Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:36:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1731 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As far as other negative aspects of gay marriage, I would only include
> > > > one-- child-raising. I believe that every child has the right to have a
> > > > father and a mother.
> > >
> > > The right? I don't think children have any such right.
> >
> > "Deserve" a better word? What rights would you ascribe to children?
>
> Yes, maybe deserve is better, although I really don't really know if that is
> right either. I'll have to think about that some more.
>
> > > > They are {not} equal and interchangable. All things being equal,
> > > > I believe it is better for a child to grow up having a mother and a father
> > > > rather than 2 of one or the other.
> > >
> > > That may possibly be so, but I have seen no evidence to support it.
> > >
> > > > Again, all things being equal, 1 woman
> > > > and 1 man is the superior and ideal family-raising scenario.
> > >
> > > I for one would like to see your evidence to back up that claim. I'm not
> > > saying I disagree with you, I probably lean in that direction myself, but
> > > as yet I have seen no evidence of it, and I certainly wouldn't assert it as
> > > fact.
> >
> > I'm not even sure by what criteria one could use to support or reject such a
> > claim. I go by this: men and women are {very} different by nature; vastly
> > more different than men between men or women between women. They are not
> > equal or interchangable. They each provide a wholly unique perspective that
> > is invaluable to a child and the child-raising experience. The idea is so
> > obvious, unless one believes that women and men are basically the same
> > except for differing reproductive organs and hormone levels.
>
> Well I would say that many men are very feminine and many women are very
> masculine, so specifying 1 man and 1 woman does not necessarily describe the
> best set of parents. I think it's possible two women (or two men) can be as
> different in their nature as a man and a woman. I agree it's probably good
> for children to be brought up by two people with different nature, but I
> don't agree that necessarily means 1 man and 1 woman.
>
> ROSCO
I can't believe this conversation is staying on a 'well gee, wouldn't it be nice
if...' level.
In todays age, where there are pregnant teens, single moms, and 80 year old
males getting married to 30 year old women and having kids, and all of this
'legal', and none of which falls into the John 'Brady Bunch' idea of 'perfect
family'
If there are single parent families, if there are situations like husband/wife
have kids, wife passes away, husband gets remarried (therefore kids have
'stepmom', husband passes away, wife gets remarried--therefore both parents are
'step parents', and other such scenarios, and lets not even talk about
biological mom and pop abusing kids--I mean for crying out loud! There is no
'perfect' family in the real world!
Therefore, he who is without sin may cast the first stone, as it were--if gays
want to be married and adopt kids, they are still people, and, as such, subject
to the same issues and failings that everyone else is subject to. Further, they
should be subject to the same laws as everyone else--if pop hauls off and
backsides his kid across the face so the kid goes flying, it doesn't matter if
pop is the biological parent, the step parent, the grandparent, the parent or
any other 'official' guardian of the kid--the guy should still be subject to the
law.
And if the parent raises his or her kids with compassion and caring and in a
nurturing enviornment, who cares if the parent is gay, old, single, married five
times, or has 3 arms sticking out of his or her side? That the parent is gay is
not the deciding factor in them being a good or bad guardian. People who make
an issue about gays getting married should really step back and have a look at
the history of society and realize that their ideas about gays getting married
and/or having kids shows fundamental bigotry on a scale on par with those that
showed bigotry against other races or bigortry against women in the past--those
other two are issues that some people in todays age still struggle with.
We have laws that state *all* people equal, no matter race, religion, sex, and
that should also encompass sexual preference.
Bottom line--leave the gays alone until they break the law. Allow them the full
diligence of the law, just like everyone else, because, in the end, there is no
'gays' and 'everyone else', there's just everyone.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) I can't believe that the originalral thread (about who to vote for and getting involved in politics in an effective way) seems to have spun off into some of the standard old directions. (the gay marriage direction, the "socialism works/no it (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Yes, maybe deserve is better, although I really don't really know if that is right either. I'll have to think about that some more. (...) Well I would say that many men are very feminine and many women are very masculine, so specifying 1 man (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
