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
 Philosophy 101
 Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
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

Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


100 posted 04-08-2004 11:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
When I look at the way women have traditionally been treated as property, it's hard to think of marriage throughout history as anything sacred. When I look at spousal abuse and infidelity and divorce rates in our own age, it's almost impossible to see marriage today as anything sacred. When I look at ANY social institution as it exists apart and outside the church, sacred isn't a word I find applicable.



Far from justifying these things, I will say that excesses and abuses do not ruin ideals ... or else even what exists inside the church cannot be thought sacred.  You may not find it applicable to your opinion, but the bulk of humanity has / does disagree with you about whether marriage is a sacred institution.  


quote:
Would you recognize a marriage performed in a church, by an ordained minister or priest, even if no one paid fifteen bucks for blood tests and a marriage license? Can they be husband and wife in the eyes of God, and yet not be legally wed and entitled to the same social benefits of marriage you enjoy?
Answer no, Stephen, and you are saying marriage within the church is meaningless.
Answer yes, and you are recognizing the very real difference between two very different institutions.



I do answer yes.  But I disagree with your conclusion that "Yes" means these are two totally different institutions.  Though they can potentially be severed from each other.  You think Jesus erred when he referred to them as one and the same?  The influence of the Church by consensus was meant to be a guiding and tempering force for the state ... as it actually was when the constitution was framed.  By God's grace the state has had a hand in marriage too.  That doesn't mean that marriage in the Christian sense will perish if the State rejects it, it just means that the State's arbitrary definitions of marriage will render marriage meaningless in any secular sense.  If the state rejects God's views on marriage, it will unwittingly reject marriage.  Then society as a whole will lose a great blessing ... As marriage was given to humanity, not the Church alone.
  

quote:
Atheists can actually get married, Stephen. They can even have children. And when they name those children, it won't be a Baptism, but it will still be legal.
And while that may not be acceptable to a Christian, Stephen, it beats the heck out of calling several billion people, "Hey, you."



The church's idea of marriage should line up with what is offered in scripture, and has been validated by thousands of years of testimony of nearly every civilized culture... Male and Female.  

Since God has given marriage to all, no one is suggesting the absurd notion that atheists shouldn't be able to marry, or have names.  You can't make one position appear absurd by comparing it to something quite different and obviously wrong, and may I add unscriptural.

I never said homosexuals don't have human rights.  I said marriage should not be redefined to suit their sexual deviance.  Homosexuals are not currently forbidden to marry.


Stephen


  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-09-2004 12:28 AM).]

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


101 posted 04-08-2004 11:51 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
The other is a religious organization with a theological view to perpetuate.


Yeah.  The only thing is that the studies they quoted and cited weren't done by them, or even by religious organizations.    


And do you think organizations without "religious" views cannot have alternate views, social agendas, or ideologies to perpetuate.  That's a bit naive, or biased, I think.


Stephen.    
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


102 posted 04-08-2004 11:59 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

That's a bit naive, or biased, I think.



Or perhaps so to not consider that an organization of the scope of the AAP does not have the results of those works within their body of knowledge.

They make their conclusions and take their positions based on the practice of medicine.  They do have an agenda.  The care of children.  And Tacitly -- their own reputations.

In an age when Doctors are getting sued left and right wouldn't an orgainization like the AAP be VERY careful before issuing such a position?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-09-2004 12:06 AM).]

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


103 posted 04-09-2004 12:08 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
It certainly doesn't present any evidence suggesting that children exposed to homosexuality become homosexuals.



quote:
"9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."

(J. M. Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," pp. 127, 128.)


That sounds like evidence for increased homosexual orientation among male adults raised by male homosexuals.  


quote:
"A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population."

(F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," p. 213.)


and that sounds like evidence for increased homosexual orientation among female adults raised by female homosexuals.


Unless these are patently false findings, how can you say they present no evidence?  Either you are claiming these are false, or you didn't read them.



Stephen.  


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


104 posted 04-09-2004 12:18 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Or perhaps so to not consider that an organization of the scope of the AAP does not have the results of those works within their body of knowledge.


But assumed knowledge means little when it comes to research.  Why should we assume so, based on your confidence?


I have already read several accounts (from the mouths of researchers themselves not religious organizations) that the data and sampling is quite limited and inconclusive.  So until I see reason why to respect one finding over and above another, I'll have to judge them as equally valid ... or equally invalid.  

While your appeal to authority is heartwarming, it really is not an argument based upon evidence.  It goes as such ... such a fine and reputable organization MUST have it right.  Until it is shown why other findings should be discredited and your favored ones not, then it's still in question.  It definitely won't have the mouth stopping force you'd like it to.  That's all I'm saying.  I'd like to consider all research.  But again from what I've read from both sides, the research has been greatly limited thus far.


Stephen.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


105 posted 04-09-2004 12:21 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No more time for research tonite Stephan but here are furhter words from Dr. Golombok;

quote:

Nevertheless, a substantial body of evidence indicates that children raised by lesbian mothers do not differ from other children in key aspects of psychological development. On the basis of this evidence it seems that the American Academy of Pediatrics acted not out of political correctness but with the intention of protecting children who are likely to benefit from the legal recognition of their second parent.


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7351/1407
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


106 posted 04-09-2004 12:27 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
"A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population."

and ...

"Nevertheless, a substantial body of evidence indicates that children raised by lesbian mothers do not differ from other children in key aspects of psychological development.



All of this from Dr. Golombok.  Then is it conceded that there is more homosexuality, but that homosexuality is not considered an indicator of a problem in "key aspects" of psychological development?  I'm interested in how these two statements are synthesized.  They sound somewhat contradictory.


Stephen.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


107 posted 04-09-2004 12:36 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No, it's not conceded.

Golombok studied 25 children.  An extremely small sample.  The AAP study cited is a 300 sample... Still small which is why they posited some caution -- but stand on the larger body of evidence.  Which is what Golombok is ceding to.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


108 posted 04-09-2004 01:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
but the bulk of humanity has / does disagree with you about whether marriage is a sacred institution.

No, the bulk of humanity, at least in this country, just says marriage is sacred. Until it becomes inconvenient. Then they get divorced.

quote:
Homosexuals are not currently forbidden to marry.

Right. You're essentially saying you're willing to grant people the rights they deserve as long as they agree to only want the same things you want. If they want something different, they can't have it.

FWIW, I agree with what you said, if not what you meant. Gays, indeed, are not forbidden to marry and in fact are guaranteed the same rights as others. Without the arbitrary restrictions you would impose.

quote:
and that sounds like evidence for increased homosexual orientation among female adults raised by female homosexuals

No, that sounds like a twisting of the facts. Nine percent and 12 percent are not "several times higher" or "at least four times" the standard distribution levels usually estimated at ten percent. About the same as left-handedness. Unfortunately, unlike being left-handed, the estimates remain estimates because homophobes and bigots make it difficult to get accurate statistics. Coming out of the closet can be a little iffy when you know there's a guy standing on the other side of the door with a baseball bat.

Still, let's pretend for a moment that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not a genetically predisposed one, and that children in a homosexual home are more inclined to follow the course they see their gay parents following.

So what?

Are you going to not teach your children to be Christians? Are you suggesting that society should decide the morality we teach our kids rather than the parents? Even if we agreed to accept the results of your article, Stephen, your argument presumes we also agree that homosexuality is "a bad thing" we all want to avoid. It is that specific underlying and unspoken presumption, Stephen, that most needs to be examined because it is the hidden foundation upon which prejudice is always built. I grew up in the Fifties and Sixties, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were standing on opposite ends of the same blurred line, and I can unequivocally say from experience that the worst bigots were always the ones completely unwilling to even question their own hate or distaste. The superiority of one race over another was simply accepted as self-evident. It was a presumption of truth, not greatly different than the one you are making.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, hurts no one. It is part of the diversity of nature, made part of our universe at the time of creation, and isn't something to be avoided or denigrated or penalized. I cannot, however, say the same things about discrimination.


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


109 posted 04-09-2004 01:24 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Thanks for the clarification.  It still seems that from looking at ALL of the research on adult children of homosexuals, there is higher incidence of homosexual experimentation and orientation, though the orientation itself is only slightly higher.  Still the main consensus is that from the samples, most of them were heterosexually oriented.  


But there are methodological difficulties which render all of this research inconclusive so far, and "embryonic".  Hopefully more research will be done based upon all of this preliminary work.  But research for either "side" does not yet provide any magic bullet.
quote:
HOW RELIABLE IS THE RESEARCH ON SAME-SEX COUPLES AND FAMILIES?


As same-sex marriage is still a project rather than a reality, it makes sense to examine the relationship of cohabiting homosexuals in order to have an idea of their functioning, division of labor, psychological satisfaction, and sexual relations, as is done for married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. However, except for large-scale studies on sexuality with representative samples of the adult population, there are no
large-scale studies of the life of lesbian/gay couples. Especially lacking are follow-up studies of such couples living in long-term relationships. There are several reasons for this gap in our knowledge:


1. It is only recently that homosexual unions have been socially recognized. Hence, in the past,
researchers had little incentive to study them.


2. It is still not possible to obtain large and representative samples of homosexual couples. It is only with such samples that we could draw conclusions applicable to the entirety of the homosexual couple population.


3. However, even here, another set of problems emerges. First, gays and lesbians have suffered from stigmatization and may not wish to share the intimate details of their lives with non-gay researchers for fear of being further victimized or categorized (Nelson, 1996:10). Second, these concerns may affect the way they respond to researchers' questions.


4. Quite a few good studies on couples and children in same-sex parent families have been carried out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, these suffer from the fact that the couples are often selected by the researchers or they are self-selected. Self-selection occurs when ads are placed in newspapers, newsletters, bulletin boards of gay community and health centers, or distributed on university campuses.
Obviously, such an approach draws relatively educated couples who maintain links to the homosexual community, may be activists, and are fairly young (Christopher and Sprecher, 2000). Less educated same-sex couples and those who have little to do with the homosexual subcultures or are older will not be represented in these samples (but, see Yip, 1997). Furthermore, there may be specific characteristics of individuals/couples who accept the call of these ads.
For instance, couples who want to make a pro-homosexuality statement or only couples who get along particularly well may elect to be interviewed or fill out a questionnaire--thus biasing the research results and making it difficult to interpret them.


There are many additional methodological problems in the research on same-sex-parent families, including small samples and lack of control for important variables (whether sociological or psychological). In other
words, much of the research is still at the exploratory level so that it is possible that some of the findings herein reported will not hold under the scrutiny of better-designed analyses and from a wider spectrum of researchers who have expertise in various domains of family life.


It cannot be emphasized enough that the research upon which we can draw at this time remains embryonic and is often incomplete or inadequate methodologically. As such, any conclusions that can be drawn are tentative and serve to sharpen research questions yet to be pursued.


(SAME-SEX COUPLES AND SAME-SEX-PARENT FAMILIES: RELATIONSHIPS, PARENTING, AND ISSUES OF MARRIAGE By Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert)



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


110 posted 04-09-2004 02:10 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
No, the bulk of humanity, at least in this country, just says marriage is sacred. Until it becomes inconvenient. Then they get divorced.



Agreed.  I'm not justifying the fickleness of American culture today.  It's that same fickleness that makes many reject the traditional view of marriage.  But when I said "Bulk of humanity" I'm referring to former generations as well, not just contemporary America.  It's what G.K. Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead", not "the small and arrogant oligarchy of the living".  


quote:
You're essentially saying you're willing to grant people the rights they deserve as long as they agree to only want the same things you want. If they want something different, they can't have it.



I'm essentially saying that no one should have the right to arbitrarily change the definition of marriage based upon sexual deviance.  


quote:
Gays, indeed, are not forbidden to marry and in fact are guaranteed the same rights as others. Without the arbitrary restrictions you would impose.


Wrong.  Gay marriages ARE forbidden in many states.  A majority of Americans ARE against changing the definition of marriage.  And the charge of exclusive heterosexual marriage being "unconstitutional" amounts to the fact it's framers never dreamed something so obvious would have to be protected by law.  And these restrictions are anything but arbitrary if history is taken into account rather than arrogantly ignored ... oh yeah and if the majority of America is asked rather than a core group of ultra-liberal judges.
  

quote:
Nine percent and 12 percent are not "several times higher" or "at least four times" the standard distribution levels usually estimated at ten percent. About the same as left-handedness. Unfortunately, unlike being left-handed, the estimates remain estimates because homophobes and bigots make it difficult to get accurate statistics.



Actually I've heard that the number is closer to 3%.  But an increase (however much) is what the gist of the article was about.


There is a hatred and anger among anti-homosexual persons that is not justified.  I am a passivist however.  And there are many like me who are against the behavior and against the alteration of what marriage is, but in no way desire to hate people or deny them human rights.
  

quote:
Still, let's pretend for a moment that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not a genetically predisposed one



We don't have to pretend.  The genetic link is just as dubious as the behavioral one.  
  

quote:
Are you suggesting that society should decide the morality we teach our kids rather than the parents?



I don't think it has to be "either or".  Ideally it would be "both and".  Parents are also part of that society, and should be concerned about what it upholds and honors ... for their children's sake.


quote:
Even if we agreed to accept the results of your article, Stephen, your argument presumes we also agree that homosexuality is "a bad thing" we all want to avoid. It is that specific underlying and unspoken presumption, Stephen, that most needs to be examined



It's not always "unspoken".  I believe, as do many others, that homosexuality is wrong and harmful.  
  

quote:
I can unequivocally say from experience that the worst bigots were always the ones completely unwilling to even question their own hate or distaste. The superiority of one race over another was simply accepted as self-evident. It was a presumption of truth, not greatly different than the one you are making.



I have no hatred for homosexuals.  I have no hatred for adulterers or child molesters either.  That doesn't mean I have to approve.  Comparing this to racism conveniently ignores the differences.  The conservative Christians had no scriptural ground to consider one race "superior" to another.  The scriptures plainly refuted that view of things.  


It's funny though that the "sacred" book you mentioned earlier ... (unlike any other book I believe you said), is from Old Testament to New Testament emphatically against homosexuality.  So was Paul a discriminatory bigot, or was he inspired of God when he wrote Romans 1 and other scriptures which call homosexuality perverse and sinful?


You discredit your own teachers Ron, who gave you the gospel of your salvation.  How do you continually do that, and yet preserve what you want out of the sacred writings beyond your own doubt?    


Stephen.
jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


111 posted 04-09-2004 09:54 AM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans

thank you all for the debating of my thoughts, it is very enlightening, and no Reb, your quotes do nothing to change my mind, for them to mean anything to me, I would have to know the morals and outlook of the ones doing the study, for many times the
'conclusions' are only what the study looked to prove, not what was actually out there.
Were the people in the study honest, many times people are not honest about their sexuality when in a clinical setting....no...no quote from any study is going to make me think that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is going to be good for our society, or for the society we leave for our children to grow up in.
We are going to die soon enough...do you feel safe with the decisions you are making about this world you are leaving for your little ones?
I feel that we have to look out for the world that *we* are leaving for the little ones...*I* do not want a world that 'teaches' in schools, by law, and by example that it is ok to break God's law and teach children that it is ok to do so as well......
The words "GOD'S JUDGEMENT" is a critical issue in this debate, some it seems are on one side, and some on the other...and *I* suspect we won't know the end of this debate until then...and then...I hope I am on the right side *shrugs and smiles*
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


112 posted 04-09-2004 11:33 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Comparing this to racism conveniently ignores the differences. The conservative Christians had no scriptural ground to consider one race "superior" to another.

It sounds like you are finally admitting, Stephen, that your only argument against gay marriage has to be a moral one? Unless you are ready to impose your own beliefs upon all the Catholics and Jews and Hindus and Muslims and agnostics and atheists, scriptural grounds can have no authority in civil law.

If we're to go the route of imposing our beliefs, however, I would frankly be much more comfortable imposing mine.

I believe sin is between the sinner and God, not between the sinner and a whole lot of other sinners. People with planks firmly embedded in their eyes have this nasty tendency of burning others at the stake, sometimes figuratively, sometimes quite literally. I believe the Word of God is personal instruction on how to live MY life, not a license to force my never-perfect interpretation of those instructions onto others. I believe God created free will and the diversity it engenders for a reason, one I don't have to understand to appreciate.

I believe, when the Spirit of God's Word contradicts my interpretation of scripture, my interpretation must be at fault. Was Paul a discriminatory bigot? Are those who read Paul's words with a hateful heart, interpreting the words to mean only what they want them to mean, truly accepting the will of God? Stephen, until one man tries to harm another, those aren't questions I'm willing to even explore. I will judge the actions of men, because I must, but their hearts lay outside my jurisdiction.

The bottom line, Stephen, is that I believe God is fully capable of judging sin without any help from you and me. We have no right to interfere in another's life so long as that life doesn't interfere with ours. No harm, no foul.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


113 posted 04-09-2004 11:47 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

The modern and english word "homosexuality" is in the bible? I don't believe that to be true. From my studies, what we, today, know to be homosexuality is a loose translation of the original Hebrew and Greek, just as I have seen "Easter" to be translated from the Greek word "pascha" - which of course meant, passover.

Not only that, say for argument that what we know to be homosexuality is in fact identical to the original biblical terms... does not the bible lump together homosexuals with other sexual "deviations" like fornicators? If the answer is a yes, then how can one justify two fornicators of the opposite sex marrying, but not two homosexuals?

"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


114 posted 04-09-2004 01:20 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If homosexuality is wrong, I will hear God himself say it presently and unconfusedly, or it is a lie and a falsness saying it is sin against Him.  Until our own God does tell us do otherwise,  as long as we live in democracies I believe, the choice should be most democractic--and that should not force us to live up to sexuality or being sexual at all, when two being one together in a sacred relationship does not for sure need to be sexually based at all.  You don't have to be sexual to love, so you should not have to be sexual to marry.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2004 02:19 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


115 posted 04-09-2004 06:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

jellybeans said;
quote:

your quotes do nothing to change my mind, for them to mean anything to me, I would have to know the morals and outlook of the ones doing the study, for many times the
'conclusions' are only what the study looked to prove, not what was actually out there.
Were the people in the study honest, many times people are not honest about their sexuality when in a clinical setting....no...no quote from any study is going to make me think that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is going to be good for our society, or for the society we leave for our children to grow up in.




So then if researchers don't share your bias and reject any findings that disagree with your moral views they are biased and dishonest.   Why do research at all then?  Why not just tell doctors to just read the Bible?

quote:

We are going to die soon enough...do you feel safe with the decisions you are making about this world you are leaving for your little ones?




I do not feel safe with the decisions that many people are making for this country.  I feel perfectly satisfied that leaving my children a free, democratic society is the right choice.  Teaching them to abhor bigotry and the violation of human rights is paramount to their own well being.

quote:

...*I* do not want a world that 'teaches' in schools, by law, and by example that it is ok to break God's law and teach children that it is ok to do so as well......




I don't feel 'safe' with ideas like that one.  Which one of God's laws is it you don't want them to break?  And according to whose interpretation?  Eastern Orhodox?  Roman Catholic? Anglican/Episcopal?  one of the thousand or so Protestant interpretations?  Buddhist?  Taoist?  Shinto?  Islam?  Mithrian?  Ahura Mazda?  Christian Identity?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


116 posted 04-09-2004 06:36 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Stephen
quote:
Thanks for the clarification. It still seems that from looking at ALL of the research on adult children of homosexuals, there is higher incidence of homosexual experimentation and orientation, though the orientation itself is only slightly higher. Still the main consensus is that from the samples, most of them were heterosexually oriented.

But there are methodological difficulties which render all of this research inconclusive so far, and "embryonic". Hopefully more research will be done based upon all of this preliminary work. But research for either "side" does not yet provide any magic bullet.



Perhaps research will be done to determine the psychological adjustment of children who grow up in conservative Christian homes.  Until it is done -- should we suspend their rights to be parents?

Of course that idea is preposterous.

The AAP based its' decision on the body of the research.  You should be glad that they concluded that children fare better with two parents.  The only sticky part for you Stephen, is that they aren't particularly biased as to whether it's a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple -- provided it is a good relationship.  

Since the nature of the data collected in such a study is not variable (that is not having a numeric measurement of a dimension) but are attribute (it is this and not that, pass, fail, good, bad, gay, straight.. etc.)  further study of larger sample sizes is only going to improve the prediction of normal probability -- it will not yield any further information such as an X-Bar, Range, Sigma (standard deviation) -- or any of the other variables that we could use to gather further insights into the specifics of a single individual sample.  

In other words -- further study won't give us much more than we already know.

Do we need a study to tell us that children need parents who love them?

Look at the number of children who are in foster care.  I suppose they must have come from heterosexual unions.

But I suspect if the study population was 200 million children that still wouldn't be enough to persuade you if the result didn't agree with your bias.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


117 posted 04-09-2004 06:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I have no hatred for homosexuals.



In one breath this, in another -- they will bring the downfall of society and civilization.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


118 posted 04-10-2004 01:07 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Learn the runes of being a knight
Learn the runes of being a nurse
Learn the runes of how to write
Your lover the loveliest verse.
And then you shall be worthy of
Marriage and may you know it well
They are the runes and rites of love
That kindle its happiest spell.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


119 posted 04-11-2004 12:12 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Stephanos:Comparing this to racism conveniently ignores the differences. The conservative Christians had no scriptural ground to consider one race "superior" to another.

Ron:It sounds like you are finally admitting, Stephen, that your only argument against gay marriage has to be a moral one?



Misconception #1:

Using a moral argument against something means that you have no other arguments against it.  And even if you claim to, and share them, they are really nothing more than the moral argument in disguise.
  


quote:
I believe the Word of God is personal instruction on how to live MY life, not a license to force my never-perfect interpretation of those instructions onto others.



Misconception #2:

God's word, morals, and principles are for private application only.  They have no place in the public square, and are a dead letter when it comes to being any foundation for law.
  


quote:
Was Paul a discriminatory bigot? Are those who read Paul's words with a hateful heart, interpreting the words to mean only what they want them to mean, truly accepting the will of God?



Misconception #3:

Agreeing with a clear demarcation, or moral imperative in Scripture really means that you have hate in your heart.  Therefore the delicate balance of "hating the sin, and loving the sinner" as exemplified in the life of Christ is an ideal that is not really attainable.  So the best thing to do is chant "We are the World", and live and let live.


  
quote:
Stephen, until one man tries to harm another, those aren't questions I'm willing to even explore.



Misconception #4:

A moral principle absolutely cannot be the foundation for any law.  I will stand by this unflinchingly, all the while ignoring or denying the fact that "Do no harm to your neighbor " is just as much of a moral principle as any other.


Misconception #5:

To support ANY law based upon morality, necessitates that you must, in principle, support ALL morality being legislated, even down to minutia such as picking your nose in public.



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


120 posted 04-11-2004 12:25 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
In one breath this, in another -- they will bring the downfall of society and civilization.



Since you're a citizen of the USA, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that you don't espouse Marxist / Communist ideology, and think it would bad, perhaps very bad, for our society.  And yet I'd be a fool to call you a "Communist hater" for that.


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


121 posted 04-11-2004 12:29 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant ...

I liked that.  That actually impressed me, since I am a nurse.  It's like you wrote it to me, whether you knew it or not.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


122 posted 04-11-2004 01:42 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Thank you,
It was for you most of all    

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


123 posted 04-11-2004 03:13 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

My father wrote with his right hand.  I didn't understand why he had a right-hand catcher's mitt.  He was left-handed it turns out.  Why did he write with his right hand?  He did it because the teachers used to whack his left hand with a stick if he picked up a pencil with it.  They forced him to be right-handed.  

He explained it all to me.  Back then people thought it was abnormal to be left-handed.  A genetic defect.  A mistake of nature.  Or maybe just plain evil.  At any rate -- they weren't going to teach any left-handers how to write at his school.

It's hard to fathom now.  But that was the prevailing world-view on hand orientation back then.

It's safe to say my father didn't feel particularly loved.  Unless he performed according to the conditions required to receive love -- and education.  That was a brutal, evil, ignorant cultural phenomenon.

If I say I think Communism is a bad idea that's one thing.  If I say it is going to be the downfall of the human race -- a Communist might get the idea that I hate him.  Or, at the very least -- he needs to fear me.  Because -- he will think, no doubt, that I consider myself and my children to be a part of the human race -- and it will follow that he will think that I think he is a threat to me.  He may think to himself -- "this is just about having one type of economic system or another -- but that guy over there thinks this is Armageddon.  He probably hates me."

A bout of human rights violations and oppression during the McCarthy era probably factor into his fear as well.  If he is the child of actors who were thrown out of work and forced into soup lines for having an opinion he might think that I hate him if I say things like that.

You say things like this;
quote:

Does the teaching that a behavior or lifestyle is sinful, mean that those who practice it are monsters?  If that's true we're all monsters.  "Perfectly normal" people are sinners.  And homosexuality is sin.  But I don't have to teach my kids to hate homosexuals.  I don't hate homosexuals myself.



and then like this;

quote:

Biblically speaking, marriage is defined.  And remember that the scriptures, when speaking of marriage do not speak of it as something given to God's people alone, but to all.  The reason that societies have generally seen marriage as between male and female, is the guiding hand of God.  Therefore, if some cultures arbitrarily redefine what God has built into nature and conscience, then there will be ill consequences for them, and not just on "Judgment day", but before.



and yet this;

quote:

One (not all) of the reasons homosex is sin, is that it does hurt individuals and societies.  Sodom and Gommorah bears that out.  Other civilizations have borne that out.



Personally I believe you if you say you don't hate homosexuals.  But, my children have a hard time understanding that I don't hate them when they are being punished.  The difference is -- you have no jurisdiction over homosexuals.

In all of this there seems an attempt to wrap Christianity, the Bible, and Stephen's opinions all into one neat little package so that if anyone disagrees with you -- they are disagreeing with God and the Bible. That's a pretty convenient strategy.  The only problem with that scenario is that there are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you... so you can't speak for them.
It's pretty dangerous to speak for the Bible too -- especially when you have a history of saying things like this and being wrong:

quote:

The Bible nowhere teaches that Slavery is acceptable ... It rather teaches Christian slaves to be in submission to their masters and for Masters to treat their slaves with some measure of kindess.   Taking the biblical teaching as a whole, the Bible gives an overall negative picture of slavery  (ever since Egypt).  Only it is not a social Custom that is ripped from the roots by the apostles (impossible to do), but borne with ... Interestingly, Christian principles have often been instrumental in the abolishment of slavery.



Slavery and racism are very clearly covered (and clearly condoned in the Book of the Law) from Genesis to Revelation Stephen.  It just depends on whose interpretation you want to apply.  You want to apply the more benevolent side of the Bible (at least on the slavery issue)-- which is laudable -- but the thousands of different denominations that are out there in the Christian faith really only share a common book and a name.  If one wanted to put together a 'Christian' religion based on slavery, bigotry, violence, rape, misogyny -- it could be (and has been) done.

The Bible even is responsible for prejudice against those born with physical deformities or those who become maimed or disfigured.  Fortunately this was one area where Jesus was particularly pointed about taking on the establishment as he conducted a healing ministry -- that wasn't about performing magic tricks to prove that he was God -- it was about sticking it to the Sanhedrin (and that's the Jesus I like).

What's more -- you continue to embrace -- as is your right -- a view of homosexuality that is all but rejected by medicine and science.

Even though I don't think you hate homosexuals -- what you seem to be unaware of is how the rhetoric you espouse has caused even greater pain and violence to those in the homosexual community than what was caused to my father for being left-handed.

And I'm not trying to make left-handed commentary here.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


124 posted 04-11-2004 08:41 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Misconception #1:

Using a moral argument against something means that you have no other arguments against it.  And even if you claim to, and share them, they are really nothing more than the moral argument in disguise.


No one ever claimed you couldn't add a logical argument to your moral one, Stephen. The claim, rather, is that you haven't done so yet. All you have to do is tell us who will be hurt.

Misconception #2:

God's word, morals, and principles are for private application only.  They have no place in the public square, and are a dead letter when it comes to being any foundation for law.


That's not a misconception at all, but a fact. Unless of course, you think God needs your help writing the Ten Commandments?

Misconception #3:

Agreeing with a clear demarcation, or moral imperative in Scripture really means that you have hate in your heart.  Therefore the delicate balance of "hating the sin, and loving the sinner" as exemplified in the life of Christ is an ideal that is not really attainable.  So the best thing to do is chant "We are the World", and live and let live.


There are no clear demarcations or moral imperatives in Scripture. There are only interpretations, some less cloudy than others, but none fully understood. And live and let live ain't such a bad way to live.

Misconception #4:

A moral principle absolutely cannot be the foundation for any law.  I will stand by this unflinchingly, all the while ignoring or denying the fact that "Do no harm to your neighbor " is just as much of a moral principle as any other.


The only misconception in your statement is that harm can only be recognized and condemned within a moral framework. Had you never seen the Bible before, you would still have a black eye and fat lip if your neighbor chose to punch out your lights.

Misconception #5:

To support ANY law based upon morality, necessitates that you must, in principle, support ALL morality being legislated, even down to minutia such as picking your nose in public.


No one ever said that. However, to support even a single law based SOLELY on morality is a usurpation of God's authority and Man's choice. And that's much worse than picking your nose, I should think.



Misconception #6:

Wrapping rhetoric in a list and giving it a name means you no longer have to offer any support or reasons. Authority can simply be assumed.

Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 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 >> Philosophy 101 >> Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] 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