Thread: Sochi Olympics and the Law against Gays in Russia +

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

"A fish doesn't know that it lives in water."

A fish doesn't know that it lives in water.

Well, yes, but does the fish know that it was born?

People don't live forever. And the world doesn't exist only for the lifespan of a single person who observes the life from the cave of his own mind. People die and to survive the humanity MUST produce newly born human beings. As the sky is blue and the water is wet, the new birth can be given ONLY by a female human cooperated with a male human. Giving a birth for a woman means a lot of risk: risk of health damage and death, risk to lose job, risk to lose all the social activity and social connections, risk to ruin her own entire life. But despite all the risks the birth is urgently needed. This is a strategic need for the entire humankind to survive. And the only encouraging for a woman to risk her life in the name of the society is actually a small ring of a shining metal on her finger, the white dress which she will put on only once, and the hand of a male who is the only possible insurance of her risking her life for the entire humanity to survive.

Do you believe that stripping away these tiny signs of respect (which are probably the only things that keep the life on the Earth), by applying them to all the others who want to behave the same way but are not ready in any way to provide newly born human beings, will encourage the female humans to give more births?

Since we are in the Olympic thread: wouldn't the showing-up of the gays behaving like a couple cause the same effect if the sportsmen participating in the Olympic game, all of them, would be granted with the gold medals despite that the winner was only one? Would the Olympic Games survive as a competition if the "PC" will cause us not to honor the winner, who put their life to achieve the significant results, but to honor all the participants despite their achievements?

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Since we are in the Olympic thread: wouldn't the showing-up of the gays behaving like a couple cause the same effect if the sportsmen participating in the Olympic game, all of them, would be granted with the gold medals despite that the winner was only one?

At the Olympics, they don't give out gold medals only; they also award silver and bronze medals. This doesn't take away from the honor of the gold medalist; it simply recognizes that the 2nd and 3rd place athletes also gave world-class performances.

As I've argued previously, I don't believe it's a great idea to call same-sex relationships "marriage." As a gay person, I'm not interested in imitating the traditions of heterosexual weddings with two little grooms or brides on top of a big cake; and if I were in a long-term relationship with a man, I certainly wouldn't think that one of us is "playing husband" and the other is "playing wife."

But nonetheless, I think that same-sex couples (as citizens) can claim a right to have their relationship legally recognized by the government to which they pay their taxes. And I have no problem with saying that traditional heterosexual marriage is the "gold standard," while same-sex unions are a "silver standard." I don't believe that it degrades me or my relationships to call it "silver," and to recognize that heterosexual procreation is MORE IMPORTANT for society as a whole.