What Would You Change In Your Country If You Were In Power

[Malbec]

That's discrimination to me. I'm all for the level playing field.

That said, I believe all people at workplace should be professionals first of all. Private matters like sexuality should have little or no place in public areas like business, politics, miltary service etc. If somebody chooses to waive that gay banner in the barrack and manifest his /her sexuality in everybody else's face, he/she must be ready to face a less than friendly attitude. Same thing applies to straight people, some of whom tend to make no distinction between the office and a pickup place.

Fair enough.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think I'm getting tired of the discussion. Points have been made and the discussion was pretty intelligent, in general. Overall, though, this is not a good sign that things that used to belong to bedrooms now take away a lot of attention from economy, environment and other things that politicians get paid to address.

[Malbec]

Overall, though, this is not a good sign that things that used to belong to bedrooms

I don't think being gay and gay rights ever just belonged to the bedroom...

[SGWilko]

So only bitches should be allowed to have puppies and people shouldn't be allowed to?

You're rigidly trying to make what is legally possible the same as what is biologically possible.

Considering there isn't really a shortage of orphaned children, would these children not be better served by being with a couple that are gay rather than just being left in instituations or with foster parents who might not be able to give them as much attention.

Not sure what the legal standpoint on marrying a puppy might be.............

The orphaned child analogy is poignant, but I feel quite sure that there are more than enough married couples, sadly unable to conceive through illness/accident etc to cater for the need.

The other need is clearly to stamp out single mothers knocking out kids just to boost their benefit cheque every month. Personally, I barely class these parasites above animals, and would have them neuted, along with sex offenders and rapists.

[SGWilko]

TBH I'm not sure on this topic either, the military argument is that if you knew your comrade was gay that might make you less willing to sit in a trench with him all night leading to a drop in morale, but then again they have successfully integrated women already so...

I did try to compose a thought provoking response on the morale issue, but thought better of it for fear of being labelled a luddite.....

And, would you then agree, given the risk to morale, that this is in fact a policy borne of common sense rather than prejudice? It could very easily be argued either way.

[Malbec]

And, would you then agree, given the risk to morale, that this is in fact a policy borne of common sense rather than prejudice? It could very easily be argued either way.

If there is clear evidence indicating that having gays in the military would reduce morale then they shouldn't be let into areas where that might happen, but equally as society becomes more accepting then having openly gay soldiers would be less likely to disrupt morale.

The problem is of course establishing whether having openly gay soldiers really does disrupt morale.

Previously of course similar arguments were used against recruiting women soldiers, but then the Commies and shortstaffed Israelis proved that the military does well with females. One could also argue that many macho military heroes have actually been gay too, although they did not come out until after their military careers.

As I said, I don't think there's a right answer on this one.

[SGWilko]

The problem is of course establishing whether having openly gay soldiers really does disrupt morale.

Indeed. I am sure that while the majority keep themselves to themselves, there has to have been incidents to set a precedent that led to the banning of homosexuals in the first place.

[SGWilko]

If the last surviving two people left on earth after a world war were men, how would they keep the species going?

[Daniel]

If the last surviving two people left on earth after a world war were men, how would they keep the species going?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove?

[SGWilko]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove?

Nothing - I am asking a question.

[Daniel]

I've watched this discussion with interest and I've voiced my opinions on this a couple of times on here in the last year and I'll repeat I have no problems with gay marriage between two females or two males. I'm a little uncomfortable with people referring to gay people as unnatural because they have preferences that make them incompatible in reproduction as their orientation is very natural if not in the minority so to speak. Obviously human beings are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex in an ideal world, but genetics is a complicated process and sometimes people are born different. Afterall homosexuality isn't a choice of the individual (in the vast majority of genuine cases) and I don't see why people should be treated any differently just because they don't fit the old fashioned view of what is acceptable in society.

My brother in law is in a gay relationship and struggled for many years to come to terms with his sexuality and it took alot of courage to admit to who he was. In his teens he had girlfriends like most lads but something obviously wasn't right for him. I suppose it would be like a straight person in a society where homosexuality was the norm and we were expected to try and fancy someone of the same sex. I wouldn't be able to do it because its not my bag. Also there is the subject of people being gay, but still having the natural urge/desire to be a parent to a child. If two women or two men can provide a safe and supportive environment for a child to grow up in, then I see no problem at all. The recent trouble across the UK concerning the rioting has proven that there is a massive problem in our society regarding parents bringing up their children and teaching them morals and the difference between right or wrong. I think we are hardly in a position to claim that gay marriage will have a negative effect on children when we have that level of disrespect already accumulating amongst todays youth. All this is just my opinion of course.. :)

That's not opinion, it's the truth.

[Garry Walker]

Tell me two things. Should I, as a glasses-wearing gay man, have to put up with twice the amount of abuse a non-glasses-wearing straight man would receive just because I happen to be a little short-sighted and not fancy women?I dont know why anyone would be subjected to abuse for wearing glasses beyond the 1st grade?


Two, why should I, as a gay man, not be able to make the same choice about bringing up children, should I so wish, as a straight man? .Because in the kind of relationship you prefer, getting children is not possible. Simple as that.


No, because they are claptrap from an old-fashioned homophobe.
Yeah, the good old tactic from the pink police. If someone doesnt agree with your views, just call him a bigot, a homophobe or a racist and scare him into submission.


certainly with respect to inheritance or access to the partner in illness. These days you can make a will, it is not that hard. In fact it is so easy probably eki could do it.


If the last surviving two people left on earth after a world war were men, how would they keep the species going?
They would adopt.


. I'm a little uncomfortable with people referring to gay people as unnatural because they have preferences that make them incompatible in reproduction as their orientation is very natural if not in the minority so to speak. But it is unnatural. Even our sexual organs were designed so that the "normal" relationship can be between a man and a woman.



I don't see why people should be treated any differently just because they don't fit the old fashioned view of what is acceptable in society.
Do you think a man should be allowed to have 4 lawfully wedded wives, provided they all want it? Should a woman be able to have 3 husbands if so she desires and they all agree to it?
Do you think a brother and a sister should be allowed to marry if they love eachother and get sterilised before it to ensure they dont have children?
What if a father and a daughter get married and also get sterilised before it to ensure no children?

I don`t see why people should be treated any differently just because they don`t fit the old fashioned view of what is acceptable in society?

[Captain VXR]

^^^should straight infertile couples, or couples who do not want children be banned from marrying?^^^

[SGWilko]

^^^should straight infertile couples, or couples who do not want children be banned from marrying?^^^

No! The world is vastly overpopulated as it is. We continue to persue medicines to prolongue life and fight diseases that would, hitherto, naturally keep population levels in check.

We fight nature wherever possible for our own gain, beit living on flood plains, holding back the sea or building cities right on top of tectonic fault lines.

The animal world is self regulating, and the only reason why modern species are lost is solely down to us, the race that wants to have its cake and eat it.

EDIT - sorry, soap box dismounted

[donKey jote]

I tend to agree with you henners, except for homosexuality being due to a "faulty" gene... if it were indeed faulty and brought only negative effects they would surely be extinct by now :)

[donKey jote]

it's my donkey view of evolution:

negative goes extinct,
homosexuality at least stable, nowhere near extinct...

can't be due to "faulty" genes :)

[anthonyvop]

No! The world is vastly overpopulated as it is.


No its not. Hong Kong and Singapore are some of the most densely populated countries on the planet and yet they are fine.

There is plenty of room and more than enough resources. The problem is governments.
From the UN list of least developed countries:
Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, East Timor, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, and Zambia.


What do they all have in common? Not a single one of them embrace the free market! Hong Kong and Singapore so.

[donKey jote]

I would agree with you there but it seems we interpreted the word 'faulty' in my post differently.

fairy muff :)

[donKey jote]

yes, well it is a family forum :p

[SGWilko]

Thats more polite than 'furry'.. :p

Furry, mind you, is so much nicer than hairy....... :p

[donKey jote]

:laugh: :erm:

[tfp]

Not sure what the legal standpoint on marrying a puppy might be.............

The orphaned child analogy is poignant, but I feel quite sure that there are more than enough married couples, sadly unable to conceive through illness/accident etc to cater for the need.

The other need is clearly to stamp out single mothers knocking out kids just to boost their benefit cheque every month. Personally, I barely class these parasites above animals, and would have them neuted, along with sex offenders and rapists.

+1 :up:

[donKey jote]

would that be all single mothers, or only those millions knocking out kids just to boost their benefit cheques ? :dozey:

[Roamy]

Holey Hairy Butthole - Close this thread!!Q!

[donKey jote]

what, you mean pull the buttplug on it ?

[SGWilko]

Ever hear of the back, sack'n crack?

[Knock-on]

I knew a single mother with a couple of nice Puppies. Fortunately they weren't hairy. Enough to make you choke

[donKey jote]

Only one? I knew quite a few.

[Rollo]

If Australia was to become a republic, I'd replace the Governor-General with a new identical position called the Chief Custodian.

Recognising that Aboriginal peoples were the original owners of the land and upholding the spirit of Mabo, there would be a Treaty similar in nature to New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi, and the position of the Chief Custodian would be elected by people only of Aboriginal descent.

The rest of the parliament, the division of powers etc. would remain identical, because Westminster Parliaments are generally stable and so especially so in Australia.

[Daniel]

If Australia was to become a republic, I'd replace the Governor-General with a new identical position called the Chief Custodian.

Recognising that Aboriginal peoples were the original owners of the land and upholding the spirit of Mabo, there would be a Treaty similar in nature to New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi, and the position of the Chief Custodian would be elected by people only of Aboriginal descent.

The rest of the parliament, the division of powers etc. would remain identical, because Westminster Parliaments are generally stable and so especially so in Australia.

I simply don't see why Australia should become a republic. It would just be meaningless cost.