equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

not less valid, but surely incomplete and not nearly enough to make sweeping statements about biology, sociology, and history.

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.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

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.

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

i see -- so biology, sociology, and history are somehow incompatible with my assertion that there are many forms of successful families?

wow.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

what role can ONLY a father play.

again, this has been the question from the beginning.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i see -- so biology, sociology, and history are somehow incompatible with my assertion that there are many forms of successful families?

I've never disputed that there are other forms of families. But saying that both a father and a mother is irrelevant to the family flies in the face of biology, sociology and history. Which was your point, which I disputed.

Throughout history, the role of the father has shifted, and it will probably shift further still. But there's a big difference between saying that fathers have a changing, dynamic role in the family, and saying that fathers aren't necessary to the family.

And with that, I really must be going...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

To be honest, I wasn't really sure what point you were making.

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

No, it negates the generalization of adoption that you made earlier.

In fact I know some mothers who have one of each and have actually claimed their bond with the adopted child was stronger than the biological one.

And many biological mothers have postpartum depression or other reasons for difficult bonds. So your generalization is just that, and a pretty crappy one at that.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

And many straight, married couples are never able to bond with their biological chidren, neglect them etc. So what exactly is your point?

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

The Newsweek article also states that harm to boys is especially pronounced in poor boys (maternal poverty, which I've been speaking to), and that the adverse effect of fatherless boys is ameliorated by the presence of a non-related male figure in the boy's life. These are both contradictory to the point you're attempting to make.

It's very clear, you just don't seem to be willing to admit this.

But hey, red herring, anyway.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

and saying that fathers aren't necessary to the family.

this is a perfect example of taking what you want out of a statement in order to make a political point.

let's put it this way: fathers matter to THEIR families.

there's an enormous distinction there.

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

Again, re-read what I stated:

Not that you necessarily share all of these beliefs

I implore you to understand the difference between a general analogy for the sake of argument, and a direct statement pointed at you. If I mean to call you anything in particular, I won't dance around it. I'll tell you directly.

To elaborate further, holding unscientific and generally disproven views about homosexuals and their suitability in society is no different than "feeling" that the world is 5,000 years old or having a "hunch" that the world is flat or, for that matter, a "gut feeling" that it's the Jews that are the cause of all wars. All of these concerns about gay marriage, gay parenting and all other sorts of issues have already been the subject of research ad nauseum amongst the credible scientific community (i.e., the results that would get published in scientific journals, etc.; not the views that get illustrated in a Chick tract).

If we are to live in a society with any kind of order or some semblance of civilization, we have to respect the scientific process irrespective of our personal prejudices. Do we want the emerging nation of Iraq, for instance, to be governed by logic, reason, and an objective standard of human and civil rights--or do we want them mired in ethnic conflict substantiated by centuries-old stereotypes and grudges they'd call "tradition"? If that's the case, then us "civilized" folk need to set an example. I don't expect followers of Sunni Islam to suddenly change their mind about Shi'ites being apostates, but I do hope that they can learn that both of them are objectively deserving of equality and dignity under the law while still holding sharp theological disagreements about each other. And I expect no less from conservatives regarding homosexuals.

I do know precisely where you come from philosophically and theologically, and I think we probably have more in common than either of us would want to acknowledge.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that all these nonsensical argumentum ad antiquitatem logical fallacies spewing...

Your gentle response made me think of a book I was reading recently...

- 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

Another of my favorite philosophers. It is the concept of Logos, the divine governing principle, that I find so appealing. It sounds a bit like this:

In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God. - Gospel of John 1:1

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

Again, re-read what I stated:

You attributed those views to me on page 3 of this thread...

Originally Posted by melon

I implore you to understand the difference between a general analogy for the sake of argument, and a direct statement pointed at you.

Hey! That's my bread and butter in FYM!

Originally Posted by melon

...and I think we probably have more in common than either of us would want to acknowledge.

That is probably the most accurate post of this thread. And after all is said and done, I do hold a tremendous amount of respect for your intellect, education, faith, and courage.

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

Another of my favorite philosophers. It is the concept of Logos, the divine governing principle, that I find so appealing.

I guess this is a separate tangent from the rest of the thread, but...

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.

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. 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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

I am happy that you are aware of "Logos," and, in particular, how John 1:1 should have been translated.

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...

Originally Posted by melon

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.

I certainly am, I mentioned him earlier in this thread...

Originally Posted by AEON

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).

Originally Posted by melon

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.

There are two basic reasons I quoted Epictetus. First, I believe that we as humans are instilled with the ability to recognize Logos and apply it to our lives. It is at the very core of our reasoning abilities and necessary to identify Harmony (another Stoic tem) in the universe. Without it, we would have the moral judgment of a dog. While I won't go so far as to call Logos instinctual - but almost. Of course, this leads to the threat of everyone "claiming" Logos to fit their own views. But I think when we are honest with our assessment of the world around us, and if we really imagine we are wearing the Ring of Gyges, Logos is that near-innate desire to do as eternal wisdom would have us do.

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.

Originally Posted by melon

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.

It is true, God is more concerned with our heart and soul than with our body. Yet, our body is to be treated as a temple while we are here.

Originally Posted by melon

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."

No, but the ability of that relationship to produce children is certainly a part of the Harmony (intention) of the universe.

Originally Posted by melon

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.

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.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

That's just not true. I don't really know what else to say at this point.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Wow. I actually just finished reading the entire Newsweek article, and for those who didn't, I'd like to point out that the entire article is about difficulties that, for various reasons, boys experience nowadays in the education system, and that the only parts that have to do with fathers are the two paragraphs that you quoted. As I've said, the one paragraph can be explained by pointing out that all of those things also correlate to the economics of being a single mother, and the second paragraph about the mentors contradicts your entire point. You're taking those two paragraphs as well as Obama's speech, assigning them way too much weight, and making spurious correlations.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Later age kids is a different story. The important thing for a child is to establish bonds at an early age, but it could be biological or adoptive parents. There is no difference. There's no psychological connection with child birth. There is not.

[phillyfan26]

It sounds like the emphasis in these articles is on two parents, not a mother and father specifically.

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

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...

It's just "Logo," which certainly has a meaning outside "Logos."

Logo (TV channel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 [i]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.

My observations of nature and Harmony conclude quite the opposite. The fluidity of sexuality pervades nature completely. We can look simply upon single-celled organisms that lack a sexuality entirely and merely split from each other. There are other species that reproduce by creating "clones" of themselves--i.e., as a consequence of nature, they are genetically identical. There is the example of the sea horse, where there is male and female, but the eggs are deposited into the male for development--e.g., "male pregnancy." And, yes, it is worth reiterating the demonstrated examples of sexual variance amongst animals.

And it is worth demonstrating that the fluidity of sexuality has also been recognized as virtuous in many civilizations, including, as an example, the Bugis of Indonesia:

Bugis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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).

How very interesting, really, that the language used--"five separate genders that are necessary to keep the world in balance and harmony"--corresponds so well to the point that we are discussing.

I humbly submit that your objection is likely because it is outside the realm of your experience, and that it is easier to accept the status quo on something that does not personally affect you. I understand that. However, I counter that, had it not been for the courage of many prominent theologians to challenge convention, the religion that we believe today would be vastly different. Philo of Alexandria is a good example of that, but syncretism was not exactly rebellious in the first century B.C./A.D., especially in the Roman Empire.

Instead, I'd like to cite one of the most influential individuals on Christian theology and Western philosophy of the past two millennia, St. Thomas Aquinas. It is easy to mention that his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, was so influential that it was singularly responsible for his ascension into sainthood. What is not remembered is that Aquinas was condemned twice first in 1270 and more vigorously in 1277, three years after his death for contradicting the dominant Augustinian theology of his day, with no less than 20 Thomist positions declared heretical. It took fifty years for his theological positions to become embraced so that he was declared a saint.

It is not easy to hold a view that runs contrary to orthodoxy, but from years of reflection, I can come to no other conclusion that the dominant anti-gay theology of Christianity is error.

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 [i]conquers[/] all is the reason for so many failed marriages and relationships.

And I would agree! Gay relationships are certainly just as capable of this kind of love as their straight counterparts. The fact that so many fail on this front--gay and straight--I chalk up to culture that promotes an infantilized and immature society. It should be noted that those with higher education have a considerably lower divorce rate than the rest of the population. If Western society placed more value on intellectualism than, say, professional athletics, I think we'd be better off. But I digress...it is worth reiterating that gay families, in no way, contradict this idea.

[martha]

I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?





And it's ok, I don't expect a, ahem, straight answer.