The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: xasop on April 01, 2015, 02:03:58 PM
-
Amidst the government's many and varied fuck-ups of late, there's one issue being discussed in Parliament that's largely been tossed aside by the media, as they focus on budget cuts, refugee mistreatment and Internet censorship. Recently, a member of our Liberal Democrats (a minor party holding only one seat in Parliament), Senator David Leyonhjelm, introduced a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia.
It's a touchy subject for many politicians, with Labor having allowed their members a conscience vote, but the Coalition (which presently controls a majority in the House of Representatives) still forcing their representatives to vote against the issue, which has effectively prevented any possibility of this legislation being passed. Leyonhjelm seems to be hedging his bets, trying to introduce the matter slowly; the bill in question was drafted some months ago, but not introduced until very recently. Unless the Coalition changes its position on a conscience vote, however, there's not much hope.
Senator Leyonhjelm recently penned an article (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/aim-of-samesex-marriage-bill-is-to-get-government-out-of-the-bedroom-20150325-1m74j0.html) outlining the intent of the bill. I agree with everything he says in the article, as usual for the Liberal Democrats' social policies, but the thing that I find disturbing about it is the hate mail (shown as an image about halfway down) from someone who seems to think that the Senator should be shot in the stomach for daring to stand up for civil liberties.
If anything, Leyonhjelm having the balls to stand up for this issue in Parliament while the major parties are bickering over who's done the most damage to the economy in the past decade has made me seriously consider voting Liberal Democrats next election. There are a few socially progressive parties with seats in the Senate at the moment (most significantly, the Greens), but the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones putting their money where their mouth is.
Here's hoping the Coalition follows Labor into the 21st century and gives their members a conscience vote on marriage equality this year.
-
Same sex marriage? Yuck.
-
Same sex marriage? Yuck.
Yeah, it's sickening when people are allowed to do things that don't hurt anyone.
-
Clearly you've never had a penis in your bum, then.
This explains a lot...
-
the homo tension etc. etc.
-
I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.
-
Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy. Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.
Am I close?
-
No, it's probably about kids.
-
Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy. Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.
Am I close?
So the answer to reducing the effects of that lifestyle is to forbid the most common method of settling down. Yeah, makes sense.
-
Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy. Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.
Am I close?
No, it's because gay people don't reproduce, and white people need to make as many babies as possible before the foreign invaders overwhelm us with their numerical superiority.
-
If gays can marry I should be able to marry my cat Digit. When is this going to happen? Until this happens I am vehemently opposed to equal marriage rights.
Equal rights for all creatures! That is my stand.
-
Leyonhjelm is an enigma. Perfectly reasonable on some issues and batshit crazy on others. On the point of gay people not reproducing, that's actually a boon for Australia. Our growth rate is way too high for a developed country (it's currently among one of the highest in the world), so they last thing we need is more babies. Housing is already under heavy demand, which reflects in our stupid high house prices.
Thork will likely trot out the old "blacks are outnumbering us!!@12" line again.
-
So far the wild speculation is going well. Some good points, there are a few others that need addressing before I can deliver a comprehensive answer so I will leave the conjecture little while longer.
-
Are you posting while swimming?
-
I have finished swimming and got home. My laptop is not water resistant, so I leave it at home when I swim.
-
I'm glad this thread in the serious fora can be Thork's twitter.
Marriage equality is about equality before the law. I think that's a fairly clear thing.
-
Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy. Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.
Am I close?
No, it's because gay people don't reproduce, and white people need to make as many babies as possible before the foreign Muslim invaders overwhelm us with their numerical superiority.
Yes.
-
Leyonhjelm is an enigma. Perfectly reasonable on some issues and batshit crazy on others.
To a large degree, this view of him stems from the common treatment of politics as a one-dimensional spectrum. I found this article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/18/david-leyonhjelm-is-neither-a-champion-nor-a-villain-hes-a-libertarian) quite enlightening, albeit somewhat biased; at least it does help to clarify where he's coming from. He's a social progressive, but economically far-right.
I'm not as much of a hard-line libertarian as Leyonhjelm, but I can understand his views, and I think they're a refreshing contrast to the Greens' socialist-leaning platform in the Senate. Personally, my own views are somewhere in between.
-
Leyonhjelm is an enigma. Perfectly reasonable on some issues and batshit crazy on others.
To a large degree, this view of him stems from the common treatment of politics as a one-dimensional spectrum. I found this article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/18/david-leyonhjelm-is-neither-a-champion-nor-a-villain-hes-a-libertarian) quite enlightening, albeit somewhat biased; at least it does help to clarify where he's coming from. He's a social progressive, but economically far-right.
I'm not as much of a hard-line libertarian as Leyonhjelm, but I can understand his views, and I think they're a refreshing contrast to the Greens' socialist-leaning platform in the Senate. Personally, my own views are somewhere in between.
He also opposes Medicare, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, public schools and many other central progressive projects.
Yeah, he's nuts. When you're throwing out beneficial and fundamental schemes in the name of ideology, you should probably temper the ideology a tad.
-
If gays can marry I should be able to marry my cat Digit. When is this going to happen? Until this happens I am vehemently opposed to equal marriage rights.
Equal rights for all creatures! That is my stand.
The requirement for marriage is that both parties have an understanding and consent to the union. When you demonstrate that your cat is sufficiently sentient to agree to marry you, I'll fight for your right to marry them.
-
Yeah, he's nuts. When you're throwing out beneficial and fundamental schemes in the name of ideology, you should probably temper the ideology a tad.
I can agree he's too idealistic; my point was just that his views are consistent. Socially, he is a staunch libertarian; he advocates liberties that are accepted by most social progressives as harmless to others (such as gay marriage), as well as liberties that are more controversial (such as free gun ownership). Economically, he advocates small government to an extreme degree, preferring private ownership of social services to government ownership; no doubt he would argue for replacing Medicare with a free market for private health insurance.
As much as we may disagree with his economic standpoint, those views are not at odds with his social policies. He becomes much less of an enigma once you understand that.
-
Hrmmm, I speculate that it hurts everyone because the go-go care-free party lifestyle of the typical homosexual is a drain on the economy. Rather than getting real jobs, they party and put a drain on the universal healthcare system by contracting a multitude of diseases from this lifestyle.
Am I close?
So the answer to reducing the effects of that lifestyle is to forbid the most common method of settling down. Yeah, makes sense.
Are you... Are you trying to address the fictional complaint that I created?
-
I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.
Is it because homosexuals do not reproduce so for every homosexual couple, you lose two adults that could otherwise reproduce and sire children that could contribute to the power and might of the British Empire United Kingdom? As it is, they are just dead branches on a tree.
-
I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.
I particularly enjoy the implication here that gays are not "ordinary people". Thork, the requirement is not to show that same-sex marriage hurts heterosexual couples (even though it doesn't); rather, you need to show that one of the following holds:
- Allowing same-sex marriage harms heterosexual couples more than banning same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.
If you can't do that, then it wouldn't matter even if same-sex marriage did harm heterosexual couples.
-
Leyonjhelm's position on "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) is not that of supporting it, per se;
his position is that the government should not be involved;
just like it should not be involved in issues such as "gun laws", "drug laws" and "tax laws";
as such: his position would be that the government should not dictate who can and can't marry but it should also not be allowed to prosecute people for "hate speech" against 'gays' or against other races or, well, any-one for that matter;
(so.....if a Christian denomination refuses to allow gay teachers or employ gay workers or a Christian business refuses to serve gay customers or if a Christian preacher/minister/priest constantly condemns gays in the pulpit, the street or the media, then, there's nothing that the government should be able to do abt it!......)
as such: the Commonwealth anti-discrimination act(s) should be scrapped;
governments should be neither seen nor heard!
they have WAY too much power now and WAY too much high-tech surveillance capabilities @ their disposal......
a century or so ago, when their power was minimal compared with today, they could be tolerated....
now....we're better off without them!
modern technology makes them too dangerous and too much of a liability! :(
-
- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.
That one is easy. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals.
-
- Avoiding harm to heterosexual couples is more important than avoiding harm to same-sex couples.
That one is easy. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals.
Congratulations, you have a premise. Now try adding some logic and a conclusion.
-
If the severity of the harm caused to either group would be roughly equal, then I would harm the smaller group to minimize total suffering. This isn't relevant to this scenario, since I don't believe that homo marriage is at all harmful to hetero marriage.
-
Thork's opposition to same sex marriage is that the marriage allows for tax breaks that are meant for couples to make babies and not for couples who do not contribute to society's baby population.
Basically: Gays get the tax breaks meant for baby making.
-
If the severity of the harm caused to either group would be roughly equal, then I would harm the smaller group to minimize total suffering.
If we accept utilitarianism, then that would indeed be a reasonable response. However, since utilitarianism is not part of the premise, you will need to justify a utilitarian approach if you want to rely on it.
-
I sure hope Thork comes along soon and tells me how to think about this issue.
-
If we accept utilitarianism, then that would indeed be a reasonable response. However, since utilitarianism is not part of the premise, you will need to justify a utilitarian approach if you want to rely on it.
"If we accept this ideology that makes you right then you are right." Awesome gem of wisdom, Parsifal.
-
37 of our United States now have gay marriage or gay union laws, and I expect it will be all fifty within the 10 years, and the Federal Government will probably follow.
I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.
And I would rather that a gay man get with one as opposed to getting with different men at the bar each night and risk getting disease, and emotional damage, and so-on. So, if that counts for much...
-
I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.
This is a very reasonable approach, and I'm surprised to find that I completely agree with you on this. As an atheist, a secularist and a strong supporter of freedom of religion, I don't really care what religious institutions do. They can ban gays from joining their religion entirely for all I care.
My only interest is in ensuring that, as far as the law is concerned, no two consenting adults are treated differently from any other. Deregulating marriage altogether and leaving it in the hands of religion is an acceptable way to accomplish that.
I can respect your beliefs regarding marriage, but what I respect even more is that you aren't trying to impose them on others. If only our government would take the same approach.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.
FYI, the odds of having a deformed baby with your sister are incredibly low. It is only likely if your family has a history of a disease that the odds start to increase as most genetic diseases are derived from non-recessive genes.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.
So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
-
Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.
Women can get vasectomies now?
-
Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.
Women can get vasectomies now?
Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.
So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?
The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out. Of course as you look through your genome it does vary based on what traits you/sibling/family carry.
If you were to take two siblings who had no negative traits, they could have children with 0% (With a variance of one millionth degree) chance of having a deformity. Really all incest does is shrinks the potential gene pool, which overall is bad, but it doesn't cause the drastic over dramatized deformities you see in popular culture
-
Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.
Women can get vasectomies now?
Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.
hysterectomy. wow, I'm tired.
-
Its Friday night, its time for beer. :D
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.
So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?
The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out.
I was assuming that in your scenario, marriage between siblings would be legal for more than one generation.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.
So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?
The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out.
I was assuming that in your scenario, marriage between siblings would be legal for more than one generation.
Hey, don't you dare get in the way of love. If two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?
-
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.
-
I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.
This is a very reasonable approach, and I'm surprised to find that I completely agree with you on this. As an atheist, a secularist and a strong supporter of freedom of religion, I don't really care what religious institutions do. They can ban gays from joining their religion entirely for all I care.
My only interest is in ensuring that, as far as the law is concerned, no two consenting adults are treated differently from any other. Deregulating marriage altogether and leaving it in the hands of religion is an acceptable way to accomplish that.
I can respect your beliefs regarding marriage, but what I respect even more is that you aren't trying to impose them on others. If only our government would take the same approach.
In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.
Right now, there is a debate going on in Israel, that started before the last election. A "Nationality Law" was proposed that would define Israel as a Jewish State and would make Halacha "the inspiration for Israeli law". Furthermore, although all citizens would have their rights respected as individuals, their current status as separate national groups would dissolved. The State would be defined as a State of its Jewish citizens. Other citizens would have individual rights, but not group rights, as they do now.
Ordinarily, I would be all in favour of this. But at present, I admit, I question the timing of such a law, and motives of it. As much as I am not fond of the presence of Arabs in the State of Israel, the fact is they are there. Until they can be removed, preferably humanely, making a law of this sort seems very provocative. Then again, that may be the whole point, is to provoke them to leave. I'm not sure that is the way to go about it, though.
Even now, in matters of family law, the separate religions govern matters. Secular marriage does not in fact exist. You are either married in Jewish rites, Muslim rites, or Christian ones. In a country like Israel, I think that is appropriate. But certainly in coutries where secular marriage exists, it should be independent of religious influence.
-
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.
If that's your stance, then darkies should not be allowed to reproduce.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
I don't understand how either of those things count as immoral acts for you. Please tell me more about your system of ethics.
Hey, don't you dare get in the way of love. If two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?
Setting aside that sibling love/marriage and homosexual love/marriage aren't even close to the same thing, you make an entirely reasonable point. Now that you mention it, I can't think of much reason two adult siblings should be prohibited from either consensual sex, or marriage equality.
-
This is one of those threads where everyone figures out the obvious notion that morality is an arbitrary standard with no right or wrong answer.
-
This is one of those threads where everyone figures out the obvious notion that morality is an arbitrary standard with no right or wrong answer.
I think, IRUSH, what people figure out is that there is no obvious morality that can apply to a heterogeneous population. When a population is homogeneous, then perhaps. Otherwise, it is difficult to find one.
-
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.
I thought you were going to provide us with a reason as to why same-sex marriage is harmful. Do you actually have one, or is this attempt to divert the discussion towards marriage between siblings and women with vasectomies an attempt to distract us from the fact that, yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about?
In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.
For obvious reasons, as a non-Jewish person I also wouldn't want that. I am somewhat curious about your reasoning, but as we're getting off topic here, I'll post a question in your thread instead.
Even now, in matters of family law, the separate religions govern matters. Secular marriage does not in fact exist. You are either married in Jewish rites, Muslim rites, or Christian ones. In a country like Israel, I think that is appropriate. But certainly in coutries where secular marriage exists, it should be independent of religious influence.
Agreed. I actually don't have a strong opinion as to whether or not secular marriage should exist, just that if it does, then it should be equally available to all couples.
Out of curiosity, does Israel have civil unions, or is there no secular recognition of couples at all?
-
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.
there won't be any retarted babies. I just told you. the odds of having a retarted baby with your sibling are minute. The odds of having a scrambled baby through incest are less than having one with the woman being over 40.
Should we ban women over 40 from having babies?
-
Okay, I know Thork is just constructing an elaborate strawman here, but I honestly don't see why first generation incest shouldn't be allowed. I guess Thork is trying to allude to some sort of inherent moral standard when there isn't one??
-
Can we not talk about sibling sex? It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread's title.
-
Thork is just trying to establish that it is okay for him to hate gay marriage because sibling marriage is also hated by showing that they are arbitrary distinctions; something everyone here should have already knew.
-
I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.
Is it because homosexuals do not reproduce so for every homosexual couple, you lose two adults that could otherwise reproduce and sire children that could contribute to the power and might of the British Empire United Kingdom? As it is, they are just dead branches on a tree.
Incorrect. Homosexual couples can reproduce via surrogacy and/or donor eggs/sperm. They also adopt surplus/unwanted/abandoned children.
Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.
Women can get vasectomies now?
Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.
hysterectomy. wow, I'm tired.
Still wrong. The female equivalent of a vasectomy would be a tubal ligation (having her tubes tied). Having one's uterus and ovaries removed for birth control reasons is quite a bit of overkill.