Ehbeth
I'm not convinced that children are not in greater danger. I think they will be more suceptible to sexual abuse. Someone spoke earlier of a "yuch factor". I think this is a good and healthy response especially for kids. As this "yuch factor" is eroded the child is less able to recognized potential abuse. As most pedophiles are male it is logical to expect an increase in the # of victims. This is not to say that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles. I want to emphasize that. My point is that the child's natural defense is being eroded. Someone asked earlier if I knew any gay people. Yes and I also know several victims of child abuse. I would put the safety of the child ahead of the claimed rights of the adult every time.
dadothree wrote:. Sexual orienetation is but one small consideration in whether or not a person will make a good parent. ..
Yes, but it is an essential one in that, so far at least, a man and a woman are required to create a child. They are generally referred to as its parents.
Parenting involves other important things as well, but that is the essence of it.
Chrissee wrote:dadothree wrote:. Sexual orienetation is but one small consideration in whether or not a person will make a good parent. ..
Yes, but it is an essential one in that, so far at least, a man and a woman are required to create a child. They are generally referred to as its parents.
Parenting involves other important things as well, but that is the essence of it.
Paraphrased: Sexual orientation is the essence of parenthood.
That statement is, in all due respect, pure rubbish and not supported by any logic or evidence. Sexual oreientation has virtually NOTHING to do with parenting. There are many, many married couples who are gay or bi-sexual, one or sometimes both. I guess it is OK though as long as they stay in the closet, right? Most women are more involved in parenting than men, therefore, it would follow that two women would make better parents than a man and a woman, biology and barbaric religious beliefs notwithstanding.
Quote:Main Entry: ho·mo·phobia [...] : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
source: "homophobia." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 Jan. 2005).
The first word in the definition is "IRRATIONAL"
So the fear, aversion, or discrimination, must be irrational to meet your own requirement.
If my fear,aversion, or discrimination, is rational then it is not a phobia.
As a comparison, acrophobia is the "abnormal dread of heights" but if you fear (as I would) climbing a 1000 ft tower to change a light bulb. That's not a phobia. That is a rational and well justified fear.
As I said there is an obvious attempt to change the meaning of the word.
As an example: a local radio station had a sex expert in the studio. One caller was concerned that his girlfriend had become very close friends with a homosexual male. He was worried that she would want this new friend to join them for sex. Although he new he could refuse and planned to do so, he worried that their relationship might be adversely affected. Without waiting to get all the facts this sexpert called him homophobic. When they called the girlfriend on the air, she said quite plainly that she did want to have a threesome and was extremely disappointed by his refusal. The young man obviously felt that he was being coerced to have sex with another man. So his resistance was not homophobic. Also simply choosing to not engage in homosexual behavior is not homophobic, although it is sometimes labeled as such.
Chrissee wrote:dadothree wrote:. Sexual orienetation is but one small consideration in whether or not a person will make a good parent. ..
Yes, but it is an essential one in that, so far at least, a man and a woman are required to create a child. They are generally referred to as its parents.
Parenting involves other important things as well, but that is the essence of it.
There are so many things wrong with this post that it's hard to know where to start.
At the absolute minimum creating a child (in a lesbian couple) would require a sperm donor.... That hardly requires that the biological parents even know one another. Let alone that it is the essence of being a parent.
The ability to impregnate a woman hardly makes one qualified to be a parent.
Your statement basically states that adoptive parents aren't really parents because they are not the biological parents.
Your statement could also be read to imply that a rapist is a "parent."
I think you are a troubled person.
As this thread seems, at this point, to have become, IMO only, rather circular and no longer productive, this will be my last post here. My previous post was the longest "back and forth" post I have ever left at A2K, and that's neither my typical not preferred style of response.
In closing, I'd like to paraphrase part of one of your responses (a while back) : 'I have no problem with gay marriage'. This sentiment is, in the end, rather key, and reflects the important fact that you and I can, after all, share at least some common ground.
At the absolute minimum creating a child (in a lesbian couple) would require a sperm donor.... That hardly requires that the biological parents even know one another. Let alone that it is the essence of being a parent.
The ability to impregnate a woman hardly makes one qualified to be a parent.
Your statement basically states that adoptive parents aren't really parents because they are not the biological parents.
Your statement could also be read to imply that a rapist is a "parent."
I think you are a troubled person.
At the absolute minimum creating a child (in a lesbian couple) would require a sperm donor.... That hardly requires that the biological parents even know one another. Let alone that it is the essence of being a parent.
The ability to impregnate a woman hardly makes one qualified to be a parent.
Your statement basically states that adoptive parents aren't really parents because they are not the biological parents.
Your statement could also be read to imply that a rapist is a "parent."
I think you are a troubled person.
On the face of it, this sounds as if the Supreme Court had first used a very broad definition of "discrimination" and "equal rights" to declare unconstitutional all discrimination it doesn't like. It then used the wild card of "compelling state interest" and the arbitrary technicality of "suspect classes" to excuse the kinds of discrimination it likes. I can accept this as a factual account of how the law is currently applied in the United States. But I can't take it seriously as a legal doctrine that has any normative implications. In particular, I can see no compelling reason why, in the Supreme Court's opinion, married people ought to be privileged, but marriage ought not be a privilege of heterosexuals.
Why? If tuitions were equal between out-of-state stutents and in-state students, what undesirable consequences establish a compelling state interest not to have them? If retirees received $800 a month for 30 years after their 55th birthday rather than $1200 a month for 20 years after their 65th birthday, what undesirable consequences establish a compelling state interest not to provide that option? If widows weren't priviledged heirs, what terrible things would happen to the state? I don't see them.
Thomas, you are, without question, one of my favorite posters on A2K, and I jumped into this thread only because I saw one of your posts here. I find that you are intelligent, thoughtful, courteous, and almost always wrong -- but even when you're wrong, you make me think.
Frankly, it can get exhausting trying to follow all the disparate strands of these arguments, and I find that I have neither the time nor the energy to give all these topics the attention they deserve. So I must, with some regret, decline to respond to your latest round of questions.
Quote:At the absolute minimum creating a child (in a lesbian couple) would require a sperm donor.... That hardly requires that the biological parents even know one another. Let alone that it is the essence of being a parent.
I never calimed that anything waas the essence of being a parent. WTF are you talking about? Your premise is wrong anyway as many lesbians are raising parents from former relationships.
Quote:The ability to impregnate a woman hardly makes one qualified to be a parent.
Though i fail to see the relevancy of this statement as a rebuttal, I agree, two women generally are more caring and better parents than a man and a woman.
Quote:Your statement basically states that adoptive parents aren't really parents because they are not the biological parents.
No it doesn't.
Quote:Your statement could also be read to imply that a rapist is a "parent."
Now this one really comes out of left field. Where did you come up with that interpretation?
Quote:I think you are a troubled person.
Consider the source.
Has anyone noticed that the vast majority of those who post virulent opposition to gay marriage are men? Ever wonder why that is? I don't.
Ah...excuse me? Within North American culture, particularly American culture, there are no extant taboos regarding homosexuality? Folks in Arkansas, sitting around the breakfast table, talk about anal sex with the same ease and emotional equanimity as when they speak about flower arrangement? Why did you bother writing that paragraph, thomas?
Thomas wrote:Agreed, but there is nothing wrong with it. Consistency of social norms over time, and over a wide range of people, is a good in itself. It allows everybody to know what the rules are. Hence "it has always been that way" and "Everybody does it" are actually good arguments for doing something in one way rather than another. I am not sure you are appreciating this point enough.
Odd stance for a 'libertarian', thomas.
More important, this is an argument that tells us nothing of value re our question (or very many others just like it).
You claim that such agreements are a 'good' in and of themselves - in aid of cohesion and social order. Wolfowitz would agree with you. Hume would not...you've gone from 'is' to 'ought' in the blink of an eye.
It [people being born equal, T.] is a principle, a moral principle...an idealized understanding of how we OUGHT to think about things and how we ought to treat others around us, and how we ought to design our social/political systems and establish our values and then pass them on to our children.
blatham wrote:
Ah...excuse me? Within North American culture, particularly American culture, there are no extant taboos regarding homosexuality? Folks in Arkansas, sitting around the breakfast table, talk about anal sex with the same ease and emotional equanimity as when they speak about flower arrangement? Why did you bother writing that paragraph, thomas?
thomas said:
Because I didn't say there are no taboos against homosexuality in America -- only that they are not the only reason why Americans oppose gay marriage. And because I think you are underappreciating the extent to which these alternative reasons matter.
Thomas wrote:
Agreed, but there is nothing wrong with it. Consistency of social norms over time, and over a wide range of people, is a good in itself. It allows everybody to know what the rules are. Hence "it has always been that way" and "Everybody does it" are actually good arguments for doing something in one way rather than another. I am not sure you are appreciating this point enough.
blatham:
Odd stance for a 'libertarian', thomas.
Judging by this comment, you haven't read much of the libertarian literature. From Adam Smith to to Milton Friedman to Richard Posner, you will find ample opposition against rapid change of the law. Even the most perfect law is ineffective if only lawyers know it exists, and this justifies some bias towards conservatism and conformism even if you believe the law ought to be changed -- as I do in the case of same sex marriage.
blatham wrote:
More important, this is an argument that tells us nothing of value re our question (or very many others just like it).
thomas:
I am sorry it didn't tell you anything of value to you. I was hoping to imply something valuable about timing. You want a radical change in the institution of marriage, right now. And while I agree that the change you suggest eventually ought to happen, I disagree with your slandering your opposition as people with a phobia that presumably needs therapy, not as reasonable grown-ups who need to be taken seriously and persuaded. A few threads back you mentioned that you recently listened to a tape where you discussed politics in the sixties. You were suprised about the arrogance with which you and your friends treated the women around you. Is it possible -- just possible -- that you are now directing the same, youthful arrogance against a new target, that being conservatives who oppose gay marriage? Frankly, it does look this way to me.
blatham wrote:
You claim that such agreements are a 'good' in and of themselves - in aid of cohesion and social order. Wolfowitz would agree with you. Hume would not...you've gone from 'is' to 'ought' in the blink of an eye.
thomas:
Interesting. Can you show me a Wolfowitz quote where he says America should slowly reform its marriage laws towards allowing same-sex marriage? Or a Hume quote arguing for rapid and radical changes in the law? I don't believe such quotes exist, but I'm always willing to learn.
addressing georgeob2, blatham wrote:
It [people being born equal, T.] is a principle, a moral principle...an idealized understanding of how we OUGHT to think about things and how we ought to treat others around us, and how we ought to design our social/political systems and establish our values and then pass them on to our children.
thomas:
Rigorous application of your principle requires that everybody who is allowed to marry, is allowed to marry. Once again, do you allow for any exceptions to that principle? And if you allow incest, polyandry and polygamy to be exceptions, why not homosexuality?
Should the majority have no voice in this matter? Again the majority views on polygamy, incest, and polyandry are widely accepted, as Thomas has noted. What makes this issue different?
Chrissee wrote:dadothree wrote:Ehbeth
I'm not convinced that children are not in greater danger. I think they will be more suceptible to sexual abuse. Someone spoke earlier of a "yuch factor". I think this is a good and healthy response especially for kids. As this "yuch factor" is eroded the child is less able to recognized potential abuse. As most pedophiles are male it is logical to expect an increase in the # of victims. This is not to say that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles. I want to emphasize that. My point is that the child's natural defense is being eroded. Someone asked earlier if I knew any gay people. Yes and I also know several victims of child abuse. I would put the safety of the child ahead of the claimed rights of the adult every time.
I guess than that lesbians are more qulaified to parent since the risk of pedophillia is reduced? I haven't read all these pages of rationalizations for bigotry, but that is what is. Sexual orienetation is but one small consideration in whether or not a person will make a good parent. .Of course, this is coming from a feminist lesbian POV but I think two women can parent as well as any hetero couple, probably better, having two mothers can be very special.
Wow, talk about dancing on a head of a pin to try to rationaize one's prejudices. Fear of gay marriages certainly is irrational and usually based on deep-seated doubts of one's own sexual preferences. In other words, quite frankly, a good many, probably most, of those who oppose gay marriages are repressed homosexuals.
The most hateful and selfish people are homosexual activist.
Fact is, I don't hate anyone and I haven't called anyone names
Chrissee
I suggest you reread your own posts.
you wrote
Quote:[/color][QUOTE]"I haven't read all these pages of rationalizations for bigotry, but thats what it is"
"WoW talk about dancing on the head of a pin to rationalize ones prejudices. Fear of Gay marriage most certainly is irrational and based on deep-seated doubdt of one's own sexual preferences."
