equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 46 - 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 11-25-2009, 07:30 AM   #676
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Diamond, relinquish your sash and tiara. The thread has a new drama queen.
Nobody will be a bigger bitch in this thread than you, honey.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 07:44 AM   #677
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Oh Lord help us. (Pun.) What part of "I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents" do you not understand?
Quote:
But biologically speaking, the way we have evolved (or were created, depending on your particular cup of tea) is reproduction through the pairing of opposite-sex mates. Can you really so easily and casually discount the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinism plays in conception?
Right. So then your tirade on the supremacy of biological conception in parenting was more an empty rhetorical exercise? I'm guessing that it's just an end around to slamming gay parenting. Never mind all the professional organizations that say otherwise, or all the examples of children who have been raised successfully in gay households. No...somehow, we're supposed to throw all that objective research away in favour of the "folksy wisdom" that gays are bad for children.

So would you mind telling me which boxes I can cross off on my bingo board here?

__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 08:06 AM   #678
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.

I know there are exceptions. In discussions like this, I'm someone that enjoys searching for the patterns for the way things ought to be (like Plato's Realm of Ideas and Forms).

One of the unfortunate aspects of Postmodernism is that debate essentially is impossible - because in order to have a healthy debate - we must agree on a "common language" - a good Postmodernist loves to destroy the meaning of - well - just about anything. A is not A
Hah...well, I think this is the last straw for me in this thread. For one, this isn't "postmodernism," and I'm knowing full well that you're banding this word around at this point as an insult.

No, the reality, in my view, is that we don't speak the same philosophical language, because if conservatism rejects the Enlightenment and all subsequent philosophy from it, then it is impossible for us to speak the same language. Impossible. An even worse scenario, really, is trying to adequately decipher papal encyclicals, as they've essentially rejected all secular philosophy since Aquinas, who I believe to be the last Western philosopher before secular philosophy and church philosophy went their separate ways. As such, when words like "reason" are banded about, it's not according to the definition accorded by secular philosophers; it's the one they created themselves, which always comes back to an arbitrary "because I said so/church authority" answer as to why they believe what they do.

And that, frankly, is what I think the right-wing argument on homosexuality can be boiled down to. "I don't like gays/think gays should be parents/<insert bingo square here> because I said so." No amount of secular reasoning, logic, actual research, etc. matters, because your argument doesn't come down to any of that actually being relevant as to why you believe what you do. Instead of the "inherent uncertainty" aspect to scientific inquiry, where the correct answer is determined by the evidence and a spirit of inquiry, we're dealing with homophobia as dogmatic religion, with emotional beliefs unswayed by evidence.

Even I know the futility of arguing with "the Vatican" with the purpose of getting them to change their mind, so have fun. I'm done.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 08:07 AM   #679
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I do, do you?

So if a man and woman don't want to have kids they should just "cohabitate"?

I know you don't believe that. See what I mean about miles of circles?
Nathan, I'm still waiting on yet another question you fail to answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
You will never understand the definition of bigotry, which is sad because those who don't understand it or can't see it are the ones that will pass it on and let it live. I wouldn't let you babysit my children.

That being said, Madonna, Janet Jackson, and so many other pop stars have been canceled for certain on stage antics. If it was just about him kissing a man, then bigotry would be a valid point, but like cori said it was about a whole lot more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
In today's politically charged atmosphere - and considering the outrage that would follow - what scientist would dare publish anything but that result?
You and Oscar should get together and start a science bashing thread.

Or you could just read Dobson books that tell you to discourage your baby girl's lesbianism by popping her with a rubberband if she likes to linger on mom's breast too long. True story.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-25-2009, 08:30 AM   #680
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And if human beings are social creatures, who learn sociologically, where do you think we learn gender roles from? Certainly from the village you espouse; but first and foremost, from our families. Everything we understand about male and female sexuality comes first from our parents; it only takes a cursory reading of Freud to get that. So don't you think that it might be kind of valuable for girls to learn femininity from their mothers, and masculinity from their fathers? Obama sure thinks so, and he quotes some pretty significant statistics to back him up. Kids need mothers and fathers in healthy marriages -- and boys, in particular, need fathers. I'm not sure what's so controversial about this particular point.
I have to step in.

Kids may "need" healthy marriages between mother and father, but a large portion of children throughout the world don't have these types of privileges, least of all the three of them combined.
You're talking about idealism in a world that lives in reality. Some children are raised by absolute wolves and can rise above it, and some grow into the same people their parents are. Are governments supposed to police how children are raised in order to make sure they grow up to be what someone else says is a fully rounded individual? I have friends that don't have fathers and some that don't have mothers. Some have problems, most don't. I have friends who have their biological parents in loving marriages, and they're still screwed up.

You can't base all this on some predisposed notion that a family is made of father, mother and child and that is exactly how they should be raised. It doesn't work that way.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 08:35 AM   #681
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I'm someone that enjoys searching for the patterns for the way things ought to be (like Plato's Realm of Ideas and Forms).
One last thing, as I think it is unavoidable at this point, remember the Platonic familial ideal? Because it's certainly not the nuclear family.

Plato (427-348 B.C.E.) - The State as an Educational Entity, Family Control - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

Quote:
In the Republic Plato abolishes the family for the guardians, to avoid nepotism and amassing of private wealth (Republic, bk. 5, 464). Wives and children are to be held in common by all, and no parent is to know his own child nor any child his parents–"provided it can be done" (Republic, bk. 5, 457). In the Laws Plato allows family raising for all citizens, with restrictions on child rearing and inheritance (Laws, bk. 5, sec.729). Each family is to have only one heir, to avoid subdivision of the agrarian lots into small parcels. In cases where there is more than one child, the head of the family should marry off the females and the males he must present for adoption to those citizens who have no children of their own–"priority given to personal preferences as far as possible." If too many children are being born, measures should be taken to check the increase in population; and in the opposite case, a high birth-rate can be encouraged and stimulated (Laws, bk. 5, 740).
I know, I know. Maybe this "Plato" is too postmodern for conservative sensibilities. Either way, I know an argument in futility when I see one, and I'm too busy to keep going around in circles.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:06 AM   #682
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 09:17 AM
So what should a man do if his wife/partner dies and he's left to raise a daughter alone? Give her up for adoption? All of this silliness that men can't deal with female "issues" is one of the reasons that some parenting is messed up in the first place. I thought we were beyond that. That's part of the job of father-other than that I guess we should just allow gender selection for babies.

Girls are looking to their fathers in these areas-it's one of the things that is key to shaping their self images and their relationships with males. To their fathers gay or straight.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:07 AM   #683
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
One last thing, as I think it is unavoidable at this point, remember the Platonic familial ideal? Because it's certainly not the nuclear family.

Plato (427-348 B.C.E.) - The State as an Educational Entity, Family Control - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society



I know, I know. Maybe this "Plato" is too postmodern for conservative sensibilities. Either way, I know an argument in futility when I see one, and I'm too busy to keep going around in circles.
You fell for my Akbar trap!

Melon, you are obviously a very bright and educated person. Certainly you know that appreciation for a philosopher (or a certain philosophy) does not mean that you must accept everything of the philosopher.

It is unfortunate that you seem to throw out any philosophy that has even a hint of God in it – because that would eliminate your greatest Enlightenment philosophers that you claim to appreciate. It is a bit of an irony then, that I was an atheist when I started college at University of Arizona as a Philosophy/English Lit double major (which I eventually changed to MIS because I wanted a job), and it was the study of philosophy that actually led me to Christianity (it seemed the perfect synthesis of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy – which is why I also like the writing of Philo).

My point is – you seem to want to place me in this home grown Fundamentalist Christian box simply because I have some conservative views and happen to be a Christian (by the way – as I’ve posted earlier to your accusation of Fundamentalism – I am more in agreement with Narrative/Post-Liberal Theology).

Believe it or not Melon, faith and reason are not enemies.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:15 AM   #684
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Your comment is all that most people here will need to know about where you stand. It really speaks for itself.
I agree. Why did I go back and read?

Knock it off <>, that's really inappropriate. And you honestly think that Adam Lambert would not know that what he did on stage is not right when he's around kids? Then you shouldn't let Bono babysit your kids either, what with him being a married man and being on top of a young woman on stage and rolling around and such. Right?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:20 AM   #685
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Melon, you are obviously a very bright and educated person. Certainly you know that appreciation for a philosopher (or a certain philosophy) does not mean that you must accept everything of the philosopher.
And you shouldn't assume that I believe otherwise.

I'm at work, so I don't think it appropriate to respond further until I get a free moment. But I think it's fairly safe to say that our vision of "God" is vastly different; mine molded from a 20th century American Catholic perspective and yours from an evangelical conservative Protestant POV. This alone should inform as to why the separation of church and state is prudent, as religious freedom, by definition, gives no priority to either set of beliefs, while they are clearly incompatible theologically.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:25 AM   #686
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Oh Lord help us. (Pun.) What part of "I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents" do you not understand?


are there gay parents who are perfectly capable, nathan, or can they never be?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:28 AM   #687
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
faith and reason are not enemies.


but, by definition, they are opposites.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:49 AM   #688
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The entire process of preparing for the arrival is preparing to become parents. And yes, when children arrive on the scene, you have become a parent. You don't grow into one. You are one -- a point President Obama clearly made. (Hell, you start becoming a parent when you get the EPT and you suddenly show up at Kids'R'Us to empty the store of every safe baby appliance imaginable, for a kid who has months and months yet to arrive.) So yes, I can safely say, birthing a child is the core process of becoming a parent -- the defining moment. The one we all point to. That day, everything changed. I know it did for me, and I'm willing to bet it did for just about every parent in this forum. I even remember Bono talking about how the day his first daughter was born, he understood why men would fight wars.

you're lovely and romantic, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, nor does it have to do with the topics brought up in the thread. you're taking your experience and presenting it as the only true, authentic experience that can be had, and using that to, as you have in the past, slam families who are different from yours. yes, of course birthing a child is the core process of becoming a parent, BUT IT IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE THE ONLY WAY TO BECOME A PARENT, and just because some people are different from you that does not mean that their families are less sound, that their love for their children is less, that their children will not grow up as well as others, and that they are any less worthy of protection and recognition.





Quote:
Sure, there are other, much harder, much more complicated ways to become parents. I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents. But biologically speaking, the way we have evolved (or were created, depending on your particular cup of tea) is reproduction through the pairing of opposite-sex mates. Can you really so easily and casually discount the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinism plays in conception?

how are your "friends" who've adopted, who've done IVF, any different from a gay couple who might do the same? the've clearly easily and casually discounted the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinsim plays in conception since science has let them circumvent these rules. do you look down on them as well?


Quote:
And if human beings are social creatures, who learn sociologically, where do you think we learn gender roles from? Certainly from the village you espouse; but first and foremost, from our families. Everything we understand about male and female sexuality comes first from our parents; it only takes a cursory reading of Freud to get that. So don't you think that it might be kind of valuable for girls to learn femininity from their mothers, and masculinity from their fathers? Obama sure thinks so, and he quotes some pretty significant statistics to back him up. Kids need mothers and fathers in healthy marriages -- and boys, in particular, need fathers. I'm not sure what's so controversial about this particular point.

it's controversial, nathan, because you have nothing to back any of this up. children need parents, children need same-sex role models, but nowhere does this mean that the same-sex role model MUST be the parent. in fact, many parents are shitty role models for their kids. the evidence, as we've pointed to you repeatedly, and which you repeatedly ignore, is that kids from same-sex households do every bit as well as kids from opposite-sex households, and that it's the presence of two parents and the quality of the parenting that determines how well a child does. how much longer are you going to keep insisting that this isn't the case when it is?

"learning masculinity" and "learning femininity" are quaint and lovely notions, and i suppose that if i came from a background where i was taught that men are always and for ever one way and women are always and forever another way, and that women must submit to their husbands, then i suppose i might share your concerns. but i don't. it also begs the question -- if biology is destiny as you assert, then why do we need to be taught how to be a boy or a girl? shouldn't thousands of years of evolution have us hardwired? which is it? nature or nurture? you seem to want it both ways. men are always men and women are always women because one has a penis and one has a vagina, but if men don't have other men they'll get confused and become women.

Freud was wrong, btw. and pulling out poppy icons like Freud or Obama aren't adding any credibility to your claims, nor do they count as evidence to support your assertions that children are harmed by same-sex parents.

back it up, nathan. give us more than old wives tales.


Quote:
Sure it takes a village. But it starts with a family. And I can say with some authority that fathers and mothers parent differently, and that fathers and mothers parent their sons and their daughters differently. My wife and I certainly do. There are innate characteristics to boys and girls that differ wildly, that require different needs. Again, is this really such a controversial point?

you can speak for yourself, nathan, but it seems quite clear that you don't know many different kinds of families and appear to live in a fairly isolated clique.

but this only becomes a controversial point when you assert -- and this has been your implication from the start -- that children are harmed by two mothers or two fathers. they aren't. they do just as well, and often better because gay parents tend to be very, very well prepared, they are older, more educated, have more income, and have thought long and hard about their decisions to be parents. all of these characteristics absolutely, always and in all ways, trump whatever gender essentialist notions you claim these children will lack.

we have people on this board who have been raised by gay parents, and somehow, they managed to become sexually mature and confident adults without having an opposite-sexed parent walk them through things.


Quote:
No, you did. I was sitting casually by, minding my own business, until you asked the question, "What can men do that women can't?" I pointed out two answers. You disagreed. That's your right. But you're the one who brought it up, dude.

you still haven't answered my question. you've given us no answers. i'm still waiting.





Quote:
Actually, most people I know these days wait to get married until they want to have kids. So while it's not a requirement, it's certainly an expectation. Always has been, too.

i suppose that's what happens when you substitute your own subjective experiences for objective reality.



Quote:
Really? Recognizing differences between the sexes, and conjecturing that maybe there's some value to those differences when it comes to core social structures? I mean, your average science textbook recognizes such differences in primates. You really want to jump down my throat about that?

what are those values, nathan, and how are we disadvantaged when we have families that are cut from a slightly different cloth?

in order to reinforce this "value" to these "core social structures" by implying that there's only one way to do things you're going to have to demonstrate how the alternative does harm to said "core social structures."

so go for it. show us how children are harmed by two mommies and/or two daddies.


Quote:
You're the one who said it, dude. Don't get mad when other people call you on it.

except that you haven't answered any of my initial questions. you've given us generalities, anecdotes, misunderstood Obama speeches, and a sloppy reference to Freud. have you got anything? or are you going to insist that how you did it is how it has to be?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:50 AM   #689
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
And you shouldn't assume that I believe otherwise.
Fair enough, like you regarding the origins/foundation of my Christianity, I can sometimes jump to conclusions

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
But I think it's fairly safe to say that our vision of "God" is vastly different;
I think I agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
mine molded from a 20th century American Catholic perspective and yours from an evangelical conservative Protestant POV.
I do not agree with this (at least the second part).

My vision of God originally formed outside of Christianity with Plato's book Phaedo, which led me to think - "Now that I'm convinced there is a God, what sort of God is it/he/she?" - which in turn led me to studying Christianity because if there was a God, that is what he would be like (Christ/Logos). In addition, if there was ever the perfect ideal /form/model of a man, it was Jesus (Man/Christ/Logos)...in my opinion, of course.

Also, I have been reading more Catholic material lately. While I do attend what is generally considered a Protestant church - I also sneak away to Catholic Mass from time to time and pray the Rosary while I jog in the mornings. As I've posted numerous times, I consider my faith outside evangelicalism and I disagree with them on several theological issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
This alone should inform as to why the separation of church and state is prudent, as religious freedom, by definition, gives no priority to either set of beliefs, while they are clearly incompatible theologically.
And I have l posted numerous times that I am also a huge supporter of the separation of church and state.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:53 AM   #690
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but, by definition, they are opposites.
Can one have reasons for their faith? If so, they are not opposites.
__________________

__________________
AEON 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 09:17 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