|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
The Family Research Council is a vicious advocacy group. My links were to neutral science and journalism pieces; yours are to a group that sells fear.
I should have known those would be your sources, though. Your tax money has nothing to do with it, unless everything that anybody does is your business because you pay taxes. Edit: as for "a lot of evidence supporting both sides," (a) that is not true unless you believe the frc, and (b) I trust the American Academy of Pediatrics to know what's scientifically best for kids. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...search-council |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
Quote:
None of which is to say that I don't think they are generally in the right ballpark. Just that I would hope parents use their own sound judgment rather than rigorously use advice from them which doesn't seem to be working. Ultimately, doing what works best for your family is better than following a specific set of rules or guidelines. ~Aldin, child advocately He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
@dart48
--
Let's take this argument at face value: it is better for a child to be brought up by a mother and father. Gay marriage (presuming children are somehow involved) is therefore bad for children, and the government should therefore not allow it. Let's assume that is true, for the moment. Let me tell you about a government-sanctioned institution that encourages family situations where children are not brought up by a mother and father. In fact, this law is held by many to be against the religious sanctity of marriage. For centuries, Christians have held it to be a sin. Divorce. Now if assume your argument is true, then it seems to me that divorce should not be legal, if there are children involved. Perhaps you believe this as well, but if not, why not? Or take the following situation: a mother and father are killed in an accident. In their will, upheld by law, they have named the mother's mother as the legal guardian of their children. The grandma is a widow. Assuming your argument is true, this will should be invalid; the children should be put up for adoption by a man and a woman. Perhaps you believe this as well, but if not, why not? Or: a mother is widowed. Shouldn't the law require her to marry her brother-in-law? Okay, I'm being pedantic about that one, no set of laws would actually require that, right? Or: a single woman wants a child and goes for in vitro fertilization. Should that be legal? My point is, the "gay marriage is bad for children" argument, if taken to its logical conclusions, will lead to some places that are against the grain of what many Americans believe to be normal. (I won't say "most" without evidence.) Last weekend I went to a bar mitzvah in my community. I've known the young man for years, his mom used to be my son's Little League coach. He had made his own tallis (a prayer shawl) in blue and orange, because those are the Mets colors, and he's a sports nut. He delivered a really good drash on Korach, which is not an easy section of the Torah. His mom, and his other mom, both gave beautiful and heart-felt blessings for their son. This is not a big deal in our synagogue -- more was made at the service of the fact that one of his moms is of Puerto Rican descent, as our rabbi attempted to do a few prayers in Spanish. (Her Hebrew is much better.) That's an anecdote, not evidence. Maybe he and his sister would do better with a mother and a father rather than two mothers; they seem like they're doing OK to me. But had you been there, as his family and community came together to celebrate, I would ask you: what is wrong with this? |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
This always reminds me of the scene in "Thank you for smoking". It is a great movie and I highly recommend it.
In the scene the Father is explaining his lobbiest job to his son. They are debating that which flavor is better, Chocolate or Vanilla. Instead of arguing that vanilla is better or chocolate is worse, he show his son that it not about which is better, but rather that he can make a choice. Arguing for freedom, rather and arguing from a point of view makes him always right. When you choose to limit others choice you are often on the "wrong" side of the argument. You can't convince everyone that your side is right, but you can convince them that they should have a choice. |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
IMHO
This debate is a misdirection from the real issue. The government has no business documenting and approving anyone's relationships; gay, straight, or anywhere in between. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
Quote:
edit: Quote:
Here it is:
Spoiler Alert!
edit 2: What, you might wonder from the names, does the "Southern Poverty Law Center" have to do with the "Family Research Council"? Easy. The SPLC monitors hate groups. Last edited by Dad_Scaper; June 30th, 2015 at 11:17 AM. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
The vanilla/chocolate thing only works because they are neutral choices. Greater freedom to make neutral choices is always better. Greater freedom to make non-neutral choices is not always better and depends on your trust in the person making the decisions.
~Aldin, wishing he could convince himself to simply unsubscribe from this thread He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
No great controversy.
A marriage should be between two good people. I failed there. I married a very bad person. Abusive, manipulative, damaging. It almost destroyed my children. The marriage couldn’t last- it never had a chance but I tried for a decade. Call me stupid. Having been through a hell I humbly suggest that children require good people to be their parents. Not perfect people, not people who don’t make mistakes, but well intentioned people who wish to pursue happiness and assist their offspring in creating wonderful lives. One parent is fine. The world is full of broken people damaged in childhood. You can look for God while your children are being abused, but that doesn’t help them. Parenting and marriage partnering are basically a job, and discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion or anything else is pointless because those characteristics- gender, race, etc- do not make a person good or bad. Pick good people. The rest should be fun. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
The value I see in the vanilla/chocolate discussion is this lesson: When you are participating in a debate, there is your *opponent* and there is your *audience*. The two may be the same, but they may not. In the global warming thread, may it continue to rest in peace, dok and Ollie were debating with Phaethon. I don't think any of the three of them really expected the others to change their minds, but they were all speaking to the readers, to inform them.
The flip-side of this is that if you do not expect to persuade your opponent, and for whatever reason (maybe that you've already made your points; maybe you are conversing in a non-public setting) you have no reason to continue pursuing the non-opponent readers, you may as well stop talking. No need to fight for the last word. I think that scene from Thank You For Smoking is far more interesting than the debate presented in the OP. I do have strong feelings on the subject (surprise!) but I think it's so obvious and so well-trod that it's almost not worth discussing. On the other hand, I feel something of an obligation to the passersby and the lurkers, and maybe, just maybe, some people here who think they disagree with me will find themselves persuaded by my words (and my links). So I hear you, about unsubscribing. But I'm not, for the moment. edit: Holy heck, Sylvano. That right there is a compelling perspective. Been through the fire & survived. Good for you! |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
Yeah, I think a lot of folks on the internet are speaking for their audiences.
As for the current issue, I think the central question is: Is this a new right or a change in the way we understand an existing right? Because if gay folks were being denied a right that was available to everyone else, then naturally it would be wrong to continue to do so. But if they already had the same rights as everyone else, then it isn't nearly as obvious that we should change our society's structure in order to grant special rights to them. And both points of view are valid. If we say that the existing right was to marry someone of age and of the opposite gender for the purpose of creating a family unit of two or more people, then that right was not being denied to anyone. If we say that the existing right was to marry someone of age that you reciprocally love, then that right was being denied to them. In making their decision, the Supreme Court essentially upheld the idea that the second is the better definition of the right from the perspective of the state. And with that, I expect polymarriage in the next fifteen years or so as a very natural extension of that right. We may also see a breakdown of incest taboos. By the time any of those happen, I think society as a whole will be perfectly accepting of them and it will be interesting to see how it changes the fabric of society. Naturally, none of this changes religious definitions of marriage. The Supreme Court didn't rule that the Bible says Christian pastors need to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. All it is is a change to how our country will function administratively with concern to homosexual couples. ~Aldin, rightly He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
I am stunned every time I see people misunderstand this point. And it's happened a few times. It's not a "next step," it's not a "slippery slope." The government is not going to tell each member of each clergy which marriage it may or may not perform.
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?
Right. What it will do is force people who think it is wrong to do business with gay couples anyway. Like I said earlier, I'm not a fan of someone choosing to refuse service to someone for anything other than necessary reasons. On the other hand, speaking of freedom to choose, I've always had a lot of sympathy for the "we reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone" crowd. In the long run, economics should punish the foolish shortsightedness of folks who don't want to serve all of their potential customers. Sadly, I have to recognize that in the real world, that hasn't always been sufficient as a means of effecting necessary change.
~Aldin, citizen He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GENERALSCAPE: Old Controversy Becomes Fun Games | chas | HeroScape General Discussion | 16 | October 22nd, 2012 12:52 PM |
His Dark Materials -- Pointless Controversy? | jaques | Other Media | 3 | December 30th, 2007 10:06 PM |
great deal on great collection | hesh | Sightings and Sales | 22 | September 16th, 2007 06:03 PM |
Potentially selling GREAT gaming laptop for GREAT price! | Wytefang | General | 22 | July 23rd, 2007 03:19 PM |
New here, and this is great | Revdyer | Scapers Online | 28 | May 14th, 2006 05:08 PM |