equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

Idol worship (Reagan, Bush) may be a requirement of conservatism, but it isn't of modern liberalism.

Agreed. And I'm not a Republican...

[INDY500]

Can couples whose children are delivered via C-section be called "parents" too since their children have not been anointed by vagina?

Diamond, relinquish your sash and tiara. The thread has a new drama queen.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I'm sure this is some sort of awesome Ackbarian trap, but I'll bite. I dont classify myself as any particular denomination. I'm sure some of my reasoning falls into the secular humanist realm, but I prefer to just think of myself as an individual who bases his actions on fairness to others with a deep sense of empathy. I dont shoehorn my actions into what I think would fit into the framework of my particular 'denomination'. I'll also add that I'm not athiest, but rather agnostic (and not even a hardline teapot agnostic).

Thanks. I was seriously curious.

[Jive Turkey]

And just to add to what I said earlier, like most things, religion can be both beautiful and ugly. I get frustrated with it when people use it to interfere with progress or the lives of others that it shouldnt be affecting. I just think it works best on a personal level, is all. Something happens to the message when it becomes organized; it starts being used in ways i dont believe it was intended for. such is life I suppose. I'm really not a religion hater though

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by melon

Let it be known then that adoptive parents are really not "parents" at all. Too bad for you, Joseph!

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?

[AEON]

Much of this tangent seems to boil down to whether or not you think there is value in gender roles at all. For those that don't - they see no problem with gay adoption. Those that do are concerned that "gender identity" will be a problem with the kid.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Much of this tangent seems to boil down to whether or not you think there is value in gender roles at all. For those that don't - they see no problem with gay adoption. Those that do are concerned that "gender identity" will be a problem with the kid.

There was a link I posted that said studies have been done that disproved the notion that same sex couple's children have gender identity issues

[phillyfan26]

What about single parents?

[Jive Turkey]

oh, and AEON, i didnt notice your avatar before. I hope you got my Ackbar reference

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

oh, and AEON, i didnt notice your avatar before. I hope you got my Ackbar reference

Yes I did - it got a good smile But he was crappy admiral and I try not to set traps, although I've fallen into a few of them here...

And Jedi mind tricks are very tough to pull off on the Internet - I've been trying to convince Melon that he's really a Fundamentalist Gun Luvin' Palin Adorin' Good Ol' Boy to no avail...

[nathan1977]

These aren't the droids Melon's looking for?

[indra]

Originally Posted by diamond

I wouldn't let Adam Lambert babysit my children.

Here's a good babysitter for you.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

What about single parents?

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

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by AEON

Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.

The President certainly seemed to.

a good Postmodernist loves to destroy the meaning of - well - just about anything. A is not A

No, it's blue.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

There was a link I posted that said studies have been done that disproved the notion that same sex couple's children have gender identity issues

In today's politically charged atmosphere - and considering the outrage that would follow - what scientist would dare publish anything but that result?

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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?

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BVS

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...

Originally Posted by diamond

My Way News - ABC's `Good Morning America' cancels Lambert

intolerant bigots!?

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.

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[Tiger Edge]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.