65 ms·
I agree with chris_wot but i'll answer you directly. 1% or even 3% of the population being gay and displaying their homosexuality in public is not going to dest
by camus2 13y ago
I agree with chris_wot but i'll answer you directly. 1% or even 3% of the population being gay and displaying their homosexuality in public is not going to destroy the traditional family. Everybody is not going to turn gay because the law allow them to be what they want to be.
On the other hand, Google getting political is just ridiculous. I dont expect my ISP or any service provider to get political,(at least display it on their homepage) because they might end up defending a cause I dont support one day,their job is to provide a service, not to alienate half of their customers.
- einhverfr 13y agoI think the point though is that equality for same-sex couples and a cultural expectation to retire with the children are not really compatible. If you have the latter, then the parents have more power over the spousal choices of the children but "accidental" pregnancy is almost always across cultures a good veto override. Since this is only available to opposite-sex couples, this gives parents very strong ways of discriminating against children in same-sex relationships. So my point is that the traditional family in the sense of three or more generations living under one root, sharing meals, and there being reciprocal care duties between parents and children cannot allow the equality folks are talking about. Destroying that (and establishing the American-style family and retirement as the norm) is a prerequisite to any meaningful equality and that's the source of my objection.