can we please, please call this argument settled? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-16-2005, 01:53 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.
Every independent study I've read disagrees with you. Of course, if you're reading studies sponsored by conservative Christian organizations, they're clearly interested in furthering their anti-gay agenda.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:04 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?
And I love your dehumanization of the LBGT community. Calling them "homosexuals" and a "vocal minority." They're people, first and foremost. Of course, I've been working very hard to dehumanize heteros. I call them "breeders" and the "tyrannical majority." Then I point my friends to Jerry Springer and Maury Povich, and show that as evidence that heterosexuals make awful parents. Hell, they don't even know who their "baby daddy" is half the time! For shame. We should pass laws to stop those heterosexuals from destroying America with their "superiority agenda."

BTW, in all the hoopla over gay marriage, gays have been able to either adopt or be foster parents for decades in most states. The fact remains that stupid heteros breed like bunnies and don't really want much to do with the babies you all discard to the curb like yesterday's trash. So, as usual, it is up to the LBGT community to take care of what you wasteful heteros take for granted and throw away on a regular basis.

And newsflash: the long term studies are out and these children grow up equally normal as any children raised by heteros. And, no, they don't "turn gay."

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:07 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977




Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.



Something that can not be denied?

Every baby that was put in a dumpster by their mother knows you are speaking from a bigoted place and not a Christian place.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:07 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



Something that can not be denied?

Every baby that was put in a dumpster by their mother knows you are speaking from a bigoted place and not a Christian place.
You'd be hard pressed to say that those children are the majority of all children born....
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:09 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
You'd be hard pressed to say that those children are the majority of all children born....
And so what? Because they're the minority that they aren't worth acknowledging? That's where I agree it is bigoted.

The tyranny of the majority. This is where I treasure my Second Amendment.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:09 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:06 AM
But

I am not hard pressed to figure out where you are speaking from.

There are adopted children in my family

no one laments.

Shame on you.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:11 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Every independent study I've read disagrees with you. Of course, if you're reading studies sponsored by conservative Christian organizations, they're clearly interested in furthering their anti-gay agenda.

Melon
Independent researchers do have it pegged at 70% (at least in 2000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I'm pretty sure isn't a conservative Christian organization), which is below the other percentage I cited... however, it would seem that the point is still made. A majority of kids in America live in two-parent homes, the overwhelming majority of which are hetero.

I'll leave the Ozzie and Harriet comment -- I don't think anyone really thinks I'm promoting the ideology of a 50 year old TV show. That's just another rhetorical straw man.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:13 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:06 AM
Right

the Melenez brothers
got their start in a two-parent home
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:15 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Independent researchers do have it pegged at 70% (at least in 2000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I'm pretty sure isn't a conservative Christian organization), which is below the other percentage I cited... however, it would seem that the point is still made. A majority of kids in America live in two-parent homes, the overwhelming majority of which are hetero.

I'll leave the Ozzie and Harriet comment -- I don't think anyone really thinks I'm promoting the ideology of a 50 year old TV show.
Alright. Assuming those figures are correct and they are the vast majority, who cares? Does might make right? The fact remains that there is a sizeable minority--30%. That's close to 1/3 of children in America and that's definitely in the tens of millions. So now it is time to spit on them and say "too bad"?

There are alternative lifestyles. There have been and always will. While there may be some unrealistic "Ozzie and Harriet" ideal (you don't mean it consciously, but you do subconsciously), the fact remains that, in the past, there were still many unadopted children who would live out their lives in orphanages until they were 18. Where was that "70%" to save the day?

I don't even fathom how even allowing the LBGT community equal rights would even affect that 70% anyway. But we need diversity to help take care of that minority that the majority even refuses to acknowledge. Even one child left behind is one child too much--especially if you are that child.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:25 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


"Mysogynistic disguises"... doesn't sound that far from those who refer to marriage simply as legalized rape. In a way this seems to prove Jacoby's point that part of this whole conversation is about refusing to recognize the very differences that define us as men and women in the first place.

It's interesting to me that gay activists seem to use the "I'm made this way/I can't change it" argument when defending homosexuality, but seem to argue the reverse when it comes to the conversation of sexuality and marriage. If you want to argue that you're genetically a certain way, that's fine -- but isn't part of the point of this argument that you can't change, that you are a certain way and can't help it, which automatically moves you into a predetermined process? So why wouldn't it be any different when the conversation turns to the differences between male and female? (Arguably an even more important distinction than sexual orientation/preference.)

when i'm talking about misogynistic disguises, i'm talking about the idea that boys are one way, girls are another, and that's all there is to say about that. you're putting words in my mouth and drawing paralles to lines of thinking that aren't even remotely a part of my argument. what i'm getting at is that within marriage, what are the essential sex roles? what is there that women bring to marriage that is uniquely, irreplacably female? is there such a thing as an essential female? this does apply to homsexuality. is there somethign that is essentially homosexual?

the answer in both cases is no. there is nothing essential, but there is something authentic and natural. these are important distinctions. there is no one way to be gay, there is no one way to be a woman. there are only individuals acting in authentic ways that may or may not ascribe to whatever gender roles you might label as natural or essential.

gay activists? try the American Psychiatric Association and general common knowledge -- you cannot change your orientation, no matter what the Exodus ministries are trying to tell you.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:26 PM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.
I think this has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in here in ages. I was adopted and have a much better relationship with my parents than most of my non-adopted friends. Economic sacrifice has nothing to do with it. I know I was chosen by my parents. "Can't be denied" is just utter bullshit. Your posts reek of arrogant bias, you can't imagine anything or anyone not doing things the way you do, even going to the extent of making these comments about adopted children. I find you and your comments discusting.

Step out of your box sometime and see how other people live.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:28 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


I'll share my take on the uniquely husbandly duties in a marriage, but it would be from a faith-based perspective that has previously been disregarded elsewhere on this message board. (Too much heteronormativity.) However, as the Judeo-Christian perspective is one that has defined Western civilization, I'll post it anyway...

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...feed(ing) and car(ing) for her, just as Christ does the church"

Bang. A specific call for husbands. Gender-specific, not one mirrored in the words for wives, but central to the marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship was designed by God to illustrate His relationship with us, then you can't separate out gender identifications, because God is the very One throughout the Bible -- New and Old Testament (the book of Hosea comes to mind) Who draws those lines in the first place.


lovely.

has nothing to do with civil marriage. perhaps that's how you view marriage, but a religious conviction is not stable grounds from which to legislate/discriminate.

and, to push the point, other than the word "husband," there is nothing gender-specific about this biblical command. there is nothing in that phrase that a woman, or another gay man, couldn't do for his/her husband.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:32 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 09:06 AM
I'm just going to be short and sweet and say that I fully agree with all the responses to nathan's post .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:35 PM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


When I was getting married, my mentor told me, "The best way to be a good father is to be a good husband." My children will watch me and my habits and learn and replicate them...for better or worse. Hopefully, they will learn how women should be treated, they will learn how love and affection are shown, they will learn what love is. Moreover, many of us on this board can probably pinpoint the strengths and failures of our fathers, and how they've impacted us. There is something unique and specific that children learn about the world from they interact with their fathers....again, for better or worse. There's a reason scripture talks about how the sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generations.... I know that it's true that much of my father's brokenness is my own. Why else do the sons of deadbeat dads often turn into deadbeat dads themselves? (A unique but growing reality, particularly in the inner city.)

Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.

right here is where we're simply not going to agree.

how women should be treated? what does that mean? do we treat women differently than we treat human beings, i.e., men? do you hold doors for women but not for men? do you have to be more emotionally attentive when you're around women than with men? are there special rules that you employ when you speak/interact with women that are different from when you interact with men?

as for your second paragraph, a lesbian is completely capable of birthing a child, so i don't know what that has to do with anything. two gay men are not, but they can adopt and love a child as thoroughly as two heterosexuals who adopt. and though you deny it, you're placing a primacy on birth parents over parents who adopt, you are saying that one is better than the other, or that it's unique, and that this is then somehow essential to the idea of marriage or what makes marriage unique and then should therefore be denied to homosexuals because they cannot reproduce with their partners.

many, many children grow up without fathers. and i fail to see how a good mother is worse than a bad mother and father. i dont' see how two good mothers are worse than a bad mother and father.

i want children to have good parents. i dont' think there's something essential to the man-woman relationship that's instrumental to the successful rearing of children. i do think there's something essential to the quality of parenting that's instrumental to rearing children.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 02:45 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977



I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.

I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?

I don't think Jacoby is saying that gay parents *can't* parent. It comes down to a question of what is *best.* I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal. There are hundreds of thousands of husbands and wives out there desperate to be parents who either A) can't afford the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to adopt or B) get lost in the process somewhere. The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?

I'm not trying to piss you off, Irvine...I just don't think this argument can be considered closed.

nope. not hyperbole. i'll introduce you to these 10 people, and if you are not amazed at what good parents they will be, then i'll go have sex with a woman. you're not understanding the numbers as well -- these 10 people would be better parents than 99% of the whatever number it is of married heterosexuals who have children.

okay, i'm calming down a bit.

actually, if anything, studies have shown that lesbian households have children who are nicer, more fair, and more tolerant in their interactions with other children. there are no developmental differences between kids with hetero parents and kids with homo parents, and these kids are no more likely to be gay than the other.

promoting an ideal is not contingent upon the denial of rights to a group of people. and when i say that a healthy marriage is ideal for children, i am including homosexuals in that comment. two married homosexuals who love each other and their children is as ideal as any heterosexual marriage. like i've said, i don't know what' so essential to the male-female coupling that cannot be replicated by a same gender couple.

i also dont' know what your point about adoption -- which i generally agree with -- has to do with marriage equality. i think adoption is great; i plan to adopt one day, should i be legally married to a man or not. and i honestly challenge you to find someone who would make a better father than i would.

basically, all your arguments against gay marriage is that, because it lacks opposite gendered partners, it is by definition inferior.

to that i say bollocks.

you resort to the child-rearing argument, when many, many straight couples never have children. when many infertile couples or post-menopausal women get married. you're basing everything on antiquated notions of sex-roles that are increasingly inapplicable in modern society, where women do not need men, and men do not need women. women may want men, and men may want women, but they do not *need* each other. heterosexuals have already removed whatever biological necessity there was for opposite-sex coulping being instrumental to the measurement of the success of a marriage.

yes, i do think the debate is over.

you're free to continue to argue that children do better with one great mom and one great dad than two great moms or two great dads, however, because marriage is much more than an institution for rearing children, and benefits conferred upon couples aren't contingent upon their child-rearing plans, and because marriage is seen as the social and legal recognition of a commited relationship and that is denied to a minority on the basis of something which they can do nothing about and that harms NO ONE (and in fact the denial of one's homosexuality is actually harmful to the homosexual), there is no argument for the denial of civil marraige on the basis of involuntary sexual orientation.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com