equality blooms with spring, pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
martha said:
I'm addressing the belief that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, yet you refuse to engage in this discussion. Why is that?

AEON said:
Because I already answered it.

martha said:
Then please direct me to the post. It may have gotten lost somewhere in the adoption sidetrack


These quotes are from this thread...

AEON said:
...and I'm leaning toward entirely removing incentives for marriage...

AEON said:
...Let’s just move to some sort of flat tax model and I’ll be happy.

AEON said:
best left outside of the government's interference. It does not need incentives any more than it needs protection

AEON said:
Legal affirmation of romance is not necessary when there are no legal incentives. However, if any two (or more) people want to draft any sort of "contract" regarding property, inheritance, money...etc. - they a free to do so and the court system can and should be used to protect these contracts just like any other contract between people.

AEON said:
Concerning taxes, I am in favor of a flat tax across the board for every adult - married or not married
 
Oh please. You'll do anything to avoid the real issue.

While I don't think this is the least bit accurate - it did make me realize something - it appears you actually view conservatives as enemies instead of people with different viewpoints.

At the end of the day, emotions rarely help make sound decisions...
 
While I don't think this is the least bit accurate - it did make me realize something - it appears you actually view conservatives as enemies instead of people with different viewpoints.

Although I think I've done a very good job of separating ideas from people (which I chalk up to all the philosophy I've read), it's worth remembering that it's much easier to do this when the outcome of one's opinions one way or another has no bearing on one's life. That much different than being gay or even female, really, where conservative viewpoints, if enacted, would enact terrible hardship and would certainly make it much harder to see conservatives as allies in any respect.
 
AEON and Fguy, you guys put on quite the tap dancing show last night after I went to bed. I'm sure your friends would have found it very straight of you guys.
 
AEON, thank you for the quotes you provided. I see that, to you, you've answered the questions, and I appreciate the effort you went to to get the quotes.

However, your answers are general and based on theory. The denial of rights to a specific group that has no effect on you whatsoever is a very real thing to the members of that group. Therefore, a few more specific questions may require more specific answers.

Right now, you and I have a privilege that is denied to gays and lesbians: we can get married and enjoy countless (although I think someone has actually counted them) benefits, both legal and financial, from that marriage. You think that gays and lesbians should be denied that privilege, based solely on their sexuality.

How, then, do we reconcile this in the real world? The world right now? How do we make things equal and fair? You've proposed eliminating state-sponsored marriage as a solution. Fair enough. You're willing to give up your state-sponsored marriage (taking mine with it against my will, but that's another story). How do we implement that as soon as possible to really follow through with your somewhat severe method of making things equal?
 
While I don't think this is the least bit accurate - it did make me realize something - it appears you actually view conservatives as enemies instead of people with different viewpoints.

At the end of the day, emotions rarely help make sound decisions...

Although I think I've done a very good job of separating ideas from people (which I chalk up to all the philosophy I've read), it's worth remembering that it's much easier to do this when the outcome of one's opinions one way or another has no bearing on one's life. That much different than being gay or even female, really, where conservative viewpoints, if enacted, would enact terrible hardship and would certainly make it much harder to see conservatives as allies in any respect.

melon has hit it right here. When all I hear from conservatives are ways to take things away from groups they don't like, what else are they but enemies?
 
...When all I hear from conservatives are ways to take things away from groups they don't like, what else are they but enemies?
Do you honestly think a conservative goal is to "take things away from groups they don't like"?
 
Isn't that what social conservatives have been doing(by definition)? Either taking away or desperately holding on to those means of seperating people.
 
martha said:
Then please direct me to the post. It may have gotten lost somewhere in the adoption sidetrack.

AEON said:
If I find it, and re-post it, what will you do to entertain us?

martha said:
I can't tap dance, although I took lessons once.

And no one wants me to sing. :shudder:

I could fall off my bicycle. I haven't yet, but I think we all know it's going to happen at some point.

martha said:
AEON, thank you for the quotes you provided..

C'mon martha - start dancing or singing or falling....
 
melon said:
Although I think I've done a very good job of separating ideas from people (which I chalk up to all the philosophy I've read), it's worth remembering that it's much easier to do this when the outcome of one's opinions one way or another has no bearing on one's life.

I understand the difficulty you face when this discussion addresses points very close to your personal life. However, since you mentioned a love of philosophy – I thought I would quote Marcus Aurelius:

Perceive at last that you have in you something better and more divine than the things which cause the various effects, and as it were pull you by the strings. What is there now in my mind? is it fear, or suspicion, or desire, or anything of the kind? – Marcus Aurelius

When we are pulled by the strings of emotion, our thoughts are more likely to become irrational.

melon said:
That much different than being gay or even female, really, where conservative viewpoints, if enacted, would enact terrible hardship and would certainly make it much harder to see conservatives as allies in any respect.

Yet, many of these “conservatives” have bled or died to ensure the freedom of even having this debate. I am hopeful that in this case, you see them as allies and not enemies.
 
I think that's pretty naive, to be honest. Given that contraception and social welfare are readily available, it's naive to think that moral hazard isn't an issue here. Before contraception and the welfare state, you might have had a point.

There are communities where pregnancy and having a bunch of kids is a badge of honour. Not least because of the social welfare benefits.

1. Again, this implies that a nine-month pregnancy is something one just shrugs off as if it doesn't make a huge impact on someone's life.

2. I'm naive for saying adoption isn't the reason kids are getting pregnant? I think you need to understand that you're talking about my demographic, the people I know. I'm a teenager. I know exactly why kids do what they do sexually. And the ones that get pregnant aren't getting pregnant simply because, "Meh, who cares, someone can just adopt this kid!"

3. It's a badge of honor to continually give birth to children to put up for adoption? Really? I could understand if you were talking about a badge of honor for having and keeping children, even if that is the minority of cases, but I have no idea what you're getting at here.
 
Unless you admit gay men kissing is gross - then you are not being honest.

No, she was talking about honesty in general. I think you're smart. You think before you post. But I think, in the end, you're against homosexuality for religious reasons and that's that. You're trying to rationalize it with these arguments, and they're not making sense. If you simply told us, "My religion has made its thoughts clear on homosexuality and I agree with them. That's my reason." I think it would go a long way to help us understand where you're coming from. I would disagree profusely with attempts to put religious views in law, but I would know why you think that way. Every secular attempt you've made to discuss this issue makes my head hurt because of how little sense it makes.
 
While I don't think this is the least bit accurate - it did make me realize something - it appears you actually view conservatives as enemies instead of people with different viewpoints.

At the end of the day, emotions rarely help make sound decisions...

While I agree with most of this, I would say to you, that it is easy for you and I not to get emotional about this topic when we do not have to worry about marriage being denied us.

I am emotional about it in reference to my gay relatives who have been a better role model for my marriage than the eleven marriages among my parents and my wife's parents.

I would also add into the mix that my cousin has done very well for himself, is married, has children despite being raised by two women.
 
No, she was talking about honesty in general.
The sad part is - I truly believe that this is the only "answer" that some people want to hear.

I think you're smart. You think before you post.
Thank you - I think the same of you and most of the others in this forum.

But I think, in the end, you're against homosexuality for religious reasons and that's that.
I am not so quick to concede this point. My Christianity is quite "outside the box" in many areas. While I obviously agree with the Fundamentalists on whether or not homosexual acts are sinful - I disagree with them on astrophysics, geology, biology (evolution)...etc. I also disagree with them that the state should legislate marriages. This is more of a libertarian view than a conservative one.
You're trying to rationalize it with these arguments, and they're not making sense.
Well, to quite a few people outside this forum these arguments do in fact make sense. To many it does seem that a child should be placed in a home with mother and father - if possible. To many it does make sense that the state should not be involved in the marriage process. While I am not suggesting you agree because a large group of people also agree - I simply want to point out that the ideas being presented are not so out of the mainstream that they shouldn't be discussed.

If you simply told us, "My religion has made its thoughts clear on homosexuality and I agree with them. That's my reason." I think it would go a long way to help us understand where you're coming from.
As I said above - this is only partially true.
I would disagree profusely with attempts to put religious views in law, but I would know why you think that way.
I agree to a certain extent, which is why I said the state should not be involved in the marriage process.

Every secular attempt you've made to discuss this issue makes my head hurt...
Please accept my apologies...:)
 
While I agree with most of this, I would say to you, that it is easy for you and I not to get emotional about this topic when we do not have to worry about marriage being denied us.

I am emotional about it in reference to my gay relatives who have been a better role model for my marriage than the eleven marriages among my parents and my wife's parents.

I would also add into the mix that my cousin has done very well for himself, is married, has children despite being raised by two women.

Well, I certainly can't deny what you have observed. This is obviously a success story - and I'm certain there are others. I think you have certainly demonstrated that gay adoption can succeed, but I am still not convinced that it is a child's best chance for success if equally qualified heterosexual couples are available.
 
Well, to quite a few people outside this forum these arguments do in fact make sense. To many it does seem that a child should be placed in a home with mother and father - if possible. To many it does make sense that the state should not be involved in the marriage process. While I am not suggesting you agree because a large group of people also agree - I simply want to point out that the ideas being presented are not so out of the mainstream that they shouldn't be discussed.

I agree to a certain extent, which is why I said the state should not be involved in the marriage process.

I understand that a lot of people agree with the arguments, but that's simple because people infer that the norm works best. It's a bit of a logical fallacy if you ask me.

And I think you need to begin talking about the laws should be in context: know that the state will not be taken from the marriage process. It's just not going to happen. I think it would be more fruitful for everyone if you discussed what should happen with marriage while acknowledging that it's not going away.
 
I think you need to understand that you're talking about my demographic, the people I know. I'm a teenager. I know exactly why kids do what they do sexually. And the ones that get pregnant aren't getting pregnant simply because, "Meh, who cares, someone can just adopt this kid!"

From a middle class background though, right?

3. It's a badge of honor to continually give birth to children to put up for adoption?

In a certain class of society.
 
Well, I certainly can't deny what you have observed. This is obviously a success story - and I'm certain there are others. I think you have certainly demonstrated that gay adoption can succeed, but I am still not convinced that it is a child's best chance for success if equally qualified heterosexual couples are available.

It's so difficult to decide what is the "best chance" and they're so few and far between that I think it's silly to try. Any opportunity for a child to be raised by caring, competent persons or people is a good opportunity, and shouldn't be judged based on such inconsequential things.

No one knows what the perfect upbringing is.
 
From a middle class background though, right?

In a certain class of society.

I am from a middle class background. One of my best friends is from a lower class background. I have friends above and below the poverty line.

What class is this and how prominent is it? And is it really a class of society that would be impacted by a small percentage of new couples looking to adopt?
 
Depending on political point of view, elements of society that are disadvantaged or elements of society that are addicted to handouts.

No, it doesn't depend on political point of view. You stated more than once that there is a "certain class of society" where it's a badge of honor to pop out babies and then give them up to adoption. So what are you basing this on, and where are your numbers? And what the hell do "handouts" have to do with it?
 
No, it doesn't depend on political point of view. You stated more than once that there is a "certain class of society" where it's a badge of honor to pop out babies and then give them up to adoption. So what are you basing this on, and where are your numbers? And what the hell do "handouts" have to do with it?

Well, considering we had a thread about the subject not all that long ago. I think this was the situation being discussed at that time:

Alan Colmes' Liberaland ? Mother Of Octuplets Has Six Other Kids
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom