How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's that time again

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


100 posted 03-07-2007 04:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mom and dad can beat the living daylights out of a child and still be considered a better parenting nucleus than one or two people that love, guide, and encourage the child without the use of any kind of abusive tactics.

Another interesting comparison...traditional now meaning those who beat their kids? No, Rwood, to follow in the extremes Ron introduced, mothers and fathers who beat their children would certainly not be better than gays who don't. If you feel that a large portion of mother/father parenting beat their children, then I'm glad we live in different worlds.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my query . As I tried to explain, it was out of curiosity, not meant in a confrontational way. I have no idea which would be better, or even if it is a question. As you point out, I suppose it would depend on each individual case, since there is good and bad in all types. Our growing up environment can affect our adulthood. One can see it in the difference between growing up in a small town or big city, or growing up in the north as opposed to the south, or attending private schools instead of public ones. Could gay parents instead of mother/father be such a case? Only my curiosity caused me to ask for Hush's opinion.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


101 posted 03-07-2007 04:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Should military personnel not be allowed to adopt because it's cruel to uproot children all the time? Should workaholic parents not be allowed children because their kids are neglected? Should Angelina not have been allowed to adopt a kid because she was single at the time? If I were to try and adopt, should I be denied because my liberal views might affect my child? Come on, now... It is entirely possible (and in fact, very common considering the high divorce rate) for "non-traditional" parents to be very good parents, and to raise very good kids.

Do you disagree?


No, Hush, I do not disagree at all

Unfortunately, I believe that the rise in divorces and in both parents working has a direct relationship with a rising teenage crime rate and gang participation. Environment DOES play a part...
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


102 posted 03-07-2007 05:24 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

"mothers and fathers who beat their children would certainly not be better than gays who don't."

Thank you, but Judges don't think so.

My comment refers to all the children who were removed for abuse by DHHS, and then got sent back into the home by the courts. If the traditional nucleus is intact, mother-father, they assume that's the best place for them. Many of those children do not survive another beating. Hey, this is our world, and the court system is backed up with such cases.

And yet, the courts have a very hard time placing a child in non-traditional environment.

That was my point. Those who make legal decisions with a child's life.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


103 posted 03-07-2007 05:37 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"Yup. I don't think 'In God we trust' belongs on our money"

Well, whether anybody likes it or not, this country was "founded" by men of God.

*And when I say "founded" I mean stolen from the Natives Americans.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


104 posted 03-07-2007 06:13 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

what does our foundation have anything with trust? much less belief?
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


105 posted 03-07-2007 08:21 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

I'm not talking about trust. He said he doesn't think "In God we trust" should be on the dollar bill and the above statement is how I responded to that.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


106 posted 03-07-2007 10:32 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
Because, Stephen... it's an aspect of that person's identity that has nothing to do with others' lives... a black person never hurt anyone just by being black, and a gay person never hurt another person just by being gay... or by loving another of the same gender. That is not harmful... yopu might argue that it is harmful to your soul, and against the rules of God... but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country.

But Homosexuality is different than race, in that it has not been shown to be inborn.  Not to mention that there are reasons to think that heterosexuality is normal standard, from which homosexuality is a deviance from.  And yes, I am of the old-fashioned intuitive sorts who takes notice of such teleological trifles as complimentary functional reproductive organs.         Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder, until the growing pressure of political correctness has made it villainous to say so, attributing all the negative baggage to society's backward views rather than to homosexuality.  Physician heal thyself.  It's a great tactic.  


But whether or not you agree with that, it stands that a disapproval of homosexuality need not be tacitly compared to racism, since it differs from the race question in significant ways.


Also, I certainly don't think homosexuality in and of itself needs to be illegal.  Nor do I think practicers of homosex need to be divested of civil rights.  I merely think the nature of marriage, justifies the preservation of it's foundational heterosexuality.  
  

And as to faith in God being totally divorced from law, I don't think you really want that.  Our early documents state that the basic rights we all have are based upon a very particular Judeo-Christian conception of God (albeit deistically expressed), not merely the state as state, or the people as people.  If the state were the ultimate arbiter of rights, then law would be king, with no recourse but power struggle.  My whole point (WAY short of man-enforced Theocracy) is that your insistence upon a divorce of religious ideas from public policy is unrealistic, and ultimately undesirable.  For whether you "trust in God" as our coins say, or not, I doubt that you are willing to hand your rights over to either the state, or the tyranny of the 51% vote.  But it is interesting that if it were as simple as that, changing marriage would already be out of the question by popular vote, and current law.


quote:
What's wrong with marriage being "everything to everyone?"


Because then it would cease to be marriage altogether, and become an insipid legal contract, based on literally no criteria but personal desire for financial perks.  And that's truly what will ensue, step by step.  Can brothers and sisters marry, mothers and sons?  Some day they will, because they are currently being "discriminated" against.  Mark my words, when the individual becomes so central as to extinguish any idea of a "right way" either in nature or beyond it, then chaos will follow, however long it may take to get there.  Polygamy is next, but more will follow.


quote:
What impact does two gay people being legally married ahve on your marriage? Does it corrupt yoour marriage? Does it insidiously make you cheat on your wife, or disregard her, or your vows?



Of course not.  You are the one saying it has to do with my marriage personally.  Again, it's not all about me.


quote:
that keeps people on non judeo-Christian sanctioned unions from enjoying that right, and it's wrong.


But Amy there's already a host of people who don't have a "right" to marry according to their own definitions of marriage.  The question has nothing to do with rights (questionably extraneous) of an individual, but rather with whether or not we should change the fundamental definition of marriage.


Ron:
quote:
Mmm. Would I rather be raised by Ozzie and Sharon or by TWO Ozzie Nelsons?  
  

It is interesting that you had to go quite outside of the character of Ozzie Nelson to make that point, in which case it wouldn't be an Ozzie Nelson.  



Christopher:
quote:
Why is tradition important? Why is maintaining a tradition important?


I don't think anyone is arguing for keeping a tradition for tradition's sake.  The foundational heterosexuality of marriage is rooted in more than just tradition.  It is rooted in religion, sociology, and anthropology.  The question is, should a time-honoured tradition be rashly tossed aside, merely because some traditions have proven to be based upon little substance.


quote:
what does our foundation have anything with trust? much less belief?


I'm curious Christopher, do you have real fundamental rights?  And if so, do attribute them to something transcendent, the state as state, or a show of hands?


Stephen.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


107 posted 03-08-2007 12:41 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Uh... Ed? Try "she." Thanks.  

This country was also founded by men who owned slaves... but thankfully, their shortcomings aside, they were smart enough to create a clause about separating church and state.

Stephen

'But Homosexuality is different than race, in that it has not been shown to be inborn.'

So? I was born a woman, (well, a girl, actually), but I chose certain beliefs. Who cares if people choose to be gay?

'Not to mention that there are reasons to think that heterosexuality is normal standard, from which homosexuality is a deviance from.'

So what if people choose to be different?

'Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder,"

Um... progress or censorship? You're a nurse... do you routinely get physican order to drill holes in the skull to realease demons or practice bloodletting? Does your assessment include the pattern of bumps on your patients head? You had to know I wasn't going to fall for that one.  

'it stands that a disapproval of homosexuality need not be tacitly compared to racism, since it differs from the race question in significant ways.'

True enough (If I accept your arguments, which, for conversation's sake, I will), but the behavior of people predjudiced against gays happens to look pretty similar to that of people prejudiced against blacks and other races, so I happen to think it's a valid comparison.

'Our early documents state that the basic rights we all have are based upon a very particular Judeo-Christian conception of God (albeit deistically expressed)'

Until I see proof otherwise, I'll consider my parents my 'creator,' and if they are the ones who endowed me with rights... I'll consider those birth rights, mine on the basis that I am alive. And I'll consider that to be the basis on which all people have rights... or did the Judeo-Christian creator only endow those rights upon his believers?

'I doubt that you are willing to hand your rights over'

Thankfully, our nation has a bill of rights and, as I mentioned above, I interpret those rights to belong to everyone on Earth... it just so happens that the U.S. Constitution actively protects those rights. Rights are not given, they are inherently ours (back to Brad's freedom to vs. freedom from point...) unfortunately, some people think being strong means they can take rights away. So those birth rights are not given by our country... simply protected (we hope). Sometimes, we have to fight for the recognition of those rights.

'Because then it would cease to be marriage altogether, and become an insipid legal contract, based on literally no criteria but personal desire for financial perks.'

But men and women can do that now... I could marry a male friend for insurance purposes if I wanted... what's the difference if people of the same sex are allowed to?

'Can brothers and sisters marry, mothers and sons?  Some day they will, because they are currently being "discriminated" against.'

If they are both consenting adults, I don't see why not. I may find it kind of icky... but it's not going to harm me if they do.

' The question has nothing to do with rights (questionably extraneous) of an individual, but rather with whether or not we should change the fundamental definition of marriage.'

But definitions have everything to do with rights. When Ohio's definition for legally drunk was decreased from 0.10 to 0.08, your right to drive after,say, three beers became your right to drive with two beers. And the definition of 'registered votor' ahs evolved many times... is that wrong? I mean jeez, next they'll be letting the family dog vote!
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


108 posted 03-08-2007 10:09 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Oh damn, sorry about that, lol, my bad.

"This country was also founded by men who owned slaves..."

I know and they also pretty much swiped the land from the natives but this isn't my point (I'll save this topic for another thread )

"but thankfully, their shortcomings aside, they were smart enough to create a clause about separating church and state."

Well they did a pretty lousy job then, because "In God we trust" is on the money and biblical passages are in engraved on courthouse walls and in court we swear on the bible (or at least we used to). Yes, church and state are separate (as it should be) but I don't think they're completely separate. That's just how I see it.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


109 posted 03-08-2007 02:43 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Stephen, you claim no one's trying to maintain tradition for its own sake in the same paragraph you say the opposition is trying to "rashly" dissolve it. I understand the desire to count the other side as unreasoning or "rash," but I believe you know better.

I haven't seen rash statements saying, "what the heck, we should get rid of these traditions just 'cause." I see reasoned arguments pointing out why the speakers feel the traditions should either be re-examined or nullified. You may not agree with the reasoning, but that doesn't make it rash, eh?

As far as the roots of heterosexuality, I think there's some question on that subject.

- Homosexuality is not a new thing. It spans back through the ages.
- Anthropologically speaking, it's easy to say that relationships should be heterosexually formed for the propagation of our species, but basing a determination on that would be defining existence as purely biologically driven, which I also doubt you believe.
- Religion can certainly point us in the direction you're leading us... but I imagine there's several in here who've yet to be convinced to even get on that side of the fence, much less use it as a basis of determination.

As to the second part, rights: do you think our nation was based on trust?

Me, I kind of favor the distrust theory. If there were some sort of inherent trust in our nation's leaders, there would be no need for all the checks and balances in place - bureaucracy is in place specifically because we DON'T trust. As to rights, I'm a fan of the raise your hand method, which is exactly what we have and I hope we maintain. Much as myself or others might disagree at times, majority rules and when the majority votes, it very well may be that I'm wrong and they're right. Or it could just be that there is no better system in play.

Do we have fundamental rights?

No.

Should we?

You bet.

Will we ever have them?

I say unlikely, and speak true.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


110 posted 03-08-2007 04:40 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It is interesting that you had to go quite outside of the character of Ozzie Nelson to make that point, in which case it wouldn't be an Ozzie Nelson.

LOL. First, Stephen, I think you are perhaps making assumptions you are ill prepared to prove.

Second, and far more importantly, I think you are revealing more about yourself than you might realize. To define who a man is by their sexual orientation, their gender, their race or color, is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with your whole stance. It's what make you so horribly wrong. It's precisely what hurts people.

Ozzie Nelson could be gay, transvestic, black, and Muslim . . . and he'd STILL be Ozzie Nelson and ostensibly a great parent and highly respected man.

quote:
Do we have fundamental rights?

No.

You should start a new thread on that, Chris. I think you'd find more than a little disagreement on that stance.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


111 posted 03-09-2007 06:17 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/godless_dollars

The Secular Movement's wishes have been granted.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


112 posted 03-11-2007 10:42 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"It's what make you so horribly wrong."


Surely you see the wrong in aiming a negative judgement at the person instead of the argument at hand?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


113 posted 03-19-2007 09:52 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Sorry guys, it's taken me a long time to get back to this one...


quote:
Stephen:  Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder,"


hush:  Um... progress or censorship? You're a nurse... do you routinely get physican order to drill holes in the skull to realease demons or practice bloodletting? Does your assessment include the pattern of bumps on your patients head? You had to know I wasn't going to fall for that one.



Well the only problem with your comparison is that such medical practice as you describe has advanced based upon gains of scientific knowledge.  The assertion that homosexuality is natural and proper and inborn (like race) has no such scientific certainty, as is typically assumed.


quote:
True enough ... but the behavior of people predjudiced against gays happens to look pretty similar to that of people prejudiced against blacks and other races, so I happen to think it's a valid comparison.


Well if you are referring to maltreatment, disrespect, name calling, etc ... then you are right.  I am referring only to the view that homosexuality is not an inborn natural condition, but a behavioral problem with a combination of sociological and physical roots, and with moral implications.  That much only "looks" like racism to someone who assumes that it is a natural healthy inborn trait.  


Ron:
quote:
Second, and far more importantly, I think you are revealing more about yourself than you might realize. To define who a man is by their sexual orientation, their gender, their race or color, is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with your whole stance. It's what make you so horribly wrong. It's precisely what hurts people.

Ozzie Nelson could be gay, transvestic, black, and Muslim . . . and he'd STILL be Ozzie Nelson and ostensibly a great parent and highly respected man.



Again Ron, you're making the somewhat crafty move of equating a behavioral (and identity) issue with something natural and inborn such as race, or eye color.  You keep making that category mistake, and I will keep pointing it out.


But getting to the character issue ... While I agree with you about the need to respect people, you are vainly trying to divorce the idea of character from issues such as sexual preference, or cross-dressing, with no compelling reason why.  I'm not denying that people may have virtues along with vices (I do).  But people do evaluate something of character based on such behaviors, and I'm not sure that that is all wrong.  It is wrong however to treat someone badly.  But it's not always wrong to draw a line with public policy.  I'll bet that most places you've worked would NEVER let you show up in a dress and high heels, and that's perfectly reasonable. (I'm imagining you in a dress right now, Ron, and it is really scary       )  


My assertion is that there is an anthropological, teleological, sociological, and spiritual basis for why most people haven't viewed these practices as normal, moral, or proper.  You are simply placing your moral view over and against that, based sometimes upon what you perceive as rights (when you are talking of public policy), and sometimes upon what you perceive as right attitudes toward others.  But either way, it is a deeply moral issue for you, belied by your "horribly wrong" comment.  


Though I know you want to maintain that cool, detached, neutral, amoralistic appearance, in realilty you have chosen a moral view on this subject that varies from what God says about things like homosexuality and transvestism, in an autonomous vein.  And it's okay that we disagree.  I just don't want anyone to think that your view is less of a morally charged one, based upon a more certain and sublime ethic, or based upon scientific certainty (all three of which you seem to suggest at varying times).  And I don't want you get away with conversation openly alleging that people who disagree with homosexuality morally, and oppose homosexual "marriage" publically, are maltreaters of others and therefore don't render "respect".  


Having said that, let's respectfully disagree for now?


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


114 posted 03-19-2007 11:11 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
My assertion is that there is an anthropological, teleological, sociological, and spiritual basis for why most people haven't viewed these practices as normal, moral, or proper.

And that, Stephen, pretty much summarizes your entire argument. For me, those are descriptive of the past, not authoritative in the present.

quote:
But either way, it is a deeply moral issue for you, belied by your "horribly wrong" comment.

Stephen, I believe that two plus two equals five is "horribly wrong." I don't think I would consider it a deeply moral issue, though.

Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree . . . with the reminder that any time you tell people that someone else is "bad" I'm probably going to jump in and remind you that those bad people don't hurt you or anyone else. I'll argue for their rights and protections in this society because I expect them -- and you -- to argue for my rights and protections. I know that when I stop caring about their rights my own will be in imminent danger.

Like gravity and thermodynamics, that's simply the way this Universe works.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


115 posted 03-20-2007 01:39 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Stephen-

what scientific proof do you have the homosexuality is a mental health disorder? You can argue that it isn't "the norm," and I can buy that statistically, it isn't. And you can argue that it's not "inborn," which, to me, is a moot point. Everytime someone chooses to behave differently, are they deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors