nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
erm, BVS was adopted.
That's great. Many adoptive parents still have difficulty bonding with their kids, particularly those who adopt later-age kids, as several of my friends have done.
erm, BVS was adopted.
That's great. Many adoptive parents still have difficulty bonding with their kids, particularly those who adopt later-age kids, as several of my friends have done.
Did you even read the rest of my post? Or does being called out as a hypocrite hit too close to home?
I am adopted and have been surrounded by those who are and have adopted all my life.
and as we know, your experience trumps all?
That's great. I have friends who have adopted and have really struggled, particularly since they chose to adopt kids who were older. It certainly doesn't negate your experience, but it doesn't negate my friends' either. It's certainly not worth calling what my friends went through "complete and utter bullshit," as you did.
you're the STING of gay marriage.
No, but it sure doesn't make it less valid.
but it does negate your equally totalizing claims about what is and what isn't best for children.
No, I'm the STING of gender essentialism. There's a difference.
Seriously?
"It's up to us - as fathers and parents - to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It's up to us to say to our daughters, don't ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It's up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It's up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives."
You're right. It was just about dollars and cents.
We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves.
not less valid, but surely incomplete and not nearly enough to make sweeping statements about biology, sociology, and history.
Look, Obama's speech was great and all, but it's hardly the definitive, statistical mine that you're making it out to be. I just reread the speech, and ... and there's not one thing in there that can't be explained by the mother being adversely impacted economically and emotionally, and that impact affecting her ability to parent effectively.
Biology, sociology and history stand on their own. They don't need my help. Except when people start making arguments in the face of them.
Only if you assume that the only role a father plays is strictly a financial one. Which is pretty much thrown out by the Newsweek article.
i see -- so biology, sociology, and history are somehow incompatible with my assertion that there are many forms of successful families?
This doesn't suprise me. All I'm saying is that you, and the others are CONSTANTLY contradicting yourselves about why you oppose gay marriage.To be honest, I wasn't really sure what point you were making.
It certainly doesn't negate your experience, but it doesn't negate my friends' either. It's certainly not worth calling my friends experience "complete and utter bullshit," as you did.
That's great. Many adoptive parents still have difficulty bonding with their kids, particularly those who adopt later-age kids, as several of my friends have done.
Only if you assume that the only role a father plays is strictly a financial one. Which is pretty much thrown out by the Newsweek article.
and saying that fathers aren't necessary to the family.
Melon, why is it you keep placing me in this camp? I have stated many times that I am not a Fundamentalist Christian. Unlike many Fundamentalists, I see no problem with evolution and 13 billion year-old universe. I am not a Republican - and I have no ill will toward Obama (nor do I think he is a radical Muslim).
I suppose you keep doing this because it would somehow make it easier for you to dismiss me as some speaking in tongues holy joe. I assure you, I am not that.
Not that you necessarily share all of these beliefs
it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that all these nonsensical argumentum ad antiquitatem logical fallacies spewing...
- Only bodies exist, but bodies are combinations of two fundamental principles, logos, a rational principle, and physics, a creative principle.
- God is nature: Logos, the rational principle, accounts for the order and unity of the universe; nature is thus intelligent and intelligible.
- Because God is nature, the universe as a whole is the best possible.
- Human beings, as opposed to plants and animals. have logos as their individual governing principle.
- Logos also defines the goal of life as virtue; the life of virtue is a life lived according to reason: It is the life of a philosopher.
- Reason distinguishes between things that are and things that are not under one's control; externals, like reputation, wealth, and power are not under one's control; desire, aversion, and opinion are.
- The virtuous individual finds freedom in limiting his or her desires to those things under one's control and accepting all other externals as indifferent - Epictetus 50-125 AD
In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God. - Gospel of John 1:1
You attributed those views to me on page 3 of this thread...Again, re-read what I stated:
Hey! That's my bread and butter in FYM!I implore you to understand the difference between a general analogy for the sake of argument, and a direct statement pointed at you.
melon said:...and I think we probably have more in common than either of us would want to acknowledge.
Another of my favorite philosophers. It is the concept of Logos, the divine governing principle, that I find so appealing.
I am happy that you are aware of "Logos," and, in particular, how John 1:1 should have been translated.
And I presume that you're aware of Philo of Alexandria, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher ultimately responsible for combining the Platonic "Logos" with the Jewish "Yahweh," and, according to some perspectives, the philosophical origin of Christianity.
AEON said: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).
To me, Philo is an interesting character, because he was a devout Jew in a pagan civilization, who felt that it was his duty to reconcile the two. And considering that the Greco-Roman world decidedly thought of Jews as "barbaric," the idea behind "Logos" was ultimately syncretic; that is, by reconciling Judaism with the religion of the state, he was looking to forward tolerance between the two.
In light of this, I cannot help but note that what you've quoted likely makes reference to the idea that homosexuality is a wanton expression of lust, inherently devoid of love and higher spirituality. That is not to say that, in some cases, it is precisely that.
Homosexual or heterosexual, having a one-night stand with a prostitute probably constitutes that of a loveless act of lust. But that furthers my point. I consider it a rather modest step forward to say that "gender essentialism" is a cultural construct, and that God judges us on the substance of our character and our interpersonal relationships with others, rather than fixating on immutable genitalia that has nothing to do with our souls.
No, but the ability of that relationship to produce children is certainly a part of the Harmony (intention) of the universe.It is not a large leap to say that, just as it is not expected for all heterosexuals to shun all romantic relationships to be virtuous, it is equally not expected for all homosexuals to do so either. And I also reject the theological notion that marriage and sex all have to be about "children."
It has been an evolving notion that heterosexual marriage is primarily centred on love, and I see no reason as to why that cannot be equally applied to homosexual couples, in light of an evolved understanding of human relationships and sexuality that has only been more fully understood in modern times.
Actually, the connection that forms between mother and child in utero is profoundly emotional and psychological, and is well documented. Do you know anyone who's had a baby? Additionally, if you know any adoptive parents, you'd know that one of the things they consistently struggle with in the early going is that distinctive lack of bond, particularly mothers. It can certainly be overcome, but it takes time, and it's not easy.
Newsweek's statistics were clear. The President's statistics were clear. Boys need fathers. In a vacuum, others will step in, but at great cost, as the article makes clear. Mentors should not have to compensate for the lack of a father.
That's great. Many adoptive parents still have difficulty bonding with their kids, particularly those who adopt later-age kids, as several of my friends have done.
Agreed. I have always thought that translating the Greek Logos into "The Word" weakens the impact of what John was saying. However, as you can imagine, I'm not too fond of the gay and lesbian channel using LOGOS for the name. It would have been a great name for a philosophy channel...
We chose to name the channel "Logo" because we wanted a name that people could make their own and give it personal meaning. For us, the word "logo" is about identity, about being comfortable in your own skin. It's about being who you are.
Second, I did allude to physical pleasure outside of agape[/] love and higher spirituality. It is difficult for me to believe that you experience this with your partner when all of nature and Harmony seems to shout against this, but not impossible. (please BVS, no need to post about the occasional gay giraffe). As a result, I must take your word for it. If you are truly experiencing these things with an absolute clear conscience - how can I dispute that? Yet, that "inner-Logos" will probably be ever skeptical.
The Bugi culture also recognizes five separate genders that are necessary to keep the world in balance and harmony. These include makkunrai (feminine woman), calabai (feminine man), calalai (masculine female), oroané (masculine man), and bissu (embodying both male and female energies, revered as a shaman).
Marriages should not be built on romantic love at all, but on agape love. (another annoyance of mine is that most Bible translations do not differentiate the types of love - even though the different Greek words translated as "love" have completely different meanings). As we know, romance fades with time. Romantic love may be the first cause in a relationship - but that relationship can only endure with a self-sacrificing, agape type of love. I think the modern notion that romantic love conquers[/] all is the reason for so many failed marriages and relationships.