. Nor is gay marriage particularly important to me.

 

I have not claimed any "crazy conspiracy theories about genetically engineered babies for lebsians funded by gay super billionaires who are into under age sex". Kindly poste the words that would support this ludicrous claim.

 

I merely posted this article which clearly shows that lesbians want to have fully genetically related children and that scientists are working on accomodating this demand.

 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

 

Obviously your messed up posts, where you desperately try to discredit my posts with falsehoods, because you are unable to counter the facts and arguments merely demonstrates you lost the argument.

 

I would not take care of your children, btw.

[Tagged]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, homosexual sex is part of some mammals behaviour, but only in humans does a romantic fixation by a male on another male exist. Bonobos are not that concernd about marriage, even if they partake in homosexual sex acts.

I had to check my facts, not that this is important for me personaly, but I like to think what I read sometime, or watched bbc where I might heard something is correct. First link at google search

 

 

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I had to check my facts, not that this is important for me personaly, but I like to think what I read sometime, or watched bbc where I might heard something is correct. First link at google search

 

 

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that mammals do not engage in homosexual acts. 

 

I am saying that whilst they do they DO NOT develop romantic fixations on members of the same sex. That is a very peculiar singularity.

 

This is about gay marriage, not homosexual acts.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[Tagged]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that mammals do not engage in homosexual acts. 

 

I am saying that whilst they do they DO NOT develop romantic fixations on members of the same sex. That is a very peculiar singularity.

 

This is about gay marriage, not homosexual acts.

And you missing the fact homosexuality is natural, and not any outcast from nature side. Animals as humans (also animals) are social snd have social needs, so why should we deny anyone to live as a couple with same right as anyone else? 
 

I do not want to get married, but would like to be treated as married especially now during this corona crisis, because I live like I was married with my gf. Why shouldnt two people of same sex have the same rights, as two people from opposite sex should have as well, but still not have.  

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

And you missing the fact homosexuality is natural, and not any outcast from nature side. Animals as humans (also animals) are social snd have social needs, so why should we deny anyone to live as a couple with same right as anyone else? 
 

I do not want to get married, but would like to be treated as married especially now during this corona crisis, because I live like I was married with my gf. Why shouldnt two people of same sex have the same rights, as two people from opposite sex should have as well, but still not have.  

I will phrase it in a way that makes it clear:

 

Homosexual sex acts are natural, being in love, having a romantic fixation with a member of the same sex is not natural and does not happen with mammals.

 

Precisely because we as humans do have social needs, like the need for schools, hospitals, theatres, pensions is it so important that family units exist which enable children to be born who in turn ensure that the above social needs can exist and can be financed. 

 

To protect, nurture and encourage that family unit certain tax advantages exist for married people who have children.

 

Bear in mind homosexual couples who can never have children on their own do not contribute to the pool of future taxpayers that ensures that the social needs of society's members can be met, yet they benefit from the systems that heterosexual couples with their children finance and put in place.

 

Nobody is denying you the right to live as a couple with a consenting adult. You can do so. I am merely saying that to demand exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples is misplaced, gay marriage costs taxpayers many millions and there is no benefit for the country as a whole.

 

Equally someone could ask why can she not live with a 14 year old child as a couple and have the right as anyone else? The answer is that society has decided it is not in the interest of society at large to allow adults to live with children and have the same rights as adults who choose to live with each other.

 

And the question remains, why should society give equal marriage rights to gays? The costs are huge, but what are the benefits to the country as a whole?

[The Barmbeker]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Well, sorry but the gay rights movement did want to legalise under-age sex with children, the evidence is overwhelming:

 

In 1996, Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 14 years. He was quoted in the OutRage!'s press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them". Leo McKinstry, in The Sun, called the release "a perverts' charter"

 

In 1997 Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian, defending an academic book about "boy-love", calling the work "courageous", before writing:

 

The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

 

I'm not "fixated" on any study, it's just that study is still valid, not retracted and makes some interesting and important points, even if gay rights activists and academics do not like it. Nor is gay marriage particularly important to me.

 

I have not claimed any "crazy conspiracy theories about genetically engineered babies for lebsians funded by gay super billionaires who are into under age sex". Kindly poste the words that would support this ludicrous claim.

 

I merely posted this article which clearly shows that lesbians want to have fully genetically related children and that scientists are working on accomodating this demand.

 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

 

Obviously your messed up posts, where you desperately try to discredit my posts with falsehoods, because you are unable to counter the facts and arguments merely demonstrates you lost the argument.

 

I would not take care of your children, btw.

You are telling lies, once again and back them up with your weak claims!

"The gay rights movement" is fighting for gay rihhts!

As statedt to you many times: SOME homosexuals wanted to legalize pedophilia!

So did MANY heterosexuals!

But you never address that!

Pedophilia is committed overwhelmingly by heterosexuals!

Yet you are not one bit concerned, unless some gay guy does it!

You are just ridiculous!

[jak2002003]

21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I will phrase it in a way that makes it clear:

 

Homosexual sex acts are natural, being in love, having a romantic fixation with a member of the same sex is not natural and does not happen with mammals.

 

Precisely because we as humans do have social needs, like the need for schools, hospitals, theatres, pensions is it so important that family units exist which enable children to be born who in turn ensure that the above social needs can exist and can be financed. 

 

To protect, nurture and encourage that family unit certain tax advantages exist for married people who have children.

 

Bear in mind homosexual couples who can never have children on their own do not contribute to the pool of future taxpayers that ensures that the social needs of society's members can be met, yet they benefit from the systems that heterosexual couples with their children finance and put in place.

 

Nobody is denying you the right to live as a couple with a consenting adult. You can do so. I am merely saying that to demand exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples is misplaced, gay marriage costs taxpayers many millions and there is no benefit for the country as a whole.

 

Equally someone could ask why can she not live with a 14 year old child as a couple and have the right as anyone else? The answer is that society has decided it is not in the interest of society at large to allow adults to live with children and have the same rights as adults who choose to live with each other.

 

And the question remains, why should society give equal marriage rights to gays? The costs are huge, but what are the benefits to the country as a whole?

You seriously have strange ideas. 

 

Your arguments are all flawed. 

 

Your contradict yourself continually.

 

You are just homophobic and come across as a bit of a nut case. 

 

You say it's not natural for same sex romantic love attachments...well it's not natural for mammals to fall in love with opposite sexes and get married. ....so you must be against all marriage? 

 

As for your claim gay marriage costs tax payers millions....wow, laughable!

 

I would say you are a troll, but you seem to have committed so much time and research into finding any scrap of evidence (no matter how dubious) that I think your only agenda is to discriminate against gays.   

 

If gays people are allowed to adopt / have children..then they are doing society a service bringing them up to be part of society in the future. 

 

 

[Tagged]

32 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I will phrase it in a way that makes it clear:

 

Homosexual sex acts are natural, being in love, having a romantic fixation with a member of the same sex is not natural and does not happen with mammals.

How do you know mammals do not feel romantic? Its pure chemicals you feel when you are romantic, a natural arouse you feel when stimulated by smell and view as dominanse and behaviour and status. 
 

However I stop here, when you start mixing up every excuses for denying people basic rights to live their life how they want as free people.

 

In Norway it was illegal to live together as a couple before 1972, thank god we have evolved from those ages, and later Monthy Python Life of Brian was first forbidden when it was released. Amazing thinking back how things was back then when I was borned and later a very young teenager.  
 

Hope our part of the world never see those black ages again. 
 

 

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

You seriously have strange ideas. 

 

Your arguments are all flawed. 

 

Your contradict yourself continually.

 

You are just homophobic and come across as a bit of a nut case. 

 

You say it's not natural for same sex romantic love attachments...well it's not natural for mammals to fall in love with opposite sexes and get married. ....so you must be against all marriage? 

 

As for your claim gay marriage costs tax payers millions....wow, laughable!

 

I would say you are a troll, but you seem to have committed so much time and research into finding any scrap of evidence (no matter how dubious) that I think your only agenda is to discriminate against gays.   

 

If gays people are allowed to adopt / have children..then they are doing society a service bringing them up to be part of society in the future. 

 

 

Kindly point to the flaws and contradictions.

 

Among human beings it is natural to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex.

 

It is not natural for human beings to fall in love with members of the same sex. In fact for the longest time this was considered an aberration, unnatural and indeed a mental illness. It was only in 1973 that homosexuality was removed by the APA from the register of recognized mental illnesses.

 

So your argument that homosexual love is natural does not fly. Not in the animal world and not in the human world.

 

This is not a contradiction, you are just having trouble in seeing what is natural and what is not.

 

It is not laughable that gay marriage costs taxpayers millions, that is demonstrated fact.

 

The US Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. 

 

https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/cbo-same-sex-benefits.pdf

 

In Germany a single tax break afforded to gays with gay marriage costs the German government 286 Euros, a single one.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/was-das-ehegattensplitting-fuer-homo-ehen-den-staat-kostet-a-904171.html

 

I'm not homophobic, why would I be, what is there to fear from homosexuals? This is just an issue of whether this is desirable for a country or not, what is the benefit?

 

Indeed one could argue that in some cases gays raising children could do society a service, however, there is evidence that children raised in same-sex environments  are markedly more likely to:

 

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely) 
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610?via%3Dihub

 

It probably would still be preferable to completely childless homosexual couples, but that's another debate altogether.

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

How do you know mammals do not feel romantic? Its pure chemicals you feel when you are romantic, a natural arouse you feel when stimulated by smell and view as dominanse and behaviour and status. 
 

However I stop here, when you start mixing up every excuses for denying people basic rights to live their life how they want as free people.

 

In Norway it was illegal to live together as a couple before 1972, thank god we have evolved from those ages, and later Monthy Python Life of Brian was first forbidden when it was released. Amazing thinking back how things was back then when I was borned and later a very young teenager.  
 

Hope our part of the world never see those black ages again. 
 

 

Animals can feel seven core emotional feelings reflected through a variety of neuro-dynamic limbic emotional action systems, including seeking, fear, rage, lust, care, panic and play.

 

There is no evidence that they can feel romantic love whatsoever.

 

What evidence do you have that animals can feel love? Lust and arousal is not the same as love as we humans know it.

 

 

[The Barmbeker]

Still not addressing the heterosexual/ pedophilia- problem!

Still not addressing the problems, children have, coming out of heterosexual families, where divorce, alcolism, domestic violence etc happens!

Still being just a sad homophobe with a passion for news- snippets and taxes!

[Tagged]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

 

What evidence do you have that animals can feel love? Lust and arousal is not the same as love as we humans know it.

 

 

Thats a hypothetical question neither of us can answer, but Im sure they know attraction based on natural stimulans as we also do get stimulated by.