equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 31 - 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 11-22-2009, 10:02 PM   #451
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine?
No, I disagree with that also.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:02 PM   #452
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:03 PM   #453
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.
I think you've pretty much summed up the entire thread here.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:05 PM   #454
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
No, I disagree with that also.
You disagree with IVF? Why?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:06 PM   #455
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.
How is keeping two people forced into a loveless marriage beneficial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that when divorce was banned in Ireland, it didn't keep families together; it just made for a lot of separated spouses having extramarital relationships.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:07 PM   #456
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?


is it too difficult to judge each situation on the merits of the individual parties involved?

or do we need sweeping authoritative rules to follow?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:07 PM   #457
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
So, you think single parent homes need to be eliminated as well?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:08 PM   #458
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
No more radical than a child might possibly be better off in a home with two mothers.

This argument doesn't work because same-sex parents don't fare any worse than straight couples. It also fails for childless couples, of any orientation.

Crying that somebody should think of the children is a lame tactic designed to take equal rights out of the discussion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:08 PM   #459
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:09 PM   #460
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That a child possibly might be better off in a home with a mother and father? Is that so radical?
What I find radical is that you seem to be perfectly willing to have a responsible and loving couple - one that is eager to adopt and give a child in need a loving, warm and secure life - wait indefinitely while everyone else is sorted through, simply because they're gay.

Given two responsible, secure and loving couples, one heterosexual and one homosexual, do you think it possible that the homosexual couple could be better parents than the heterosexuals?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:11 PM   #461
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
Yes, because women would casually go through a nine month pregnancy without really thinking twice about it.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:11 PM   #462
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:11 PM   #463
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
But, more importantly, as far as the law is concerned, you don't have to have children to get married. I understand that a lot of marriages do result in couples deciding they want children, but legally, there's no requirement. So, there really doesn't need to be any discussion of this here.
I don't know Peef, if we can't talk about the The Children, then we have to go back to the real reason homos can't get married:







They make people uncomfortable.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:12 PM   #464
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Yes, but I would raise issues of moral hazard here.

In other words, if it's ok for a bank to take massive risks on the markets because they have been given the nod that if their bets go wrong, the taxpayer will ultimately bail them out, then it seems to me that, in a somewhat similar fashion, the system is saying that it's ok for a sexually promiscous heterosexual type to conceive a bunch of kids they don't have the financial resources to care for - because, hey, even if I can't take care of my kids, some nice heterosexual OR homosexual couple that can't conceive on their own can just adopt them.

In both cases, there's a risk that prudence goes out the window.
People should stop adopting because it only encourages promiscuous people to have more babies?

I'm having trouble understanding how that has any bearing on our discussion.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 10:14 PM   #465
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Yes, because women would casually go through a nine month pregnancy without really thinking twice about it.
So teen pregnancies aren't a problem? How come so much efforts are invested in discouraging them?
__________________

__________________
financeguy 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) FallingStar PLEBA Archive 147 07-28-2003 03:01 PM
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) CMM Interference Gatherings 80 04-14-2003 10:02 PM
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. Johnny Swallow Lemonade Stand Archive 8 03-07-2003 04:53 PM
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) sulawesigirl4 Lemonade Stand Archive 61 01-05-2003 03:29 PM
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto WildHonee PLEBA Archive 9 11-02-2001 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 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