[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I do hear what you're saying about New York... It *is* a glorious place, and I suppose that it does work... but there are some other places in the world that are horribly overpopulated.

Which are those places? How are you defining overpopulated? Let's use concrete examples so we can dissect whether in fact they are overpopulated (whatever that means) or whether there are resource decisions that could change the way those areas work.
*****
Calcutta, India.
China.
To name two.
*****

Now, if we as a species shared everything we had, there would be no starvation... but I don't think humans, as a race, enjoy sharing.

Then why do so many humans choose to have a child? Why do humans marry. What else is there enjoyable in life other than sharing? What good would it do to have all the money in the world, with no-one to share it with?

To the contrary, there is more joy in giving than receiving. Parenthood and marriage cost you, but can be rewarding beyond description. Both ARE sharing. Both only work if there is sharing going on. Functional and healthy humans enjoy sharing.
*****
Then why do people still starve to death? You paint a lovely picture, and I only wish it were the case universally, but it isn't.
*****

Resource management needs to be rethought... but I can't see any real progress happening for several centuries. We as a race have come amazingly far in an incredibly short amount of time, but we still have a long way to go.

Of course. Got to think big, speak large and dream long. The future starts now.
*****
I actually agree.
*****

And it is also my opinion that giving positive encouragement is identical to negative discrimination. The result is the same: Favoring one type of person above another.

No. Negative discrimintation puts someone below status quo. Positive encouragement puts someone ahead of the rest.
*****
By putting someone ahead, the rest, by definition, fall behind. It's a basic law. It's math. You can't argue with that; it's a fact. I see what you're tying to say, but try and see what I'm trying to say.
*****
As it is, hetero couples are behind the status quo if they have a child. They suffer financially. They suffer greater financial problems if one parent chooses to stay home and raise the family. Or, they incur greater losses and a decreased parental impact by choosing to pay for nannys and childminders. All this could happen as a result of an "accident". Furthermore, they suffer financial expenses in choosing to engage in contraceptive choices or abort these "accidents".

A homosexual couple has no such expenses, No need for contraceptives, and so no need to pay for abortions or child expenses should an accidental birth occur.
*****
First off, some homosexual couples adopt, and at much greater expense than hetero counterparts.
Second, heterosexual couples know what they're getting into when they have a child (assuming it's not an 'accident'.) They know they'll fall behind the status quo.
Many homosexual couples would do anything to 'suffer' the financial expenses the way straight people do, Yorick. Ask one someday. You'd be surprised.
*****
I believe a functioning society depends on the existence of funcational minisocieties called families. Extended families. Bound together by blood relations. Therefore I believe in supporting and encouraging the ability of those families to remain together for the duration of the individuals lives.

Is that so wrong? Am I to be lauded and despised because I believe a young married couple that accidentally have a child shouldn't be hamstrung financially or destroy three lives because they can't handle the pressure? [/QUOTE]To 'laud' is to sing one's praises, to acclaim. Perhaps you meant 'degraded' or 'insulted'?

And nobody's saying that should be the case, Yorick. We're saying that gay people should have the same basic rights as straight people. If a gay couple agreed to adopt, would you allow them the 'benefits' you discuss here?