German parliament legalises same-sex marriage

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, SiamBeast said:

same-sex marriage, women rights, etc. which creates a sterile population, no more babies

 

Can you explain how SSM and/or women's rights causes sterility?  The Netherlands, which has had legalized SSM since 2001, has had a consistently higher fertility rate than Germany in the 15 years since:

 

 

I wouldn't call you a bigot.  I'd just call you wrong.

Edited July 1, 2017 by attrayant

[zzidenn]

Reading those hate comments seriously makes me tired. One never reads about gay/lesbian couple kept their children in chains, gay/lesbian couple beat 4 year old to death, etc. any idea why? 

Because we fight for everything we want and we don't take anything for granted. We are committed and we will fight for every last little right. And when we get the right we excel, has anyone ever met gay parents that were less than 200% percent committed? I haven't. On a side note: For homosexuals religion is usually no issue, the cause unites us.

MOST PEOPLE SHOULD BE RELIEVED THAT GAYS IN GERMANY ARE ALLOWED TO MARRY NOW. who else would take care of all the unwanted babies that thoughtless heteros produce and dump in some orphanage....

think about that.

Being old is not an excuse to be ignorant. If some of the lovely old contributors  on TV have still not realized that we are living in 2017 going fast towards 2020 they might just want to take a long break on Ko Tao or something. But then again this is the future and their days are pretty much counted anyway.

 

[zzidenn]

12 minutes ago, DM07 said:

If you don't want to discuss the matter at hand in an adult way, why don't you take your uneducated BS and bugger off, when adults are trying to have a conversation!

That goes for all of you yesterday- people, with your made up stats and your BS arguments, that have been disproven over and over and over again!

  

Yes! Isn't it tiresome to read all of this crap? In Germany we have a word " fremdschämen" it means feeling ashamed for somebody else's stupidity/BS/Shortcomings/etc.  

[zzidenn]

23 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

I'm glad I'm getting old and won't have to see this modern day version of Sodom & Gomorrah taking over the world too much longer. But I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids. 

 

And I feel sorry for you, the world must be strange and alien to you and you must feel very out of place. Like everything around you has changed so much and you couldnt keep up. All that modern stuff these days, right?  You know back in the days were the good times! 

[DM07]

By the way: all you yesteryear-people should be delighted with Angela Merckel!

She personally alledgedly voted against it!

[Jingthing]

By the way: all you yesteryear-people should be delighted with Angela Merckel!
She personally alledgedly voted against it!

Yeah. She was against it before she was against it but was the one person that made it possible to be approved.
A different kind of political evolution.
Whatever works!

[patthaipat]

Justvoice: Dont give up! Pray hard to yr lord to bring back bound feet, segregation, interracial marriage ban.....

 

[Jingthing]

Justvoice: Dont give up! Pray hard to yr lord to bring back bound feet, segregation, interracial marriage ban.....
 

Miracles can happen. Praise be!

[attrayant]

You're channeling Betty Bowers now!

Edited July 1, 2017 by attrayant

[shadowofacloud]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Miracles can happen. Praise be!

Can I get a witness!

[Katia]

Ah, the old "marriage is only for procreation" joke.  *Yawn*

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts have been removed along with replies.  

 

 

[snowgard]

On 30.6.2017 at 3:52 PM, Just1Voice said:

I'm glad I'm getting old and won't have to see this modern day version of Sodom & Gomorrah taking over the world too much longer. But I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids. 

 

Why? People ike this it give all the time. In some past generations it was forbidden, in others tolerated.And this is what I do.

 

If you not like it, tolerate it. What is so difficult about it?

[55Jay]

By next week, nobody will care and we'll be on to the next "thing".  

 

Next. 

[mfd101]

7 hours ago, 55Jay said:

By next week, nobody will care and we'll be on to the next "thing".  

 

Next. 

Yes. Think of all the social, cultural, economic & technological changes of the last 100 years. Each one was going to make the heavens cave in, but somehow that didn't happen.

 

Unfortunately, many (perhaps most) people in every society live in a history- and context-free bubble. They think that everything they learned when they were young is 'normal' and 'natural'. But a moment's thought about change over time and about how other parallel societies handle matters shows us that very little we do is either 'normal' or 'natural': our activities and thought processes are the product of ever-changing adaptations to ever-changing environments. We just do what seems best at the time ...

[dick dasterdly]

I don't understand the hostility (by a few) to same-sex marriages?

 

Why on earth shouldn't 'gay' couples be allowed to marry??

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.   The topic is not about Islam or Sharia Law, although from the looks of it some members would prefer Sharia law to gay marriage.  

[Ace of Pop]

My older Gay Friend are not very opinionated,they don't like the Young Gay Parade ones at all,but that's common to all Genders at our age.We have our Sunday Slurp soon , we all get on , the few benefits of being older..?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎30‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 3:57 PM, Just1Voice said:

You think same sex marriage is a good thing? If so, then you are as sick as the rest of them. 

What do you care mind your own business, they are 2 adults. Are you a Christian?

Edited July 2, 2017 by FritsSikkink

[Thorgal]

 
Can you explain how SSM and/or women's rights causes sterility?  The Netherlands, which has had legalized SSM since 2001, has had a consistently higher fertility rate than Germany in the 15 years since:
 

 
I wouldn't call you a bigot.  I'd just call you wrong.

Total Fertility Rate is not based on counting up the total number of children actually born over their lifetime.

TFR is actually based on the age-specific fertility rates of women in their "child-bearing years", which in conventional international statistical usage is ages 15–44 or 15–49."

Your graph just proves only that Dutch women of the "child-bearing years" is higher than the German women. This is due to a higher rate of girls being born in the Netherlands and a higher rate of women in the Netherlands being between the ages of 15-44/49.

There are actually more women in Germany than in The Netherlands and in Belgium.

Your measurement time frame of 15 years is too low.

In short, your graph proves nothing, which doesn't surprises me at all when it concerns those topics...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dick dasterdly]

Fertility rates have nothing to do with this topic -  i.e. same sex marriage being legalised.

 

Unless of course, someone is convinced that this will result in 'straights' becoming 'gay' .

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Total Fertility Rate is not based on counting up the total number of children actually born over their lifetime.

TFR is actually based on the age-specific fertility rates of women in their "child-bearing years", which in conventional international statistical usage is ages 15–44 or 15–49."

Your graph just proves only that Dutch women of the "child-bearing years" is higher than the German women. This is due to a higher rate of girls being born in the Netherlands and a higher rate of women in the Netherlands being between the ages of 15-44/49.

There are actually more women in Germany than in The Netherlands and in Belgium.

 

 

If you could try reading in context next time, that'd be great.  The post was asking for evidence that SSM results in sterility.  Do you suggest that sterility bears no correlation to fertility?

 

Quote

Your measurement time frame of 15 years is too low.

 

To low for what?  I'm going to have to ask you to be a little more articulate next time.  Also, I don't know what you mean by "Dutch women [...] is higher than the German women".  Furthermore:

 

Quote

There are actually more women in Germany than in The Netherlands and in Belgium.

 

Have you made the above statement in support of some position?  I can't really even tell what your position is.  You seem to be a bit perturbed - perhaps disturbed is a better word - that I countered a post that asserted that SSM has a detrimental impact on birth rate.  Does that mean you support that statement?  If so, why not provide some evidence for it?

 

The 15 year time period was selected because that's when SSM was legalized in the target population.  The post I was replying to asserted that legalizing SSM is supposed to have some negative impact on birth rate.  I provided a link to the data, so you can change the time frame and make your own graph if you want to provide an actual, substantive counterpoint.  But you can go back 40 years and still not find a significant change in the number of births per woman.  The only noticeable change was about 55 years ago, during the baby boom.

[ddavidovsky]

Merkel doesn't support gay marriage, but supports gays adopting children? Wonder what logic she employs to justify that?

 

I believe just the opposite. Gay unions (call it marriage if you like) - fine. Adoption - no. My reasoning: evolution selects for homosexuality because it frees a proportion of the population from the drudgery of procreation, thereby giving them a unique ability to contribute to society in other ways - especially creative and intellectual - and history shows the multifarious ways  this has worked. According to this theory (which is my own), evolution didn't intend gays to get bogged down in procreation (or at least bringing up kids) as it will smother their unique and valuable talents that have helped, over the aeons, the development of the human species.

Evolution is saying is that we need to have some people who don't raise children. Whether humans are now precocious enough to argue with evolution is a moot point. For the time being I suggest we don't mess with it.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Merkel doesn't support gay marriage, but supports gays adopting children? Wonder what logic she employs to justify that?

 

I believe just the opposite. Gay unions (call it marriage if you like) - fine. Adoption - no. My reasoning: evolution selects for homosexuality because it frees a proportion of the population from the drudgery of procreation, thereby giving them a unique ability to contribute to society in other ways - especially creative and intellectual - and history shows the multifarious ways  this has worked. According to this theory (which is my own), evolution didn't intend gays to get bogged down in procreation (or at least bringing up kids) as it will smother their unique and valuable talents that have helped, over the aeons, the development of the human species.

Evolution is saying is that we need to have some people who don't raise children. Whether humans are now precocious enough to argue with evolution is a moot point. For the time being I suggest we don't mess with it.

There are always people, mostly heterosexual, that don't have children, whether by choice or not.

You also incorrectly put lesbians and gay men in the same boat.

Lesbians are much more likely to be sexually fluid and want to have children.

Very commonly they have their own biological children from previous relations. 

But that's not OK with you apparently.

Also just because it is legal for same sex to marry and have children doesn't mean that it's required or will be massively popular.

It's a choice. 

I'll ignore your half baked pablum social theories which you present as original to you, but guess what, they're extremely derivative and not original to you by a long shot. 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Jingthing

[ddavidovsky]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There are always people, mostly heterosexual, that don't have children, whether by choice or not.

You also incorrectly put lesbians and gay men in the same boat.

Lesbians are much more likely to be sexually fluid and want to have children.

Very commonly they have their own biological children from previous relations. 

But that's not OK with you apparently.

Also just because it is legal for same sex to marry and have children doesn't mean that it's required or will be massively popular.

It's a choice. 

I'll ignore your half baked pablum social theories which you present as original to you, but guess what, they're extremely derivative and not original to you by a long shot. 

Interesting if you've heard this particular theory somewhere before. I wasn't aware - do you have a link? Even Richard Dawkins hasn't hit on it, and I overlap with him more than anyone (though we don't always agree).

 

Gays and lesbians are most certainly in the same boat in this regard. Note that most famous female intellectuals have been lesbian. Coincidence? I think not. I say it's by evolutionary design.

 

Lesbians more likely to be sexually fluid? Only if you take a woolly definition of 'lesbian'. Sapphics aren't lesbians. Women who temporarily substitute male affection for female aren't lesbians. Lesbians (by definition if you like) are women with masculine characteristics - included lowered maternal instincts.

 

The exceptions don't disprove the rule in any case. And the theory predicts that some gay couples might want to bring up children only as 'normality signalling', and that can't be ideal. You may be right that only a few will want to do so. In that case, fine. But society is already becoming too effete - technology and social media has very suddenly empowered sensitivity. I say these kinds of social changes shouldn't go faster than our ability to understand or control any harmful consequences - and this is going too quick.

[aslimversgwm]

On 6/30/2017 at 8:24 PM, Prbkk said:

Yes, without reservation and wholeheartedly....it's long overdue and equality must not be delayed any further. I'm not swayed by the biology/reproduction/sodom-Gomorrah arguments nor any appeal to what might have been the situation 2,000 years ago....

Brilliant response. Thanks for that. I am proud to be married to my male Thai husband since last November. We were married in the British Embassy in Hanoi  Well done the UK for permitting this which even countries that have legalised SSM's don't appear to have this facility.

[ilostmypassword]

22 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Merkel doesn't support gay marriage, but supports gays adopting children? Wonder what logic she employs to justify that?

 

I believe just the opposite. Gay unions (call it marriage if you like) - fine. Adoption - no. My reasoning: evolution selects for homosexuality because it frees a proportion of the population from the drudgery of procreation, thereby giving them a unique ability to contribute to society in other ways - especially creative and intellectual - and history shows the multifarious ways  this has worked. According to this theory (which is my own), evolution didn't intend gays to get bogged down in procreation (or at least bringing up kids) as it will smother their unique and valuable talents that have helped, over the aeons, the development of the human species.

Evolution is saying is that we need to have some people who don't raise children. Whether humans are now precocious enough to argue with evolution is a moot point. For the time being I suggest we don't mess with it.

Of course you're utterly wrong. Look up the theory of kin selection and William Hamilton.