interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - Page 8 - 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 07-12-2006, 04:23 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Have you read this study AEON?

http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=36837

And where is the study that proves that heterosexuals do not produce gay children genetically? I don't think one exists.
No - but I certainly will take a look.

Thanks!
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:30 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Would you agree, that the best case scenario would have been to have the kind of father you really needed and wanted?
If you're somehow suggesting that that has nothing to do with a gay father and can exist outside that whole issue then no, I can't agree to that. The best scenario for me would have been a optimally healthy functioning family and the kind of father I needed and wanted-gay or straight, black or white, rich or poor, etc etc.

So if the best scenario is a good father and a good father is not gay or straight, he's just good-then what are we left with?

I realize that every family is flawed and we all deal with the results as best we can, but the flaws happen as a result of what kind of people parents are and their parenting skills, which have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation as far as I am concerned. We live in 2006 and June and Ward Cleaver don't exist anymore because they never really did. I don't mean to insult you or your ideals by saying that, it is just life as I see it.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:45 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


We live in 2006 and June and Ward Cleaver don't exist anymore because they never really did. I don't mean to insult you or your ideals by saying that, it is just life as I see it.
I don't feel insulted. I follow your reasoning.

What's really funny about this post was that always thought Ward Cleaver was an AWESOME father, perhaps because I really didn't have one.

I pour my heart into my two kids. It would crush me to have them ever think that I wasn't "there" for them through their life. My little step daughter has an active father, but we still have our own unique and awesome relationship. And my little boy, now 14 months old, is so darn cute and interactive. Already his own personality is showing. I only hope to ‘direct’ but not to ‘mold’ him. If that makes sense. The only thing that can really keep me from them is being deployed overseas. And I think about that a lot. Will my family think I abandoned them? Will my family think that I put my country before them…etc

Well. I think I understand your point MrsSpringsteen. But I am a person that does believe in “ideals” – and that the “ideal” is not flawed simply because we mess it up – the flaw is in us, not the ideal.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:57 PM   #109
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:58 PM
one other thing about the genetic component to homosexuality -- if it is not genetic, why is a solid 5-10% of every population in every country in the world homosexual? surely environment alone cannot explain such a consistent percentage, and if it were environmental, wouldn't some societies be "gayer" than others?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 04:58 PM   #110
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON



No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.

Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



wow, the kids of single parents are going to be very upset with this post.
As are the single parents who are doing a damn fine job of raising those kids.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 06:51 PM   #111
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe. I have neither hatred nor fear of homosexuals. Calling someone a bigot or homophobe because they don't agree with gay marriage is like calling someone a bigot or Christianphobe because they don't accept the Resurrection.

No someone would be a bigot or Christianphobe if they said Christians lead to the downfall of society, because esentially that is what you are saying.

And to be honest some "Christians" are making huge strides to destroy our society, but I would never generalize based on a small percentage.


Someone can say, I don't agree with your Christian beliefs but I support your privelage to do so.

Yet you are saying I don't think you're natural and a public and legal acceptance of your love will lead to society's downfall.

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:06 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

But I am a person that does believe in “ideals” – and that the “ideal” is not flawed simply because we mess it up – the flaw is in us, not the ideal.
But ideals can be flawed in and of themselves-because they are hurtful and sometimes even hateful, because they just won't work any longer in today's world (sometimes we just have to be practical and realistic in order to function as a peaceful and loving society), because they discriminate, because they exclude, and for so many other reasons. Believing in ideals can be good, but it can be negative and ultimately destructive. Sometimes it can be good that we are flawed and that we mess them up as you say. Good and positive change can come from that, not just negatives.

I don't know you so I would never presume otherwise- but I really struggle to understand how, since you didn't have a father as you say- how you could not want any and every child to have a father and a good father, whether that father is gay or straight. Honestly some of your posts here indicate the opposite. Certainly there are so many gay men who are fantastic fathers.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:02 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:58 PM
The question of who we are attracted to raises a couple of interesting issues as they relate to the concept of choice. It would appear that anyone’s attraction to another individual is not a pure function of conscious choice (as are many of our functions or actions). But what is it? Is it the result of our environment and experiences, or is it part of our genetic makeup? Is there a way to measure between the two? Studies which try to show genetic links or biological causes produce inconsistent, non-predictable results. And we have never provided a way to measure results other than through self-declaration – which is by itself a flawed scientific method.

The next step is how we define our response to our attractions (the as of yet undefined impulses) – is that a choice?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:42 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The question of who we are attracted to raises a couple of interesting issues as they relate to the concept of choice. It would appear that anyone’s attraction to another individual is not a pure function of conscious choice (as are many of our functions or actions). But what is it? Is it the result of our environment and experiences, or is it part of our genetic makeup? Is there a way to measure between the two? Studies which try to show genetic links or biological causes produce inconsistent, non-predictable results. And we have never provided a way to measure results other than through self-declaration – which is by itself a flawed scientific method.

The next step is how we define our response to our attractions (the as of yet undefined impulses) – is that a choice?


all very interesting questions, perhaps desire and love are simply unable to be adequately addressed by the scientific method?

perhaps this is where we simply have to trust people at their word, that what they say really is what is.

it also tosses notions of what is or what is not "moral" or "natural" right out the window, which is a benefit of the scientific method.

i think there are some genetic factors for attraction -- generally speaking, there are some universal standards of what is considered "beautiful" that transcend cultures. facial symmetry, the appearance of health, things like this -- though we can all find exceptions to this rule (love his music, but i don't find Lyle Lovett attractive, yet some do even though he defies conventional standards of beauty) and these exceptions, that which we find quirky, might be rooted in experience and environment. we can learn to love the quirk, or to adapt the quirk to whatever genetically wired responses to notions of "beauty" we already possess.

the important thing to realize, however, is that it is involuntary, and it is the suppression of whatever attractions you do have that causes dysfunction and misery.

of course, the exception to this is for those unfortunate few who's attractions are illegal -- specifically, pedophiles. most pedophiles can't help their attraction, it is unchosen, and most wish they weren't attracted to children, but because there is a clear victim, there is a clear harm to such an attraction, society has made it illegal and we punish those who act upon their attractions because a child is unable to give consent and damage is done to the child.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 09:03 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:58 PM
These last 2 posts by Irvine and nbcrusader raise some very intriguing questions.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:31 PM   #116
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
non-reproduction = extinction
So the 10% who don't have children by nature of sexual orientation threaten the 90% who can have children by nature of sexual orientation?

This argument ignores the glaring fact that we have overpopulation, not underpopulation.

Of course, a lot of these arguments originally emanated from racists, as white nationalists only cared whether white people have children. As such, they would bitch about how the white birth rate is rather low when compared to the minority birth rate. Nowadays, these arguments just are pathetic.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:42 PM   #117
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

these arguments just are pathetic.



They've tried reproduction, pseudo-genetic science, tradition, the Bible, but haven't cemented one. Not one argument.

Yet they still argue it's not guided by bigotry or homophobia...

It's almost laughable if it weren't so sad.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:58 PM   #118
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


So the 10% who don't have children by nature of sexual orientation threaten the 90% who can have children by nature of sexual orientation?

This argument ignores the glaring fact that we have overpopulation, not underpopulation.
and this without mentioning (it would be redundant, I know) the millions of children , who are (oh surprise!!) product of heterosexual unions (and marriages) who are abandoned, neglected, abused, living with the minimun and with lack of love and atention.

saying this makes me ask how heterosexual families has contributed to this society. The idea of an ideal mom-dad-kids family is relatively new, and as far as I know it has evolved from ancient family structures and from the concept of childhood and private property, so in certain way it is product of the actual circumstances.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 12:02 AM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Melon, according to this line of reasoning - we should not take anything you say regarding your interpretation of the Bible's stance on homosexuality because you are gay – and therefore you are much more likely to “read into” the Bible what isn’t really there; or that I shouldn't take Irvine seriously about gay marriage because he is gay and in love – therefore, how could he possibly be objective?

The truth is, we all carry our own baggage into our research. Hoever, even kowing that, I do not discredit anything you or Irvine says. As a matter of fact, both of you have taught me quite a bit. What is important is the research itself.

(BTW - calling ID Pseudoscience was a cute little aside That’s a pretty arrogant statement considering that men like Einstein supported it. But you can address this in the other thread related to this)
The big difference here is that the research stating that sexual orientation is unchangeable has been peer reviewed and duplicated, using the scientific process. This is to ensure that personal bias is not a factor. The research you describe has not passed that test, and is suspect when it's done by a "researcher" with demonstrable bias against the subject. Name one "Christian researcher" that has ever produced a study that goes against his or her faith. That's problematic.

Secondly, what I have said about the Bible is not something I pulled out of my ass. Again, it is something that has been studied by serious Biblical scholars who have been studying the Bible as objectively as they would study any ancient text. This means studying the original words for their meanings, how they were commonly used, and ignoring the fact that we already have traditional interpretations for this book. That's the scientific process, and it is that process that I am drawing my information from.

I find the study of linguistics to be interesting. I have thought that if I ever give up on my current career path that I will go back to school to work towards a Ph.D in it. But one day at a time...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 12:45 AM   #120
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:58 PM
I was thinking.....

Would Christ be pushing for IDEALS or dealing with reality.

The only time he is violent, based on my recollection is towards the money changers at the TEMPLE.

The rest of the time, it seems to me, he looked at reality....

this sick need healing...shudder...even on the Sabbath....so he did against the IDEAL of the day.

He ate with the TAX collector, against the IDEAL of the day.

He accepted the gentile, against the IDEAL of the day.

I think GOD would love the ideal, and I dare say, there are people who make it in this word who fit the mold, but I also believe GOD a realist...look at the people he chose to work with...They were certainly not the ideal.....

There were many IDEALISTS in Jesus' day...I am not certain he hung with them.

Why is Billy Joel going through my head......
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 05:58 PM.


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