2 of 8
2
Can anyone else tell how it is ok to post something so hateful?
Posted: 05 November 2014 03:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.

Why is that a “slip of the tongue?” The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural?

Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring.

Yes, and I find that to be distressing.

Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history.

Sure. And I think that we should support persons engaged in such efforts. But that does not mean that such situations are ideal, as is the case with biological parents raising their children in a supportive and nurturing environment.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 10:39 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:59 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 09:48 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:25 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

The same level of social relevance.

And the words “social relevance” means what according to you exactly?

Relevant to society.

1) Gays only make up a small portion of society.
2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large.


Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation.

Sterile heterosexuals can’t reproduce, either. What should we do about them? Prevent them from getting married because they are “irrelevant”?

“What’s good for the goose . . . “

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.

I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4219
Joined  2009-10-21
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 03:50 AM
Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.

Why is that a “slip of the tongue?” The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural?

I find it hard to believe that, after a couple days of consideration, you can’t see that saying “sure, gay is natural, but so is rape” is insulting and abhorrent. And you went on to name other abhorrent behaviors as if homosexuality belonged in that list. At the very least, thank Handydan for pointing that there is a problem with the filter between your brain and your fingertips. Hopefully he’s saved you from ever saying something like that in polite company.

You didn’t need to list any behaviors at all, you could have just stated the supposed fallacy. No one had brought up the naturalistic fallacy until you did so why did you feel the need to make the point with such vulgar examples? And I already told you that you mis-applied it. Do you disagree? Have you looked it up and found any other way to explain yourself?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28

You clearly didn’t understand my point Lausten.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
LoisL - 05 November 2014 12:49 PM

Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation.

In the United States, the current fertility rate is 1.8 children per female. Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources. Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.

LoisL - 05 November 2014 12:49 PM

Sterile heterosexuals can’t reproduce, either.

But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce.  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4219
Joined  2009-10-21
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

You clearly didn’t understand my point Lausten.

Or, clearly you don’t realize how your words were received. I suggest you run them by some other people. Maybe the spouse of a friend that you know is involved with social issues. Someone who will give you an honest answer. Ask them what they think. I would suggest you talk to someone in your work environment, but I’d be setting you up for a harassment suit, since you are crossing the line into a protected class and saying something offensive.

Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.

Something we actually agree on. The rise of the middle class has been the most effective way to create a culture that places a high value on all of its children.

Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources.

And there you go sneaking your narrow minded value judgments into the conversation again. It is not immoral to have a bunch of children. It might be seemingly selfish, like needing someone to work on the farm or to otherwise bring income into the family, but what options does a subsistence farmer have? Or are you implying that gay couples don’t have decent values? What are you saying? Do you know what goes on in the rec-rooms of some of those nice houses in the suburbs? nuclear family does not automatically equal good values.

Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce.  LOL

Hardy har har. Lois’ point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary.

A couple points of clarification. 1) I should have said “Appeal to nature” not “Naturalistic fallacy”, otherwise my point is the same.
2) I can’t find a fallacy definition that quite fits the statement in the OP, except maybe the “if-by-whiskey” fallacy. Look it up if you don’t know it. The name comes from a speech where the speaker didn’t really take a stand about the abolition of whiskey, but just listed some things associated with it. He is then later able to say he said nothing offensive, or didn’t defend drunkeness, even though he knows his words could be taken that way.

[ Edited: 05 November 2014 03:53 PM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Lausten - 05 November 2014 03:25 PM
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce.  LOL

Hardy har har. Lois’ point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary.

1. Lausten, you don’t think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse?

2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks.

3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct?

4. My point about “fertile homosexuals” was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner’s sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 03:50 AM
Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.

Why is that a “slip of the tongue?” The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural?

Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring.

Yes, and I find that to be distressing.

Lausten - 04 November 2014 05:59 PM

It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history.

Sure. And I think that we should support persons engaged in such efforts. But that does not mean that such situations are ideal, as is the case with biological parents raising their children in a supportive and nurturing environment.

Just saying that two biological parents with children is ideal is very naive and misleading. Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer, depression or other mental challenges, violent tendencies, alcohol and drug addiction, malnourishment, sudden death of a parent, incarceration of a parent, debilitating diseases of all kinds, learning disabilities, reckless finances and gambling addiction, loss of employment,......The list could go on endlessly. Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with. Most families probably start out as your ideal and then along come the realities of life, like the list above. No ideal situation remains intact for very long. By harping on this ideal, you add pressure to the families that had it and lost it, or never had it and have no way to achieve it.

Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children. The reality of our family structures is largely accidental, we can not dictate how it will be. For those lucky enough to happen upon it, I wish them well and hope it lasts.

The reality is that the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for children, as a good, solid, healthy relationship for the adults involved in keeping that family going regardless of whether they are the biological parents of the children or their sex, or sexual identity. And every family, no matter what that looks like needs the support of the government, their extended families, their communities, and their culture and society at large.

To only support a narrow definition of what constitutes a good family is a moral crime and a failure of family values.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 04:21 PM
Lausten - 05 November 2014 03:25 PM
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce.  LOL

Hardy har har. Lois’ point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary.

1. Lausten, you don’t think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse?

2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks.

3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct?

4. My point about “fertile homosexuals” was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner’s sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.

Isn’t an “orphan” an unwanted child? Are you saying they deliberately create children, (orphans) that they don’t want? I think it is the opposite. They deliberately create children they really do want, UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer…

I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.

I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don’t think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.

Many families attain this ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for children

The structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

Isn’t an “orphan” an unwanted child?

From Wikipedia:
“Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through “death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents”.In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent.”

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?

A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 05:55 PM
Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer…

I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.

I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don’t think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.

Many families attain this ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for children

The structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

Isn’t an “orphan” an unwanted child?

From Wikipedia:
“Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through “death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents”.In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent.”

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?

A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

Of course it’s ideal, but how many kids get an ideal upbringing?  How do we create a society where all or even most kids have biological parents and a stable supportive famiy? It’s becoming rarer and rarer. Wishing it were so does no good at all. Many of those kids are not orphans or even half orphans. They are children whose parents rejected them or who are drug addicts or who are sick either physically or mentally or who are too young or too poor to raise them.  Some are the product of rape. What do we do with the millions of kids who are not so fortunate as to have two biologocal parents in a stable and supportive family? Throw them to the wolves? Or do we allow them to have loving adoptive parents who can provide a stable and supportive family, even if they are gay? I know several kids being raised by gay parents in stable and supportive families. The kids are thriving. Would you stop that because it doesn’t fit your notion of “ideal”?

Lois

[ Edited: 05 November 2014 08:26 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
LoisL - 05 November 2014 08:24 PM

Of course it’s ideal,

Yes! Thank you.

LoisL - 05 November 2014 08:24 PM

but how many kids get an ideal upbringing?  How do we create a society where all or even most kids have biological parents and a stable supportive famiy? It’s becoming rarer and rarer. Wishing it were so does no good at all. Many of those kids are not orphans or even half orphans. They are children whose parents rejected them or who are drug addicts or who are sick either physically or mentally or who are too young to raise them? Some are the product of rape. What do we do with the millions of kids who are not so fortunate as to have two biologocal parents in a stable and supportive family? Throw them to the wolves? Or do we allow them to have loving adoptive parents who can provide a stable and supportive family, even if they are gay? I know several kids being raised by gay parents in stable and supportive families. The kids are thriving. Would you stop that because it doesn’t fit your notion of “ideal”?

I would shoot for the practical Lois, and hope that society would offer its full support. I just don’t want us to lose sight of the ideal. It matters for all sorts of things.

The case of “orphans” that I wrote of before was in reference to IVF (in vitro fertilization). I was not a case of picking on adoptees.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 02:52 PM
LoisL - 05 November 2014 12:49 PM

Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation.

In the United States, the current fertility rate is 1.8 children per female. Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources. Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.

LoisL - 05 November 2014 12:49 PM

Sterile heterosexuals can’t reproduce, either.

But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce.  LOL

If not being able to reproduce is the justification for not allowing homosexuals to get married, it is a specious justification. A gay couple can enlist a surrogate mothers and the gay men can both reproduce.  Lesbians can use surrogate sperm from more than one male and reproduce.  This would have the added advantage, over typical hetero-sexual couple reproduction of broadening the gene pool.

But following the reasoning that a State’s compelling reason for issuing a marriage license is reproduction and raising children:

1) The State, then, should only grant a marriage license to couples who agree to reproduce and raise their children.

2) Sterile persons of any sexual orientation should not be allowed to get married, unless their prospective partner is fertile, and the couple agrees to use surrogate methods to reproduce.

3) Any couple who have not reproduced within a set number of years should have their marriage license revoked.

4)  Women past child bearing age, who have no children under age 18, should have their marriage license revoked and should not be allowed to remain married to a fertile man, unless both she and her husband agree to, and have the resources to carry through with having another child through a surrogate Such women should not be issued a marriage license to re-marry, unless she and her new fertile husband agree to use a surrogate to further reproduce.

5) A fertile pre-op transgender male should be issued a marriage license if a fertile lesbian or straight woman wishes to marry him, and they both agree to have children.

6) If one party of a marriage becomes infertile due to any reason, before they have children, the marriage license should be revoked, unless the couple develops and immediate plan to use a surrogate method to reproduce. 

7) Homosexuals should be issued a marriage license, but only if they agree to use surrogate methods to reproduce.

8) Divorce should never be granted to couples who have children below the age of 18, unless it can be documented that the children’s well-being is better served by the divorce, than their remaining married.

9)  Marriage licenses should be revoked and the children taken away, whenever it can be documented that the parents lack the capacity or interest to raise their children any better than a foster home. 

10) Marriage licenses should be not be issued to a couple who cannot document that they have the financial resources to raise a child, or who cannot, at least, document that they cam be expected to have the needed financial or support resources within a set number of years.  If the set number of years, comes and goes, and they have no children, their marriage license should be revoked.

OR

We could just forget all that nonsense and decide that marriage of two adults,who are not closely genetically related, and who love, and are committed to each other, is a basic human right.

[ Edited: 05 November 2014 10:44 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:30 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.

I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families?

There is more than one type and meaning when using the word monogamy. I found at least 4 types meaning different things. I assume you mean monogamous as in exclusively sexual with ones partner or spouse. No outside messing around. I think you should start a separate thread for that topic because it will only further complicate this already complicated thread.

I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.

[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:15 PM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 8
2