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
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
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

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


275 posted 07-05-2004 12:10 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Not that this is going anywhere, except in circles, but I still agree with Denise. Even if a separation hearing leads to decisions about custody, I think a decision restricting a parent's ability to teach religious tenets is wrong.

Is the ex-partner still allowed to tell the child about homosexuality from her point of view? If so, then I would definitely say the religious parent is muzzled in this case, and the child is simultaneously put at a disadvantage (only knowing one point of view) and being belittle, because people are simply assuming the kid can't deal with hearing two sides of the story.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


276 posted 07-05-2004 01:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Exactly, Hush, the child is not allowed to hear both sides of the issue. The only restriction enacted was the restriction on the now 'religious' ex-partner, which along with the Constitutional issue of freedom of religious expression and practice, is the basis of the pending appeal.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


277 posted 07-05-2004 01:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

There's no easy answers, and I can only guess upon what grounds the judge based his decision, but I still the think the age of the child and the relationship between the parents have to be taken into account. Is it okay to teach a fifteen- or even ten-year-old that sexual promiscuity is wrong? Why should that be any different than one parent repeatedly telling a three-year-old their mommy is a whore? Does a toddler really need to hear both sides of THAT issue?

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need judges to tell a parent to not undermine the love and trust between a child and the other parent. Sadly, it's not an ideal world, and too many people use their perception of truth as a weapon to hurt others. In lashing out at an ex-partner, it's the kids who are most harmed.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


278 posted 07-05-2004 08:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

From what I understand of the issue, Ron, and I read an article from a conservative news source as well as from a Gay Rights news source, the petitioner filed the petition because her ex-partner's church had pamphlets in the lobby of the church,(according to the Gay Rights news source), from the Focus On The Family organization and other organizations, as most churches do, but didn't mention the topic of the pamphlets, which if they were about homosexuality I would think they would have mentioned that fact, but maybe not.

Both news sources stated that the mother stated that she was not homophobic and was not attempting to cast her ex-partner in a bad light in the child's eyes. And neither article stated any rebutal from the ex-partner to the contrary. I didn't get the sense from either article that the mother was 'lashing out' in any way against her ex-partner.

I think it is totally unacceptable when one partner lashes out against the other out of anger or spite because it is the kids who do get hurt the most. And if a judge does need to step in and issue some sort of ruling in some cases, I think any judge worthy of wearing the robe would be able to come up with a better solution than issuing an order that effectively violates one parent's freedom of religious expression and practice, maybe like counseling to deal with any anger or emotional damage issues.

And I think 10 or 15, maybe even younger these days, is a very good time to start instilling in children the pitfalls of sexual promiscuity and why it is wrong. But nobody should be telling a 3 year old that mommy is a whore, but if they were, I'd sure hope someone would be giving that toddler the other side of the story.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


279 posted 07-05-2004 10:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What if the custodial parent joined the Aryan Nation?  Should the child be allowed to be indoctrinated into the belief that white people are superior and that black people are inferior?

What if the custodial parent joined a fringe Mormon group that still practices polygamy?  

What if the custodial parent joined Al Quada?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


280 posted 07-06-2004 01:33 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Reb, as far as I know, as long as someone doesn't act on their hatred of another race, by doing something illegal like hurting someone or burning crosses, it's not illegal to hate black people, or jews, or even gays. (Of course, nobody's trying to prevent blacks and Jews from marrying...)

As abhorrent as it is to have a racist viewpoint, once we enter the arena of what thoughts and ideas are permissable to pass on and which aren't, we enter an Orwellian dystopia. If someone suggested that gay parents shouldn't tell their kids it's okay to be gay, I think you guys would be pitching a fit. But it seems as soon as someone's not supposed to say something, as long as you and I agree that it's something a kid shouldn't be told... well then it's okay?

I understand it may not be as simple as it's been portrayed here, but at face value, I don't see how this can be seen as anything but unfair. If I want the freedom to someday assure my son or daughter that I won't be upset if the come hom with a boyfriend or girlfriend (respectively), then another parent must have the right to tell their kids that homosexuality is a sin. That's just how it works.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


281 posted 07-06-2004 04:47 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I suspect we're all in much more agreement than not (amazingly!), with the only stickler being Amy's "at face value." We just don't know the whole story.

We all seem to agree a parent should be free to teach their child as they wish, but at the end of the day, as LR has repeatedly referenced, when TWO parents are involved and a conflict arises, someone has to win and someone has to lose. Too bad it's usually the kid.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


282 posted 07-06-2004 01:41 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-06-2004 02:50 PM).]

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


283 posted 07-06-2004 02:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If you believe homosexuality is wrong, why not express it rightly as your belief and show your child, when he or she is more grown up, why you believe it is wrong, rather than making it out as some universal sin, that shall put all cosmos into chaos?  If you believe it is wrong and personally will influence your child, that is different than publishing homosexuality as a "sin" and trying to universalize it as the judgement of God!  
One is respectful, the other is a shame.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


284 posted 07-06-2004 03:53 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Ess, you and I may agree that that's how it should be done... but if someone honestly believes that homosexuality is a sin, and that to engage in that behavior would severely impact the child's life... by their morality, it would be wrong not to impress that upon their child.

We may not agree with it, but that is part of the freedom of religion.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


285 posted 07-06-2004 08:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Amy where you have it right is that parents certainly should and do have the right to teach their children as they will.  (Thanks in part to Richard Nixon who vetoed a provision that was tacked onto a Congressional bill during his term that would have made it illegal (that no one in Congress seemed to know they were passing at the time) ).

If two parents agree to raise their child as a United Methodist, Buddhist, Jew, or Skinhead there is no jurisdiction for you or I, or any court to say otherwise.

A separating couple has the full ability to hammer out all of the terms of their separation without the participation of a judge -- other than to sign off and make binding what it is to which they agree.

If they cannot come to an agreement then it is in the judges court so to speak -- to make all kinds of decisions that are normally considered private matters of individual liberty.

So the question is -- if the father of your child planned to educate him/her as a skinhead -- would you just allow that?  Or would you want to have a say in the matter?

More pointedly -- if he was going to teach him that you personally were going to go to hell -- how would you feel about that?  And, what would you do?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


286 posted 07-06-2004 09:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Orwellian did come to mind, Hush. It's scary to think how easily it can happen. Long live the Constitution!  


L.R., the other parent always has a say (or they do if they aren't silenced unconstitutionally by a judge) and can inform the child of his/her own beliefs on any given matter and state that something that is told them by the other parnter is simply that person's belief, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It may even be a good way to teach the lesson that there are all sorts of various beliefs held by all kinds of people, and that while we won't always agree with others' beliefs, we can still treat the people with love and respect, despite the disagreements.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


287 posted 07-07-2004 06:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
while we won't always agree with others' beliefs, we can still treat the people with love and respect, despite the disagreements.

That not Orwellian, Denise, it's Utopian. Parents capable of actually practicing it, however, typically aren't the ones going into court to settle their differences.

Such reasoned discourse is a great way to treat an adult or adolescent. It is a terrible way to treat a child.

To thrive, kids need a sense of security, a solid place to set their feet. A mercurial world where Mom and Dad are no wiser than the child, where there is no right and wrong but only opinions that vary, is anathema to that sense of security and, in my opinion, worse than physically beating the kid. Our young children don't worship up because we deserve it, but rather because they need absolutes. There are few greater dangers to childhood than two parents viciously attacking each other's credibility.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


288 posted 07-07-2004 08:20 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I'm certainly not advocating parents viciously attacking each other's credibility. But when there are genuine disagreements, there are genuine disagreements and they have to be dealt with as honestly and as sensitively as possible. I think kids can handle quite a bit more than we sometimes think they can.

I think if there are issues of viciousness that is what should be dealt with by the courts, through counseling, to enable the ex-partners to better communicate with each other and to learn how to handle any disagreements in a mature fashion. Silencing one or both of the partners regarding a point of disagreement isn't going to make the disagreement go away. And children sense that and know something is wrong, even if it isn't voiced. And when it comes to religious matters, well, I can only see silencing one or both ex-partners as a violation of their Constitutional rights.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


289 posted 07-08-2004 07:31 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You might be able to force someone to go to counseling, Denise, but you can't force them to learn what you'd like. And, in any event, both would be no less a violation of their rights.

If you don't want the courts deciding religious issues in the home, don't ask them to decide religious issues in the home. It's really not any more complex than that. Until one or both parents requests intervention, the decisions are still in their own hands.

Better yet, just remember the vows made to each other and forget the easy-out that divorce has become for most.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


290 posted 07-08-2004 11:33 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

LR-

'So the question is -- if the father of your child planned to educate him/her as a skinhead -- would you just allow that?  Or would you want to have a say in the matter?

More pointedly -- if he was going to teach him that you personally were going to go to hell -- how would you feel about that?  And, what would you do?'

Okay, good point. Personally... I'm quite used to people telling me that I'm going to hell, what with being an unbaptized agnostic living in sin with my boyfriend . I don't take it personally anymore, but I heard it much more when I was a kid, and your question brought back a couple of memories...

It is positively awful to hear someone tell you you're going to hell. Not they think, but as a fact. Even worse when you're a little kid. I can imagine that it's probably just as bad a thing to hear about your parent.

Actually, though, it was the skinhead comment that got me more. Instant reaction: of course not! Not my kid! So I see your point. Although I would say that teaching your kid to be a skinhed is a little worse than teaching your kid to be a Christian, IMO.

I guess I think that teaching right and wrong (whatever your standards of it are) is usually different than teaching hatred. I could (in my opinion, very plausibly) argue that teaching my child to hate will be harmful to him/her... but then there's that whole slippery slope thing, where I can see the logic in this case, and it starts to make a little more sense where the other one is coming from.

Still don't agree that it should be taken that far, but I guess I can see that that's a matter of personal politics more than universal rights. Thanks for clearing the air around my head, I need that from time to time.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


291 posted 07-10-2004 09:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It only takes one person to bring an issue into court. Obviously it is out of the hands of the other to keep it out of court, so it seems to me that the one who doesn't want religious issues decided by the court is at a decided disadvantage in following your advice, Ron.

Even criminals in prison retain their right of religious freedom of expression. But a person in a relationship gone bad can have a judge essentially take that right away from them if the ex-partner is disposed to taking it to court. To me, that's alarming. And equally alarming that some rationalize it away as simply a domestic issue.

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


292 posted 07-10-2004 10:13 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 only takes one person to bring an issue into court. Obviously it is out of the hands of the other to keep it out of court, so it seems to me that the one who doesn't want religious issues decided by the court is at a decided disadvantage in following your advice, Ron.

Not true. Both individuals are responsible for the issue ending up in court, Denise. The one who demands, yes, but also the one who refuses to surrender. Each makes a choice, just as they once made a choice to bind their lives together. Now they have to live with their choices, and frankly, that seems both fair and just. The kids, after all, have to live with the choices and they didn't have any hand in making them.

Two people joined as one, willingly accepting the responsibility to bring new life into this world. That choice was not without consequences for both. Trying to reverse that choice won't be without consequence, either. Once bound, always bound, and if they can't work together, someone will have to pay. Each of them accepted the potential for that burden long ago.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


293 posted 07-16-2004 12:41 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hey Guys,

I'm back. (Been in China for 2 weeks, adopted a little girl).  It was great fun.  But I'm glad to be back home.  I was too busy to keep in touch, and internet access was time charged at the Hotels.


JIm: (from pages back):
quote:
As I read it, the Establishment Clause prohibits such a practice, just as the Free Exercise Clause protects churches from having to recognize a civilly-legal homosexual marriage as sacred.

Jim,

Doesn't the latest direction of this thread at least bring up the growing trend of curtailing expression about homosexuality as sin, based on "hate speech" laws, such as Canada's Bill C-250?  If such speech is considered "hate speech" then the clause you speak of (to protect public preaching) may not be seen as relevant.  With the legalization of homosexual marriage, there will be an increasing tendency to think of homosexuality as normative, and therefore the Biblical condemnation of it (by the standards of popular culture) will be judged as hateful and harsh.  LR, Ess, & Ron have already expressed similar opinions on this very thread.  I personally think your view might border on the idealistic, since laws designed to protect religious expression can be questioned and eventually toppled just as easily as current law forbidding homosexual marriage.  Why would you expect one leaf to blow away with the relativistic wind and not the other?

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


294 posted 07-16-2004 12:56 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
It is positively awful to hear someone tell you you're going to hell. Not they think, but as a fact. Even worse when you're a little kid. I can imagine that it's probably just as bad a thing to hear about your parent.



If Hell were real, would it always be an awful thing to hear of it, or could it sometimes be a merciful reminder in order to avoid it?  Blades can cut and kill, but they can also aid life saving surgeons.


Stephen  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


295 posted 07-18-2004 12:37 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Jim, I agree with Stephen's assessment. The Constitution offers us protection only inasmuch as we have a judiciary that respects that protection.

The rationalizing away of our Constitutionally protected God-given rights is happening already today, whether it be in divorce/custody issues, or due to judges ruling that the expression of the belief that the practice of homosexuality is declared biblically to be a sin is not permissable.

Another article touching on the topic of freedom of religion/expression, or rather, the violation of it:
http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=1602

Serious stuff, in my opinion.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


296 posted 07-19-2004 09:44 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Well, Stephen, when you're a little kid who knows nothing about the bible, having grown up in a secular household, hanging out with other little kids who don't know enough about the bible to explain, only to condemn, then yes, it sucks. It's "you're-not-as-good-as-me-because-you-don't-have-the-same-beliefs."

I understand what you are saying- if someone really believes I am going to go to hell and they are trying to prevent it, they really aren't trying to do a mean or hurtful thing. I don't really agree with them that I am going to hell because nobody dribbled some water on my head, but that's okay. They have a right to believe that.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


297 posted 07-19-2004 11:03 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Stephen and Denise:

I see the "eroding of unalienable rights" argument posed most often as a last cry of desperation.  Advocating the curtailment of free speech is a two-edged sword that I really don't believe will get much traction, whether coming from the right or the left.  The Ku Klux Klan still has the right to rally as much as GLB activists have the right to parade in drag and those guys who travel the country with "AIDS is God's Judgement on Fags" banners. I predict that the moment a 9th Circuit Judge slams a radical evangelical group for strong anti-gay rhetoric, a GLB group will get slammed by the same doctrine for describing the evangelical activists as Nazis.  Besides ... I don't see the make-up of the US Supreme Court changing so much that such a 9th Circuit Opinion would stand.  So Stephen and Denise, I think your concerns about erosion of freedom are overblown.

I find the antics of all the above as horribly offensive, but such is the price we pay for living in a free society.  People have the right to act irresponsibly, so long as their actions cause no direct and actual harm to others, and people can pretty much say whatever they want as long as the language is not defamatory or does not cause others reasonable apprehension of harm.

Legally, I believe the gay marriage issue is one of State's rights.  If the people want it, fine, let them.  Again, changing the legal definition of marriage CANNOT change the sacred definition of the same.  Also, if evangelicals are looking for opportunities to extend their ministries into the gay and lesbian communities, stumping for a Constitutional Amendment is an abysmally stupid way to start.

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


298 posted 07-19-2004 01:36 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Also, if evangelicals are looking for opportunities to extend their ministries into the gay and lesbian communities, stumping for a Constitutional Amendment is an abysmally stupid way to start.



It's more than that Jim.  It arises from the conviction that Government has the responsibility to enforce what is right.  When it fails to do so, it incurs judgement from God in the form of dire consequences.  This way of thinking however is always met by crying "theonomic reconstronctionism".  But that's a straw man.  Defending what has already been established for hundreds of years is hardly an agressively offensive move.  And traditional marriage should be considered one of the "biggies" in my opinion.  The preservation of such a public institution, as is, can hardly be compared to something as extreme as enforcing sodomy laws, or imposing government established religion.  


Ministering to homosexuals is a separate but not incompatible response that evangelicals should also be giving attention to.  


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


299 posted 07-19-2004 02:07 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It seems strange to me that such an outrage is made about minor differences and yet the pornography culture, an industry that widely publishes sexual abuse in all forms of media that great populations go to, growing more and more, seems to be spoken out against less and less.  It rude unevenness when some people seem to have so much fear to show and things to say against minor sexual differences such as heterosexual and homosexuality.  It is like making an outrage and perversity of a straw, compared to something as wide and perverse as pornography --that is an industry makings millions of dollars is getting away with something that is seaping into the images and attitudes, even the dress-fashions, of people today.  There is disgusting untenderness in all sexuality today and pornography plays a major part in that.  What percentage of the internet is Pornography?  What percentage of citizens use the internet?  I really think there is a danger in pornography, and it is not unevidenced in the sexual behavior of our culture.  I said it before, it is very shameful when someone abuses a substance, but sex and sexuality are things that happen between people coming together and touching each other.  I believe when people are doing ill there, they are direclty doing wrong to themselves and others.  Looking at the suggestion/accusation that homosexuality in and of itself is a form of perversity,  holds even less weight when there is something like pornography whose evidence of sinfulness is in every media.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-19-2004 04:53 PM).]

 
 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 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] 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