AJ Philips "any problems with my beliefs do not necessarily make his right."

And any problems you see in mine don't make *yours* right.

Yes, I have repeated myself and don't intend to do so again.
Goodbye.

Saltpetre "the hybrid vigour represented by the persistence of those parts of Neanderthal DNA now evident in current successful European communities."

So why mess with a good thing?

If we benefited from Neanderthal DNA, those who didn't breed with them (Negroids) are a step back for us.

There wouldn't have just been "sterile" hybrids.
There would have also been defective freaks, who were fertile.

For many generations, perhaps over thousands of years, we would have had to live with these freaks, until "time" weeded them out.

How many generations of multi-freaks must we endure?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Human Development Index, GDP-per-capita and many other measures say Whites ain't broke.

We are already #1. Gold medal.

Why risk any detrimental effect for some utopian fairytale with no scientific basis?

"widest possible gene 'pool'"
In a zoo?
Well, duh, there's only five elephants!

How many White people are there in the world? A billion?

Are we in any danger of mass-scale inbreeding? No.
Are we in danger of extinction? Yes, our numbers (proportionately) have been declining for decades.

There's dozens of different strains, just within our "race" (common ancestral population).
They would add "hybrid vigour" without making us unrecognisable.

Yuyutsu, well said, I wonder if other writers have moved among the gay community, I get annoyed with writers who presume they know the Gay community only from what they have read in books, nice short opinion Yuyutsu, thanks

Saltpetre,

I never mentioned any frequency with which abuse occurs in either situation.

<<You are right that child exploitation, abuse and neglect are much more prevalent in heterosexual partnerships, partly due to sheer numbers…>>

If I did, then I’d prefer to talk in percentages for this exact reason. I actually don’t know in what situations abuse occurs more (percentage-wise). That’s why I was asking you if you knew. Your mentioning of it implied that you did.

<<Hence, human communities have had to strive for 'ideals' in an effort to minimize 'transgressions', and the impact of these on the society at large.>>

Yes, but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that many of those perceived transgressions were based on ignorance and/or an irrational fear (e.g. apartheid). So this brings me back to my main question. How can you determine that same-sex marriage (or society considering it equivalent to heterosexual marriage, as you later clarify) will be detrimental to society? How do you know that this won’t turn out to be yet another situation that we look back and view as an irrational injustice? There may have been some who argued that altering the tradition of marriage from a financial transaction, or a polygamous arrangement, to a union of love would be detrimental.

I’m not necessarily saying for certain that same-sex marriage isn’t a bad thing. As a heterosexual, I feel I have no barrow to push here and I’m willing to accept that I might be wrong. But we don’t hold back equal rights out of a fear that bad things might happen when we can't demonstrate that they will. That’s not how rights work.

<<The pursuit of an 'ideal' has led to traditional marriage, in the interests of societal cohesion and beneficial functioning.>>

I don’t doubt that the intentions were good. But the ideal of excluding same-sex couple from marrying seems to have been derived at through bigotry and fear rather than reason and evidence. Polygamy, on the other hand, was demonstrably bad.

Shockadelic,

I have never suggested for a second that they would.

What an inane comment.

To Kipp

No, I don't like homosexuals as a group. They tend to be radically left wing, and great partakers of illegal substances. The electorate with the greatest support for a republic is in the Darlinghurst area, which also happens to have the highest incidence of cocaine abuse according to NSW Police statistics.

Disliking groups of people based upon their declared cultural values and observed behaviour is a cultural universal. Everybody does it. I am sure that you don't like Ku Klux Klansmen, Nazis or One Nation supporters.

To AJ. It was fun to begin with, until I realised that you had no intention of debating at all. If you wish to debate racism again, could you please choose the normal anti racist position and stick to the principle that all races are equal? Because either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists.

Your position in our last "debate" was that you had no position. You just sat back and pooh poohed everything I said. Your replies were just heckling. I had to try and figure out what your position was from the vague and sometimes contradictory comments you made. My mistake,was to think that you were genuinely trying to debate and were just a bit vague in your logic. It was only when I figured out that you were being deliberately evasive that I realised that you were up to no good.

Which is OK in a way. If you are smart enough to know that you can't win a fair
debate against an honest opponent and have to resort to heckling, and prevarication, it means that you know yourself that the logic of anti racism is indefensible. You gave the game away when you finally blurted out that if I was right "what good would it do?" That is the position of an ideological zealot, not a scientist that you claimed to be.

The position of the intelligent, inquiring mind, is "Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

Now, if you want to debate me again, then state your position first. Either all races are equal, or they are not. If you already know that all races are not equal, and that taking the opposite position is untenable, then you are just as big a racist as I am.

LEGO,

There's no point in talking about races being equal or unequal.
In what respect? Cultural or religious beliefs or traditions, affluence, athleticism, height, food preferences, lifestyle, literature?
Differences, certainly, some of which you may admire, and others you may dislike or even abhor (like FGM, child marriage or jihad).
People are individuals. I may not be equal to you, you may not be equal to someone else. So what?

To declare that one 'race' or 'type' is 'unequal' is just bigotry.
It's like the guy who says "all blacks are sub-human" or "all Muslims are terrorists", or "all whites are God's gift to the planet" or "we are better than them".
It's just pointless self-gratification or self-justification (for unrealistic and unfounded discrimination).

Gays are who they are, white, black, brown or brindled. Same for Americans, Chinese, Arabs, Africans or even Australians.
Under the skin we are all Homo Sapiens (at least until the next natural evolution), with the same or similar aspirations, basic needs, loves and fears.
Everyone deserves a fair go, no-one deserves to be discriminated against or hated or dominated or dispossessed or enslaved.

Sure we will disagree with some people's attitudes, practices or beliefs, but as long as these don't hurt us or threaten our, or our society's well-being, we can do our best to understand, to make reasonable allowance, or to dissuade them from some differences - or persuade them by demonstration of some better attitudes, beliefs, etc.

No-one and no 'race' is perfect, and no 'race' is incorrigible.
Please, let's at least try to 'do unto others' - else, who really is 'the big bad wolf'?