Anti-gay Latvian MP becomes head of Latvia's human rights committee.

[Aeson]

That is a technologically defunct argument... artificial insemination.

[Nubclear]

yes

At least you are consistent However, I would reject your moral system in this case. I think that marriage is more about love and engendering *loving* relationships. Simply having babies does little for society - in fact, as we saw in Communist Romania, having lots and lots of babies is often quite detrimental to society. Especially considering that we already live in a world that is vastly overpopulated, where many people who live now will never get a minimum standard of living and will live in abject poverty, I would argue that having lots of babies is contraindicated.

Whereas promoting *loving* relationships between people is indicated for society, because it helps to engender tolerance, cooperation, and societal welfare and happiness. Hence, the infertile couple are still allowed to marry because their marriage brings both a direct benefit for them and an indirect benefit for society.

no, they can adopt children

Well then, by your own argument, they should be allowed to marry if they have children

I think adoption by homosexuals should not be possible until homosexuality is fully accepted by population - AT LEAST. A child brought up by homosexuals is likely to be object of mockery.

But then we get into a situation where homosexuality is never likely to be accepted by the society. If we ban homosexuals from adopting because of the fact they are homosexual, then it is going to engender and create hate and intolerance for homosexuals within the society.

We could again apply this to US history....had "activist judges" not taken hold and *forced* equality amongst the American population, it is not a stretch to say that racism would be far worse in the US today than it is now.

it is also likely to repeat the behaviour it sees at home, and this may be seen as bad for society.

Children within homosexual households do not "catch" homosexuality as if it were a disease.

I do not mean that. Heterosexuality is obviously better than homosexuality, because it can lead to procreation

I reject the notion that procreation is a moral imperative, and I outlined reasons above.
Plus, would we not say then that rape rather than consetual sex is preferred, since it more readily leads to procreation? After all, there is a much higher chance of procreation if a woman can't say no.

Indeed, one might even argue that consentual sex is immoral. If things are better because they lead to procreation...sex itself is a rather inefficent means of doing this...I mean, often times the egg just goes away without ever being fertilized. And what about all those sperm that are lost...its a veritable genocide!
We should ban sex and instead require all couples to donate genetic material to the state, because scientists can use technology to ensure that a child develops. That way, every egg may be fertilized, and there is no "wasted" sperm! Children will always develop!

Obviously we would not say these conclusions are true, and that is because procreation is not an inherintely good thing. Hence, heterosexual relationships are not superior by virtue of the fact that they can lead to procreation, nor are people who have children superior to people who do not.

As well, homosexuals are still capable of having children and indeed, in the past, it was quite common for homosexuals to marry a woman out of social convention (since that was often what marriage was - a mere social convention, possibly a contract of ownership), had babies, but continued their relationships with someone else.

Your argument fails on numerous points

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
Marriage is supported by the gouverment due to its main, procreational, function. Gay marriages are per se different in this matter.
Also, calling them "marriages" may suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same good, which may cause to attacks on the church that doesn't accept that -not true- notion.

The first argument is void unless you want to forbid women after the menopause to marry - or impotent men, etc.
Procreation is not the main function of marriage.

As for the second, that's nonsense. Since this topic is not about freedom of speech, I can't see any reason why the Church would have to stop calling homosexuality a sin (I'm not even sure inhowfar it's really considered a worse sin than sex using contraceptives). The fact that there is no gay marriage law does not keep me from criticizing the Church's point of view either...
It's not about how you or I judge a behavior, but let people mind their own business as long as it's between consenting adults.

But anyway, I favor the idea that the state simply stops talking about marriage altogether in order to avoid semantic intereferences with religious language.

[Barnabas]

Both sex using contraceptives and homosexual sex are mortal sins, so equally bad, only sex open to reproduction is moral for the church (and between married people)

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Both sex using contraceptives and homosexual sex are mortal sins, so equally bad, only sex open to reproduction is moral for the church (and between married people)

That's what I thought. So essentially, the relevant criterium isn't even homo-/heterosexuality but a general disdain of sex with other purposes than procreation (except for elderly married couples?).

[Wernazuma III]

Although, the new Vatican paper on condoms may be a real change here. If the use of the condom for married couples where one of them has AIDS can be OK for being "less bad", sex, at lkeast within the marriage, loses some of that procreation only aspect.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Heresson


No, he quit himself, but claimed it was due to attacks on him or his lover or whatever. His lover was Cuban, btw

so-called "gay rights" are not necessarily part of so-called "human rights". I don't like this choice, but I see no reason why anti-"gay rights" politicians should support "gay rights".

The right of conscience is very much a natural, human right. Gays and lesbians are denied their right of conscience when governments deny them legal protection for identifying themselves as gay and lesbian, and for denying them equal legal protection of their committed relationships.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Heresson
Marriage is supported by the gouverment due to its main, procreational, function. Gay marriages are per se different in this matter.
Also, calling them "marriages" may suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same good, which may cause to attacks on the church that doesn't accept that -not true- notion.

By your logic, you would treat a marriage between a man and an infertile woman the same as a gay marriage.

Of course, your argument is BS because the main function of a marriage is not a baby machine, but rather to facility a loving relationship between two individuals... it is the state recognising that love is a fundamental part of the human condition, and unless you claim that same-sex couples don't feel love for each other, you cannot logically deny marriage to them.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


By your logic, you would treat a marriage between a man and an infertile woman the same as a gay marriage.

He already said he does

[Whaleboy]

Then he's a pillock

[DaShi]

Get a room, you two.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Gay people, being human, would thus be deserving of all "human rights" including equality, dignity, protection from discrimination and violence, etc. Wouldn't you agree?

Young people, being human, would thus be deserving of all "human rights" including equality, dignity, protection from discrimination and violence, etc. Wouldn't you agree?

[Nubclear]

No. Young people deserve to be beaten.

[MrFun]

I would say that the right of conscience in of itself is important to protect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
No. Young people deserve to be beaten.