![]() |
#761 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 01:37 AM
|
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.
__________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
#762 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 01:37 AM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#763 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,036
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
Quote:
i see -- so biology, sociology, and history are somehow incompatible with my assertion that there are many forms of successful families? wow. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#764 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,036
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#765 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 01:37 AM
|
Quote:
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... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#766 | ||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:37 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#767 |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 10:37 PM
|
And many straight, married couples are never able to bond with their biological chidren, neglect them etc. So what exactly is your point?
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
#768 | |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,743
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
Quote:
It's very clear, you just don't seem to be willing to admit this. But hey, red herring, anyway. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#769 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,036
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#770 | ||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#771 | |||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:37 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#772 | ||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:37 PM
|
You attributed those views to me on page 3 of this thread...
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#773 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#774 | |||||||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:37 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#775 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:37 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#776 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,743
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#777 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:37 PM
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#778 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:37 PM
|
It sounds like the emphasis in these articles is on two parents, not a mother and father specifically.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#779 | |||||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:37 PM
|
Quote:
Logo (TV channel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#780 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 06:37 PM
|
![]() 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. ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) | FallingStar | PLEBA Archive | 147 | 07-28-2003 03:01 PM |
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) | CMM | Interference Gatherings | 80 | 04-14-2003 10:02 PM |
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. | Johnny Swallow | Lemonade Stand Archive | 8 | 03-07-2003 04:53 PM |
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) | sulawesigirl4 | Lemonade Stand Archive | 61 | 01-05-2003 03:29 PM |
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto | WildHonee | PLEBA Archive | 9 | 11-02-2001 07:36 PM |