Just yesterday I overheard a conversation, just a portion of it, between a young man and a young woman.
"But yeah, I have absolutely no problem with gays. Gay marriage is another story"
"Well, its not really marriage, yeah"
"Well, what it really is, is that it fucks up the nuclear family, which America is based on. And I have a problem with that."
Excuse me for a moment, I'm going to just step in to your conversation about "tolerance" here for a minute.
Your bastion of the Nuclear FamilyTM, that glorious wondrous unit of ONLY One ManR, and One WomanR and 2.5 children, the cornerstone of The America, is as good as a coin toss. Or didn't you know that, didn't you know that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, you fucking hypocrite, that this so called monolith is as good as me rolling a die to see if it works out. These are all STRAIGHT people fucking up, mind you, not those glorious faggots you have no problem with. Oh NO, you have gay friends, you love gays, just keep them the hell out of your sacred coin toss, you irredeemable schmuck, you ignorant fucktard.
How about this? How about I sit here and make you un-fucking-comfortable as possible for a while. I've got a male body, and I've fucked men. That's RIGHT, I've played with penis. Never mind that I'm somewhat trans-ish and I've played with pussy as well. How does that make you feel, shithead? How tolerant do you feel right now, when I'm shoving it in your face just like you shove your GLORIOUS UNION in mine and all my friends constantly, how fucking special it is. LIsten, shitneck, we all see through your veil of tolerance right down to the intolerance that is at it's core. You want to look tolerant while actually inside your a homophobic fucking asshole. You like seeming tolerant, it makes you look fucking fine to all the other posers out there, the so called Moderate White America crowd, all of them ignorant shitheads just like you.
Also, Fuck You,
~Kai
:mittens:
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
Hear, hear! Well said, Kai.
Quote
we all see through your veil of tolerance right down to the intolerance that is at it's core.
If only that were totally true, too many people actually buy that bullshit. If I hear it again though I'm not going to blow my stack, I'm just going to calmly print out this post and give it out to people.
Preach it!
I can't count the number of times someone will tell me "I'm okay with gays, as long as they don't hit on me. If they do that, then I'll beat their ass." It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tell me, as it only succeeds as making me disgusted with them. :\
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 17, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
Preach it!
I can't count the number of times someone will tell me "I'm okay with gays, as long as they don't hit on me. If they do that, then I'll beat their ass." It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tell me, as it only succeeds as making me disgusted with them. :\
I figure the response is "hit on you? seriously? ewwww"
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 17, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
Preach it!
I can't count the number of times someone will tell me "I'm okay with gays, as long as they don't hit on me. If they do that, then I'll beat their ass." It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tell me, as it only succeeds as making me disgusted with them. :\
Response: "As if any Gay guy would want your fat ass."
:mittens: Kai!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 17, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
Preach it!
I can't count the number of times someone will tell me "I'm okay with gays, as long as they don't hit on me. If they do that, then I'll beat their ass." It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tell me, as it only succeeds as making me disgusted with them. :\
Response: "As if any Gay guy would want your fat ass."
I always want to ask them if they'd also beat the shit out of any fat or unattractive women who hit on them... because their logic seems to be that unwanted people hitting on them automatically deserve to be beat up.
Hell Yeah Kai!!
Also I like it when guys hit on me, it is flattering, and makes me feel good about myself.
Quote from: Rumckle on January 17, 2010, 11:00:40 PM
Hell Yeah Kai!!
Also I like it when guys hit on me, it is flattering, and makes me feel good about myself.
This is what we would call an "emotionally healthy, sexually secure" response.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 17, 2010, 11:04:13 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on January 17, 2010, 11:00:40 PM
Hell Yeah Kai!!
Also I like it when guys hit on me, it is flattering, and makes me feel good about myself.
This is what we would call an "emotionally healthy, sexually secure" response.
:mittens:
Quote from: Rumckle on January 17, 2010, 11:00:40 PM
Hell Yeah Kai!!
Also I like it when guys hit on me, it is flattering, and makes me feel good about myself.
The only time a gay man hitting on me bothered me (not like it happens all the time, but it has 4 or 5 times) was one guy who was overly aggressive and wouldn't take no for an answer. I woulda had about the same response if it were a woman I was not interested in, except this guy was physically stronger than me, so that made it kind of frightening.
:mittens:
Your awesome Kai
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 17, 2010, 10:57:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 17, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
Preach it!
I can't count the number of times someone will tell me "I'm okay with gays, as long as they don't hit on me. If they do that, then I'll beat their ass." It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tell me, as it only succeeds as making me disgusted with them. :\
Response: "As if any Gay guy would want your fat ass."
I always want to ask them if they'd also beat the shit out of any fat or unattractive women who hit on them... because their logic seems to be that unwanted people hitting on them automatically deserve to be beat up.
Oh, it's just the same kind of a thinly veiled, hypocritical bullshit that statements likes "I'm not racist but..." come from. It upsets me, that some people find the need to warn me, as if I'm just going to assrape them after "How d'you do?".
So now maybe I will. With a vacuum nozzle.
Kiss them on the cheek then say your straight.
My guess is - Its an assumption. People love to assume that all gays just hit on any guys around... Fucking hell. My friend was explaining to me that Men have natural instincts to hunt out for other guys. Then why the fuck aren't I doing that shit - haha, thinking about it annoys me... I got annoyed, and she knew it.
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
This is a good point, actually.
I agree with that
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.
The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service. Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't. I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation. I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.
The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service. Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't. I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation. I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.
The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 04:27:15 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.
The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service. Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't. I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation. I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.
The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.
True. Marriage doesn't have to be about sexual attraction after all.
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 04:27:15 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: Dot Ardella on January 18, 2010, 03:20:35 AM
Quote from: Cainad on January 17, 2010, 09:16:31 PM
:mittens: from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.
I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."
As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?
Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.
The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service. Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't. I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation. I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.
The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.
In a couple of weeks i have due an essay about homosexual couples adopting children, from a psychological perspective.
Im worried how im going to approach it, because according to psycho-analytic theory, the healthy childs development depends on a good triangulation between mother and father, as oedipus complex goes... but for now, im sticking with the idea that merely each parent can play the psychic function role regardless of their sex...
Johny - just a question
Using a scenario of a gay couple, it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?
Sorry for the sucky wording :(
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 04:42:53 AM
Johny - just a question
Using a scenario of a gay couple, it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?
Sorry for the sucky wording :(
This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...
1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.
2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.
3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.
In other words, the main caretaker forms initially a symbiotic relationship with the child, and there needs to be a third force that separates them; if that separation does not take place, the child does not form a will of his own, and just lives to satisfy the needs of the caretaker (he become the caretakers "phallus").
I think the parents sex doesnt matter, but MAYBE their genders do matter.
I.E. Having two persons with male genitalia (male sex) but with a female personality (female gender).
Damn. I was about to ask "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?
But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)
So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?
eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 05:02:51 AM
Damn. I was about to ask "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?
But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)
So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?
eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha
Statistically gay parents don't make gay babies at any higher rate that straights. At least according to all the studies I have seen.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 18, 2010, 04:53:30 AM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 04:42:53 AM
Johny - just a question
Using a scenario of a gay couple, it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?
Sorry for the sucky wording :(
This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...
1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.
2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.
3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.
Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?
I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.
Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 05:09:33 AM
Statistically gay parents don't make gay babies at any higher rate that straights. At least according to all the studies I have seen.
Hmm don't want this to go into a round of statistic, though yeah I've met a few people who have Gay parents and they are definantly not gay.
I'm more curious about the environment .. I personally don't think having 2 single gender parents will have any problems - since the child won't know any better. But if they compare it to the other relationships that other kids have with a Mum/Dad relationship - would they feel like they are missing something? There is also the possibility of being teased over it ...
I know for a fact that I wondered what it would be like if I had an actual dad.
@Nasturtiums - It is hard to take serious :lulz: Something just seems wrong with it
Quote from: Alty on January 18, 2010, 05:15:07 AM
I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.
Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.
That was beautifully put.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 05:02:51 AM
Damn. I was about to ask "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?
But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)
So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?
eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha
Some cultural research ive done about Mexican culture, points to the conclusion that the lack of prescence of the father makes for a lot of "momma's boys"; they never quite differentiate completely.
Gay parents dont make gay babies, thats a whole different deal; first theres a competition for the affection of the caretaker or loved object, which later, after the child understands it cant compete, just accepts it and starts identifying with the victor.
Yes, in my opinion, one parent needs to be the caretaker, while the other helps break that fused couple.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 18, 2010, 05:21:42 AM
Some cultural research ive done about Mexican culture, points to the conclusion that the lack of prescence of the father makes for a lot of "momma's boys"; they never quite differentiate completely.
Gay parents dont make gay babies, thats a whole different deal; first theres a competition for the affection of the caretaker or loved object, which later, after the child understands it cant compete, just accepts it and starts identifying with the victor.
Yes, in my opinion, one parent needs to be the caretaker, while the other helps break that fused couple.
Thanks :)
That makes alot of sense.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 18, 2010, 05:13:48 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 18, 2010, 04:53:30 AM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 04:42:53 AM
Johny - just a question
Using a scenario of a gay couple, it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?
Sorry for the sucky wording :(
This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...
1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.
2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.
3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.
Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?
Depends on your reasons why; this is a theory i need to argue for or against for my essay, but with reasons, not just ideological liking or not.
I personally have no problem with homosexual couples taking care of babies.
I think its more so to do with the wordings and laughing at it like an 8 year old
Quote from: Alty on January 18, 2010, 05:15:07 AM
I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.
Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.
Gender is indeed a social construct, while sex you dont have a choice.
In other words, you dont have a choice to have a dick or a pussy, but you sure have a choice on how you want to act, instead of following relative/cultural gender norms.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 18, 2010, 05:24:31 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 18, 2010, 05:13:48 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 18, 2010, 04:53:30 AM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 04:42:53 AM
Johny - just a question
Using a scenario of a gay couple, it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?
Sorry for the sucky wording :(
This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...
1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.
2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.
3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.
Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?
Depends on your reasons why; this is a theory i need to argue for or against for my essay, but with reasons, not just ideological liking or not.
I personally have no problem with homosexual couples taking care of babies.
Well, it's hard for me to agree or disagree with the whole thing as I have never had the experience of being a parent, but it just seems to frame the whole parent-child relationship in sexuality, which seems awfully odd to me.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 05:25:28 AM
I think its more so to do with the wordings and laughing at it like an 8 year old
Also, this.
Nasturtiums,
Lol phallus
QuoteThe father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child
:lulz:
I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.
Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book :lulz:
ETA: On the subject of gay couples bringing up kids. If two gay people are capable of completely doing a kids head in to the point where they are unable to function as an adult in society when they grow up, a shivering wreck of conflicting neuroses, then they're just as fit to be parents as most straight couples IMO.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2010, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.
Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book :lulz:
No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2010, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.
Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book :lulz:
No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.
Problem is, when you're observing black-box phenomenon like consciousness you can pretty much make up any reason why it does what it does. Which, as far as I can tell is how psychology works.
Sexual taboos appear to be one of the most common taboos among all societies everywhere... Saying who you can and cannot fuck has been a big control stick for a long... long... long time. Not always anti-homosexual, or pro-hetero only... but Some Rules about who/what the monkeys can and cannot pop one off with. Hell, the Hebrews had a whole mega list which included people you HAD to have sex with (just ask poor old Onan... maybe he didn't WANT to fuck his sister in law... when I was married, I sure as hell didn't want to fuck my sister in law!!!), but no, the law said that he had to.
The society of the last half of the 20th century though... has begun to move in a different direction. A direction where society cannot force their rules on you as strongly as they once did (obviously we're not free of sexual taboos... there's still lots of Do Not Touch With Your Penis categories, like kids, animals, etc). But, homosexuality, something our society (from a traditional standpoint) would forbid, is allowed due to the competing tradition in the society of freedom. I wonder how much of the anti-gay marriage issue is intolerance, as opposed to social confusion? I mean, several hundred years of tradition overthrown in a generation seems likely to leave a lot of confused monkeys.
Jefferson said that the revolution happened in the minds of the people, 10 years before the first shot. He felt that no law would usefully stick, if it hadn't already been stuck in the heads of the People.
If we look at the Civil rights movement, I think we see that. Even though there were laws, many people still behaved in an abominable fashion. Some people are still as abominable, but overall society has evolved in the minds of the people and civil rights for that group are not really fought against except by obviously intolerant bigots. I think what we're seeing now, with the gay marriage issue will follow a similar path. It's not likely to succeed now (or at least, not likely to be accepted by 'the people') because their thinking has not yet evolved (one could argue, maybe metaphorically, that the current social atmosphere is the sort of environment to force evolution/adaptation of thinking).
So I guess I see a couple groups in the anti-gay marriage groups. There are bigots, anti-gay people that want to burn, kill, destroy the gays that are 'stealing their kids and raping them' (at least in the mind of the monkey)... but I think there are also a larger group of people that are dealing with conflicting and confusing programs in their head... as those programs resolve themselves, I think many of the anti-gay individuals will become neutral or pro-human rights for this minority (much as some of the anti=-Civil rights people had a change of heart over time).
Responses like Kai's seem to be the sort of 'stress' that is needed to force the thinking to evolve.
:mittens: Kai!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2010, 04:08:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2010, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 18, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.
Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book :lulz:
No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.
Problem is, when you're observing black-box phenomenon like consciousness you can pretty much make up any reason why it does what it does. Which, as far as I can tell is how psychology works.
That's why the scientific method exists, to test and retest hypotheses via observation and experiment. A judicious use of parsimony is necessary. That's how you eliminate made up reasons.
Freud pulled oedipus complex out of his ass. He didn't test any hypotheses, and he certainly didn't use parsimony. It's a whole bunch of just so stories. Truly, those who study the mind can do better.
I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.
She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ... :argh!:
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 08:21:27 PM
I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.
She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ... :argh!:
If you look at comparative psychology, maternal imprinting doesn't have to, you know, be on the biological mother to work.
Oh! That is material, thank you :)
How could I forget about things like Adoption..
@Ratatosk - Nice post. I find it kind of motivational to read :)
Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?
It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 08:51:47 PM
Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?
It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
In all honesty the only semi-rational thought from the 'no gay marriage' people are the ones that say "Well, you should have all the same rights and just call it something else..."
I think marriage is a fine word and anyone should be free to use it. However, a half loaf of bread is better than no bread or 'maybe bread in 20 years'. There is no excuse, no rational thought or reason to say that two individuals of whatever sex and whatever personal relationship should NOT be capable of having a personal legal contract between them and another person. It seems insane to say "No you can not agree to share your belongings with/act as next of kin for another willing human." But, as many people confuse the menu for the meal and the word for the idea, I am not surprised that many people freak over the word marriage.
Monkeys flip over semantics all the time... OMGZ YOU USED A WORD!!!!!
I think its nuts, but its not all that weird or bizarre. In an ideal world, this all should be a non-issue, but if we don't live in an ideal world, isn't finding compromises (esp if the compromise is a word choice) an OK option?
I've talked to several people that say Yes Civil Unions, No Marriage. Maybe they're lying bigots and use that as a smoke screen (like the States Rights cover for anti-abortion activists, or the older anti-civil rights/pro slavery activists)... or maybe their monkey brains need to be updated for the 21sst century... but in the end, wouldn't it be better for people to have legal 'civil unions' in 30 states, rather than legal "gay marriage" in 5?
I know personally I would prefer a Civil Union instead of a Marriage. Only cause I can't bear going to another marriage [...going to one next week bawww..] :(:(
(I've been to too many - its cause we're ethnic and know everyone getting married)
But you are right - Civil Unions in 30 vs GM in 5 is a big difference. Its almost like one of those "You want what you can't get" things.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 18, 2010, 09:20:44 PM
In all honesty the only semi-rational thought from the 'no gay marriage' people are the ones that say "Well, you should have all the same rights and just call it something else..."
It's been tried.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Really? So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc. Then the man retires on SS. Then he dies.
So we starve the wife, right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:29:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Really? So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc. Then the man retires on SS. Then he dies.
So we starve the wife, right?
:)
apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:29:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Really? So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc. Then the man retires on SS. Then he dies.
So we starve the wife, right?
:)
apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.
Sure, we should get rid of SS. The poor should work until they die. If they can't work, they should starve.
Right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:44:25 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:29:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Really? So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc. Then the man retires on SS. Then he dies.
So we starve the wife, right?
:)
apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.
Sure, we should get rid of SS. The poor should work until they die. If they can't work, they should starve.
Right?
:|
uh-huh....
So you're saying the reason we need Govt. approval of whether two people get married is because if they didn't we wouldn't be able to have the forced ponzi scheme that keeps poor people from starving?
not buying it. I think people should be able to marry if they choose with it being solely between themselves, "god", and their family/friends.
I also think that we should not be forced to rob peter to pay paul, and call it a 'safety net'...
I think we should ban marriage in all states.
Can't we just peform unOfficial marriages with the Pope Cards. If a Civil Union is all it takes to be recongised by Law (Becaue thats what it is mostly about right?), does it matter what method of union is done?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 10:01:29 PM
I think we should ban marriage in all states.
THIS!
I also think we should ban government in all states, but I won't win that argument ;-)
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:44:25 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 09:29:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.
There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).
They do already, so that's not an issue. I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.
as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.
Really? So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc. Then the man retires on SS. Then he dies.
So we starve the wife, right?
:)
apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.
Sure, we should get rid of SS. The poor should work until they die. If they can't work, they should starve.
Right?
:|
uh-huh....
So you're saying the reason we need Govt. approval of whether two people get married is because if they didn't we wouldn't be able to have the forced ponzi scheme that keeps poor people from starving?
not buying it. I think people should be able to marry if they choose with it being solely between themselves, "god", and their family/friends.
I also think that we should not be forced to rob peter to pay paul, and call it a 'safety net'...
So poor people should starve. Gotcha.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 08:51:47 PM
Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?
It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...
Historically, societal recognition of union has been significant, whether there was a legal definition of it or not. There are few cultures on this planet that do not recognize marriage in some form. That being said, I know your question was about legal recognition.
The original reason that marriage was legally delt with was I think a matter of inheritance. This is also the reason that polygamy (whether polygyny or polyandry or a mixture) has been such a problem. Sure, people will claim it's on moral grounds, but really it's a matter of, if there are multiple spouses and many children it's much harder to legally divide up inheritance. This would be easily solved by will writing and revising, but getting people to do this is another matter. To that point, ending of legal marriage would be undesireable, though the rules should be changed so that any two people over a certain age can marry. And divorce, for that matter; I find it funny how many people standing behind the Institution of Straight Marriage forget about the divorce rates.
Getting rid of legal definitions of marriage maybe would be shortsighted to a point, and IMO impossible in this culture, but certainly not improper. I mean, who's definition of propriety are you gonna go by? A single christian denomination? The greater community of Islam? The Unitarian Universalists? Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism? Those are the largest religions in this country and none of them agree on definitions of marriage. And by the words of the founders this country obviously wasn't founded in christianity, so you can't just automatically fall back on that. And then you have all the nonreligious ideas of what is proper in marriage and what is not.
See I'm the exact opposite. I have a bit of a problem with couples showing ridiculous amounts of public affection and I've noticed that the trend of what pisses me off tends to lean towards when gay people do it and that kind of freaks me out because I like to consider myself open-minded. Not too much but a bit. However I don't think that the government should be pull over the discrimination of it's citizens into the government.
I don't see why inheritance can't be dealt with separately from marriage...
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
So, if we entertain the improbable notion that marriage were simply done away with in a legal sense, what do you think the reaction of the gay community would be? would they be amused that they gained equality by denying hetersexual unions their special privileges, or would they be upset that they didn't get them?
i guess that gets at whether they are ultimately seeking the specific benefits for their sake, or equality for its sake...
(I'm glad you replied. i was afraid i was jacking your thread improperly)
Quote from: Pariah? on January 18, 2010, 10:49:11 PM
See I'm the exact opposite. I have a bit of a problem with couples showing ridiculous amounts of public affection and I've noticed that the trend of what pisses me off tends to lean towards when gay people do it and that kind of freaks me out because I like to consider myself open-minded. Not too much but a bit. However I don't think that the government should be pull over the discrimination of it's citizens into the government.
Seeing other people being affectionate makes you feel uncomfortable? Sounds like a personal problem of emotional/sexual maturity/security.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
I don't see why inheritance can't be dealt with separately from marriage...
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
So, if we entertain the improbable notion that marriage were simply done away with in a legal sense, what do you think the reaction of the gay community would be? would they be amused that they gained equality by denying hetersexual unions their special privileges, or would they be upset that they didn't get them?
i guess that gets at whether they are ultimately seeking the specific benefits for their sake, or equality for its sake...
(I'm glad you replied. i was afraid i was jacking your thread improperly)
1) Because people feel entitled, especially when it comes to money, and frankly there's nothing wrong with this within a family group, whether that's a uncle and his three nephews and niece, a traditional nuclear family, a gay couple, or even a group of friends who have lived communally in the same house for the past 30 years.
2) I don't particularly care what the reaction of the gay community would be. I personally would have a problem with it.
3) Equality is worth it, no matter what the reasons of some particular group are. The prime exception is in education, where some hypotheses are better supported than others and time is limited, so you want the kids learning the useful stuff and not bullshit. Why should I care whether the "gay community" whatever the hell that is would be smug about it?
Quote from: NotPublished on January 18, 2010, 08:21:27 PM
I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.
She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ... :argh!:
I think that there is definitely a valid point there, not only the bond of actually being carried in someone's womb but also breastfeeding, which is a very strong imprinting activity. However breastfeeding can be simulated pretty convincingly with a harness. Carrying someone in a womb can't (yet) but that just means that the goal is the best possible situation, rather than the ideal situation. The best possible situation is often going to involve same sex couples raising children.
I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple, but that is far from the most important part of it, that those two are materially and emotionally able to provide fro the child is more important, that they have a relationship that will give the child a healthy model for adult relationships also. I also think that a supportive community surrounding the parenting couple is an important factor and more so than the sex or gender of the parents.
Homosexual parents should not (usually) be compared to heterosexual parents on a one to one basis because they are adopting the children. There are exceptions but that is the general rule. If homosexual parents are compared to heterosexual ones as adoptive parents they end up coming out as superior in a lot of categories, they are usually better off financially, the incidences of child abuse tend to be lower, and the children tend to grow up more aware and accepting of alternate lifestyle choices of all kinds.
Also, as Dot brought up, sexuality is not the only metric that can be considered. A pair of sisters who are both heterosexual but not in relationships could adopt a child together. There are a lot of other possible combinations, that one is just easy.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 08:51:47 PM
Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?
It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...
There are some very important things covered by marriage that would be a hassle to put together otherwise. Visitation rights and other next of kin issues that are not even involved with financial matters (which seem to be the main concern of anti-gay marriage folks who aren't motivated purely by religion) I'm in favor of getting government out of everything, but until they are out of all of the things affected by a marriage I'd prefer they stay involved in marriage.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?
If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?
If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...
How very nice that you can afford such luxuries. However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 11:30:09 PM
I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,
Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:30:51 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?
If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...
How very nice that you can afford such luxuries. However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.
so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:31:49 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 11:30:09 PM
I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,
Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.
Has nothing to do with my statement. I don't mean the ideal for emotional fulfilment, or anything aside from the ideal situation to raise a child.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:43:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:31:49 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 18, 2010, 11:30:09 PM
I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,
Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.
Has nothing to do with my statement. I don't mean the ideal for emotional fulfilment, or anything aside from the ideal situation to raise a child.
Apart from that the failings of any number of people in living up to the expectations and obligations of any given arrangement does not change the value of the arrangement itself...
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
Love from the parents is the best thing anyone could ever grow up with. I think its being analysed too scientifically.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.
Quote from: Nast on January 19, 2010, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.
Nope, and for a lot of other organisms it would not be the ideal environment. For us it is. I am not saying it is something that applies to all mammals, or even all simians. Just that it applies to us, throughout recorded history and before that as far as we can tell from the evidence.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 01:06:27 AM
Quote from: Nast on January 19, 2010, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.
Nope, and for a lot of other organisms it would not be the ideal environment. For us it is. I am not saying it is something that applies to all mammals, or even all simians. Just that it applies to us, throughout recorded history and before that as far as we can tell from the evidence.
And, um, what evidence would that be?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Yes, I am a single mom. Yes it would be nice to have someone else to help me with Monkey. But that doesn't mean that I want a man (because I don't in a REALLY BIG WAY), and I definitely don't want to get back together with my ex. So there goes biological right out the window.
To top off my argument against yours, that biological is ideal (which I interpret as 'best'), I am adopted. I never knew my biological parents, and they specifically told the adoption agency that they didn't want any further contact. Now, I would be the first to admit that I don't get on with my parents. And also that I ended up a little dysfunctional. But that has nothing to do with my parents being non-biological, I just don't like them. I don't see how my sharing DNA with them would have changed those matters.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 01:14:48 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.
IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.
That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible. You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here) can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him? Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for. That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child. That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.
Yes, I am a single mom. Yes it would be nice to have someone else to help me with Monkey. But that doesn't mean that I want a man (because I don't in a REALLY BIG WAY), and I definitely don't want to get back together with my ex. So there goes biological right out the window.
To top off my argument against yours, that biological is ideal (which I interpret as 'best'), I am adopted. I never knew my biological parents, and they specifically told the adoption agency that they didn't want any further contact. Now, I would be the first to admit that I don't get on with my parents. And also that I ended up a little dysfunctional. But that has nothing to do with my parents being non-biological, I just don't like them. I don't see how my sharing DNA with them would have changed those matters.
As I said and will keep saying there are other factors which are often more important. I think Monkey is better off with just you than he would have been if you had stayed with your ex, and I'm not saying that you getting involved with a new guy would be a good thing. In your case he's in the best possible situation, that's not the same as the ideal situation, which would have been a biological mother and father who are perfectly compatible and also an extended family who can support them in parenting.
In your case, again, it was the best possible situation, which is not the same as the ideal situation. I'd say the fact you don't get along with your parents probably is related to the fact that you are not biologically related to them, not the whole reason, there are plenty of adopted people who get along fine with their parents, but a contributing factor. There's no way to say how sharing DNA would have changed things, but it would have meant more similarity between you and them. We don't understand all the ways that genetics effect personality but we do know that it does to some degree. Not always in direct ways either, for instance tall people are going to have certain personality traits appear with more likelihood because their environment is different because they are tall, even if there is no genetic component to those personality traits they are still going to show up in a way that is tied to the DNA for being tall.
Ideal to who?
People? You? Me?
What is the ideal situation?
I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 01:24:14 AM
Ideal to who?
People? You? Me?
What is the ideal situation?
I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?
Ideal to the generic child. (another one of those things that doesn't really exist)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of
Austrailopithecus afarensis or even
Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley
Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.
Ideal parents for an ideal child living ideal life on an ideal world.
Right.
I like hyptotheticals and all...but that hardly matters. All the fuckups I know had parents more or less ideal than mine. I went through so many "father-figures" and it did nothing but turn me into a (reformed) misandrist.
The care intended and carried out by comptent parents that fulfil the needs of a child are all that matter.
God fucking dammit.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 01:26:48 AM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 01:24:14 AM
Ideal to who?
People? You? Me?
What is the ideal situation?
I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?
Ideal to the generic child. (another one of those things that doesn't really exist)
So, this is one of those unobtainable, non-existent ideals?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:30:51 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?
If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...
How very nice that you can afford such luxuries. However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.
so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?
1. Under the current system, unclaimed or intestate property reverts to the state.
2. The luxury of being able to afford the costs of making and filing a will. Simply writing down your wishes on a napkin doesn't cut it.
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of Austrailopithecus afarensis or even Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing. And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment. As has been said before the brain is a black box in a lot of ways, that includes childhood development. I wont start in on gender archetypes or the oedipus complex or any of that because there's a good chance a lot of that is funny hats and not the useful sort. There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways. It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
(also yes I do know that I am basically just repeating what I already said. I am hopefully also clarifying it. I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to imply that children of same sex parents are being disadvantaged by the fact their parents are the same sex. Any more so than children of mixed race parents are being dsadvantaged (as an example of something else that can be a challenge for the child but that doesn't mean it should in any way stand as an obstacle to it occuring.)
I think I'm getting clucky...... Well as clucky as a guy can get.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.
Evolved into it? What?
Your evidence?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.
A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.
QuoteAnd the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.
As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.
QuoteThere are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.
Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.
QuoteIt just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 02:21:24 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.
A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.
QuoteAnd the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.
As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.
QuoteThere are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.
Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.
QuoteIt just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?
Because the ideal situation isn't based on society, it's based on biology. And we evolve to fit in with our environment, that's how evolution works, those most suited to an environment survive and breed.
Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe. One of those aspects is the fact that we don't generally live as a part of an extended family anymore and that is, in my opinion, a lot more important than whether children have 2 or 1 parents or what sexes those parents are. You are right, it's pretty irrelevant in the face of other more important factors. However, being an arguementative cuss I'll keep defending my position as long as people keep attacking it.
Babs, doesn't your ass get tired from all that talking?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 02:01:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:30:51 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 18, 2010, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 18, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will. failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?
Nice. So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.
That's awesome. Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.
I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?
If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...
How very nice that you can afford such luxuries. However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.
so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?
1. Under the current system, unclaimed or intestate property reverts to the state.
2. The luxury of being able to afford the costs of making and filing a will. Simply writing down your wishes on a napkin doesn't cut it.
This is a topic that i certainly need to learn more about, having had a brush with death recently, where it would have become very relevant...
what constitutes 'unclaimed' property? if there is no will, i would fully believe that the state would take all it could get its mits on that is worth anything, but i'm assuming the family of the deceased gets an opportunity in probate court to claim some of it, right?
the cost of making and filing a will should be negligible.
these deficiencies in our system of inheritance should be addressed rather than making an institution that should be private a matter of the state as a 'fix'...
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:30:26 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 19, 2010, 02:21:24 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.
A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.
QuoteAnd the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.
As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.
QuoteThere are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.
Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.
QuoteIt just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?
Because the ideal situation isn't based on society, it's based on biology. And we evolve to fit in with our environment, that's how evolution works, those most suited to an environment survive and breed.
Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe. One of those aspects is the fact that we don't generally live as a part of an extended family anymore and that is, in my opinion, a lot more important than whether children have 2 or 1 parents or what sexes those parents are. You are right, it's pretty irrelevant in the face of other more important factors. However, being an arguementative cuss I'll keep defending my position as long as people keep attacking it.
I'm pretty sure that humans won't be going back to trees any time soon, which means that society IS our environment now. and we keep inventing more ways to render biology out-of-date. As long as the current status of humanity remains (that being society is our natural habitat), your 'idea family' is not ideal.
Hmm ..
If you give animals the ability to talk and be sentimental - would they slowly change their own habbit and stop with the Food Chain? This would cause alot of problems in itself.
For some reason, humans are the dominant species, and its because they're soo damn adaptive. Meeting and crushing many challenges that they are faced with.
I forget where I was going with this ... heh.
I just know I can't take most of it serious, I love it when my very existance itself is put down to chemistry and reaction in the brain ... I get too bored hearing it.
... Also I don't want to go live in a tree :( Unless tree is a metaphor for a 2-3 story house? :D
Quote from: Iptuous on January 19, 2010, 02:36:26 AM
if there is no will, i would fully believe that the state would take all it could get its mits on that is worth anything, but i'm assuming the family of the deceased gets an opportunity in probate court to claim some of it, right?
You're so cute when you're all naive.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 02:48:13 AM
Hmm ..
If you give animals the ability to talk and be sentimental - would they slowly change their own habbit and stop with the Food Chain? This would cause alot of problems in itself.
For some reason, humans are the dominant species, and its because they're soo damn adaptive. Meeting and crushing many challenges that they are faced with.
I forget where I was going with this ... heh
... I don't want to go live in a tree :( Unless tree is a metaphor for a 2-3 story house? :D
I wish. :lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:30:26 AM
Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe.
That's precisely what we're in.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of Austrailopithecus afarensis or even Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing. And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment. As has been said before the brain is a black box in a lot of ways, that includes childhood development. I wont start in on gender archetypes or the oedipus complex or any of that because there's a good chance a lot of that is funny hats and not the useful sort. There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways. It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
(also yes I do know that I am basically just repeating what I already said. I am hopefully also clarifying it. I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to imply that children of same sex parents are being disadvantaged by the fact their parents are the same sex. Any more so than children of mixed race parents are being dsadvantaged (as an example of something else that can be a challenge for the child but that doesn't mean it should in any way stand as an obstacle to it occuring.)
That's funny, because it sounds like the same sort of shallow mask over bigotry that I was ranting against. My bad.
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived....
(also yes I do know that I am basically just repeating what I already said. I am hopefully also clarifying it. I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to imply that children of same sex parents are being disadvantaged by the fact their parents are the same sex. Any more so than children of mixed race parents are being dsadvantaged (as an example of something else that can be a challenge for the child but that doesn't mean it should in any way stand as an obstacle to it occuring.)
That's funny, because it sounds like the same sort of shallow mask over bigotry that I was ranting against. My bad.
I don't know that that rises to the level of bigotry, even of the masked variety. I'd say it's more on the order of a mistaken belief. Mind you, I'm not going to try to defend it, because I vehemently oppose the kind of reasoning Babylon is using here. Also, it certainly can be a mask for bigotry, sometimes. But I don't see anything he's said that we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt that it's an honest mistake. I haven't seen you provide any evidence to support your side either, Kai. (BTW, Kai, I'm reading your remark as sarcastic there, is that right?)
First of all, Kai, you should take the time to explain to him the mistake in his reasoning, and you can probably do this better than I can, but I'll give it a shot. Babylon, you said, "the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment." But this is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution happens on a far grander scale than societal evolution. It is much more akin to geological time, and the passage of a few thousand years is really a blink of an eye in evolutionary time. So even though the mother/father nuclear family is the dominant norm in Western society in recent memory, it really has nothing to do with how the human family is "naturally" supposed to be. For instance Prof Lloyd DeMause (http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln08_childrearing.html) says:
Quote from: Lloyd DeMause
The problem with the overly monolithic conception of a "patriarchy" wherein men dominate women both in society and in the family is that while no Bachofen-style "matriarchal" society has been found,4 there is little evidence that until modern times fathers have been very much present in historical families. In our promiscuous chimpanzee ancestors, fathers were quite absent in child-rearing, so there are no "families[.]"
At the end of the day Babylon is wrong about this objectively about the idea that the patriarchal nuclear family evolved. This is the same fallacy that the social Darwinists made a hundred years ago, human society moves so much faster than evolution that social changes cannot be considered natural selection, they are human selection.
Moreover, whether or not it is natural is an entirely separate question from is is good for the child. Short answer: it is. Study (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids) after study (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477) shows that same sex couples raise kids that are just as well adjusted as opposite sex couples.
So when we really analyze it, the idea that the mother/father combination is somehow superior vanishes into thin air, and what we are left with is just an irrational prejudice.
Thanks, because I didn't feel like wasting my time. Which is what it feels like when I actually go about explaining things, since people seldom consider arguments and are willing to overcome their ignorance.
I really feel like crying ...
I was arguing with my best friend, she thinks its horrible that I want to raise a child and that my limit should be "I can be an uncle, but I can't have children" ... I really flipped after that. I told her to stop and I don't want to talk any further but she pushed it ... Who is in the wrong, me or her? And it went really sour after that .... tl dr version - "Its just all about you? Other people have to abide by what you want?" .. minus all the other crap.
Fucking hell what the hell is friendship
... Ok good I'm over that shit, I'm ready to kill a Mother fucker.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 11:29:00 AM
I was arguing with my best friend, she thinks its horrible that I want to raise a child and that my limit should be "I can be an uncle, but I can't have children" ...
What the hell?
A friend is just an enemy you haven't fallen out with yet.
No, I'm really curious here. Why does his friend think he can't raise kids?
Selective homophobia? Liek "I can get my head around the fact that yo're teh gh3y and still accept you but onoez keep away from babiez!"
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
Selective homophobia? Liek "I can get my head around the fact that yo're teh gh3y and still accept you but onoez keep away from babiez!"
He's gay? (I'm a little slow sometimes.)
Wait. This should stop him from raising kids? OH, I GET IT. She's one of those "homosexuals are all also child molesters" assholes.
NP, she is not your friend. She does not have your best interests at heart. Dump her and find some friends that don't think you're a monster.
Well, I was assuming he's gay otherwise that post makes no sense to me either.
Also I would like to take this opportunity to confess a tinge of selective homophobia myself. I'm fine with it until I see two guys kissing, then I'm all, like "Eeeeeeeew!"
Unlike a lot of people, tho, I know this is my issue and don't use it as the cornerstone of my belief about what's right and wrong. Homophobia is like arachnophobia - it's not the fucking spiders fault. I've no doubt most people would look at a lot of shit I do and want to claw their own eyes out and bleach the sockets - fuck 'em and their petty prejudices :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Well, I was assuming he's gay otherwise that post makes no sense to me either.
Also I would like to take this opportunity to confess a tinge of selective homophobia myself. I'm fine with it until I see two guys kissing, then I'm all, like "Eeeeeeeew!"
Unlike a lot of people, tho, I know this is my issue and don't use it as the cornerstone of my belief about what's right and wrong. Homophobia is like arachnophobia - it's not the fucking spiders fault. I've no doubt most people would look at a lot of shit I do and want to claw their own eyes out and bleach the sockets - fuck 'em and their petty prejudices :evil:
Two guys kissing doesn't bother me, though it used to.
TBH it doesn't get me in the pit of my gut, like it used to.
Two girls kissing, OTOH, I'd be in hog-heaven if they made that shit compulsory :fap:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 01:23:48 PM
TBH it doesn't get me in the pit of my gut, like it used to.
Two girls kissing, OTOH, I'd be in hog-heaven if they made that shit compulsory :fap:
Doesn't do a thing for me, unless they both happen to be kissing me.
:lulz: Doesn't do a thing for me either.
Yeah I am gay.
Its shitty...
It shouldn't be surprising that any display of eroticism turns me on.
That much said, there is plenty of non-erotic displays of sexuality out there.
I swear, HBO's "Real Sex" series makes my penis scream and try to hide itself behind my taint sometimes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 19, 2010, 06:56:45 PM
It shouldn't be surprising that any display of eroticism turns me on.
That much said, there is plenty of non-erotic displays of sexuality out there.
I swear, HBO's "Real Sex" series makes my penis scream and try to hide itself behind my taint sometimes.
Why the hell would you do that to yourself?
:lulz: Sounds like a good watch.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
Selective homophobia? Liek "I can get my head around the fact that yo're teh gh3y and still accept you but onoez keep away from babiez!"
NP, she is not your friend. She does not have your best interests at heart. Dump her and find some friends that don't think you're a monster.
Thanks :) :| I was starting to get soo comfortable with the friendship but shit like this realises I truly only have myself to rely on.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 07:04:05 PM
:lulz: Sounds like a good watch.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
Selective homophobia? Liek "I can get my head around the fact that yo're teh gh3y and still accept you but onoez keep away from babiez!"
NP, she is not your friend. She does not have your best interests at heart. Dump her and find some friends that don't think you're a monster.
Thanks :) :| I was starting to get soo comfortable with the friendship but shit like this realises I truly only have myself to rely on.
1. "Real Sex" is designed to suck all the fun out of perversion.
2. Not true. You just aren't picking the right friends.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 07:01:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 19, 2010, 06:56:45 PM
It shouldn't be surprising that any display of eroticism turns me on.
That much said, there is plenty of non-erotic displays of sexuality out there.
I swear, HBO's "Real Sex" series makes my penis scream and try to hide itself behind my taint sometimes.
Why the hell would you do that to yourself?
Honestly? Mrs LMNO loves the look on my face while I watch video of an out-of-shape septegenarian swingers gaia orgy.
She can be cruel sometimes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 19, 2010, 07:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 07:01:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 19, 2010, 06:56:45 PM
It shouldn't be surprising that any display of eroticism turns me on.
That much said, there is plenty of non-erotic displays of sexuality out there.
I swear, HBO's "Real Sex" series makes my penis scream and try to hide itself behind my taint sometimes.
Why the hell would you do that to yourself?
Honestly? Mrs LMNO loves the look on my face while I watch video of an out-of-shape septegenarian swingers gaia orgy.
She can be cruel sometimes.
There go my nipples again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
1. "Real Sex" is designed to suck all the fun out of perversion.
2. Not true. You just aren't picking the right friends.
1. Screw that!
2. There is alot of history between me and her. I've only ever had good laughs with her.. I definantly could not of seen this coming as it did. We click on very well... But damn... Its a case of value the friendship vs verbal vomit. If she keeps bringing it up when I clearly don't want to talk to her about it then I'll just have to get out. Seems like I'll always be a damn hitch hiker
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 07:15:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
1. "Real Sex" is designed to suck all the fun out of perversion.
2. Not true. You just aren't picking the right friends.
1. Screw that!
2. There is alot of history between me and her. I've only ever had good laughs with her.. I definantly could not of seen this coming as it did. We click on very well... But damn... Its a case of value the friendship vs verbal vomit. If she keeps bringing it up when I clearly don't want to talk to her about it then I'll just have to get out.
Better yet, make her explain her position. Then ridicule it, and tell her what a shit she is.
Seriously. She basically implied that you are less than a full citizen, or even a full human. I'd have torn into her for that.
"You are unfit to be a parent, but you're my friend anyway."
What a load of shit. Odds are, she thinks that being gay makes you a kiddie-toucher.
I did flip out pretty bad ... slept like a baby though thankfully. Nothing like pure sweet rage...
Though what you said makes perfect sense.
But thank you :) I appreciate it.
.. I am damn tempted at breaking her views, it is what I am good at anyhow.
... I can tell I'm going to yet again end up in the bad books. People always seem to love to judge my actions ...
If that's so you've got no reason not to give them something that rightously deserves their judgement.
It's like a "Get Out Jail Free Because You Already Are" card.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 07:28:48 PM
I did flip out pretty bad ... slept like a baby though thankfully. Nothing like pure sweet rage...
Though what you said makes perfect sense.
But thank you :) I appreciate it.
.. I am damn tempted at breaking her views, it is what I am good at anyhow.
... I can tell I'm going to yet again end up in the bad books. People always seem to love to judge my actions ...
So give them something to judge. :lulz: May as well be hanged for something you did, if you're going to hang anyway.
:lulz: I'll hopefully come up with something
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 07:49:41 PM
:lulz: I'll hopefully come up with something
Tell them your velvet thong is really riding up today.
:lulz: :lulz: oh man you give me stitchs !
Yeah I think I'm gonna start acting like a douche, or be queeny around them. I'll buy like a small baby thing and carry it around them.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 07:54:43 PM
:lulz: :lulz: oh man you give me stitchs !
Yeah I think I'm gonna start acting like a douche, or be queeny around them. I'll buy like a small baby thing and carry it around them.
I wouldn't, if you ever plan to adopt.
It is a bit much... Thong it is.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 11:29:00 AM
I really feel like crying ...
I was arguing with my best friend, she thinks its horrible that I want to raise a child and that my limit should be "I can be an uncle, but I can't have children" ... I really flipped after that. I told her to stop and I don't want to talk any further but she pushed it ... Who is in the wrong, me or her? And it went really sour after that .... tl dr version - "Its just all about you? Other people have to abide by what you want?" .. minus all the other crap.
Fucking hell what the hell is friendship
... Ok good I'm over that shit, I'm ready to kill a Mother fucker.
Ditch her, she's no friend. Fuck that shit! She is wrong for pushing her views on you, you are right for defending yours.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Also I would like to take this opportunity to confess a tinge of selective homophobia myself. I'm fine with it until I see two guys kissing, then I'm all, like "Eeeeeeeew!"
I'm fine with it until I see two guys kissing, too, and then I'm all, like :fap: :fap: :fap:
God damn those homosexuals for turning me on in public!
Actually it kind of grosses me out when people make out in public, but I think it's cute when they give each other those familiar little smooches that couples do.
Also, ask her what she thinks of single mothers, and if she doesn't have a problem with that, force her to explain what makes them different.
I don't like seeing people make out in public, but the small pecks are just damn adorable thats true!
But thanks Nigel, I think I will try just that.
It really suprises me how people can be so shallow and think that they can apply their views onto everyone else (I used that arguement to), what REALLY suprised me was two of her gay friends (People I know to) backed HER up about it being wrong to be parents ... That they think its really bad.
I really want to snap them out of this, but I'm not going to go out of my way...
Is this how a Christian feels when they meet someone they have to convert? :lulz:
Quote from: NotPublished on January 19, 2010, 08:22:55 PM
what REALLY suprised me was two of her gay friends (People I know to) backed HER up about it being wrong to be parents ... That they think its really bad.
Meh, one of the leading holocaust deniers is a self-loathing Jew, so I am completely unsurprised at that sort of belly-crawling.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 02:50:28 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:30:26 AM
Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe.
That's precisely what we're in.
No, it's really not. Chimps in a troupe have powerful ties with others in their troupe, they watch out for one another. We don't have those tight knit small groups anymore, or at least most of us don't. There is conflict within the troupe naturally, but they are also there to support and watch out for one another. That extended family/tightknit community has eroded gradually over the past 50 or 60 years and we have the "nuclear family" concept as our dominant family unit now. The nuclear family is (IMO) a very unhealthy environment for children to be raised in. The fact it is also breaking up doesn't strike me as any great tragedy because hopefully alternate models such as single parenting and whatnot will lead back in the direction of a more community oriented means of living.
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 19, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 19, 2010, 12:30:06 AM
QuoteI personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple
Why?
Biology. We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community. That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.
Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of Austrailopithecus afarensis or even Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.
You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived. I only know what most people know about that sort of thing. And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment. As has been said before the brain is a black box in a lot of ways, that includes childhood development. I wont start in on gender archetypes or the oedipus complex or any of that because there's a good chance a lot of that is funny hats and not the useful sort. There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways. It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.
(also yes I do know that I am basically just repeating what I already said. I am hopefully also clarifying it. I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to imply that children of same sex parents are being disadvantaged by the fact their parents are the same sex. Any more so than children of mixed race parents are being dsadvantaged (as an example of something else that can be a challenge for the child but that doesn't mean it should in any way stand as an obstacle to it occuring.)
That's funny, because it sounds like the same sort of shallow mask over bigotry that I was ranting against. My bad.
Yeah, I clearly saw myself being pushed into that position by the posts of several different people. I have been trying to demonstrate that if there is any prejudice at the base the mask on top is at least pretty thick because I do wholeheartedly support gay marriage and gay adoption without any preference being given to heterosexuals in either of those arrangements. I'm also not trying to defend the nuclear family with one male and one female as superior in child raising to two adults of the same gender. I think both are woefully inadequate.
((edited for spelling))
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 19, 2010, 12:31:31 PM
Selective homophobia? Liek "I can get my head around the fact that yo're teh gh3y and still accept you but onoez keep away from babiez!"
He's gay? (I'm a little slow sometimes.)
Wait. This should stop him from raising kids? OH, I GET IT. She's one of those "homosexuals are all also child molesters" assholes.
NP, she is not your friend. She does not have your best interests at heart. Dump her and find some friends that don't think you're a monster.
I doubt it is that. There are a lot of people who don't think gays should be raising children for a couple of reasons that are not justifiable but are at least a bit less evil. One is that children of gays are more likely to be gay (which is not true or at least has never been verified and has been falsified repeatedly) And the other is that children of gays are more likely to be ridiculed and face difficult social situations as children, which is true, but is still not much of a justification, the same was true of children of mixed race couples until very recently and still is in many places and should not stand as any barrier to them having children. The parents just have to be sure to properly prepare the children for what they may face. Also with generational trends regarding acceptance of homosexuality it looks like this will be much less of a problem for any children NP or any other homosexual might adopt or birth than it has been for people of our generation or older who were raised by homosexuals.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 20, 2010, 12:54:58 AM
I doubt it is that. There are a lot of people who don't think gays should be raising children for a couple of reasons that are not justifiable but are at least a bit less evil.
If they want to deny equal protection under law, I don't care what their motives are. They're monsters. End of story.
KAI: :mittens: ! UNG!!! YEAH THATS THE SHIT I'M FUCKING TALKING ABOUT!!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 03:07:50 AM
If they want to deny equal protection under law, I don't care what their motives are. They're monsters. End of story.
Just for clarification...
Is everybody here talking about
policy?
'cause that's an entirely different animal than 'people should do this...' or 'people should do that....'
Were the people overheard in the OP discussing policy?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 20, 2010, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 03:07:50 AM
If they want to deny equal protection under law, I don't care what their motives are. They're monsters. End of story.
Just for clarification...
Is everybody here talking about policy?
'cause that's an entirely different animal than 'people should do this...' or 'people should do that....'
Were the people overheard in the OP discussing policy?
Who do you think supports these policies? Who do you think allows them?
Monsters.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:11:15 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 20, 2010, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 03:07:50 AM
If they want to deny equal protection under law, I don't care what their motives are. They're monsters. End of story.
Just for clarification...
Is everybody here talking about policy?
'cause that's an entirely different animal than 'people should do this...' or 'people should do that....'
Were the people overheard in the OP discussing policy?
Who do you think supports these policies? Who do you think allows them?
Monsters.
There are plenty of people that have firm opinions about this type of people, or that type of people, and whether they should raise children or not. But they would vociferously oppose that this be enforced by law.
I think it
is an important distinction to make...
But, perhaps I am overestimating people, and the large majority of them
would have enforced by law anything they deem 'right and wrong'...
I'd like to think not, though...
Quote from: Iptuous on January 20, 2010, 04:25:39 PM
But, perhaps I am overestimating people, and the large majority of them would have enforced by law anything they deem 'right and wrong'...
For evidence that this is the case, I direct you to the Gay Marriage debate, and the results of propostion 8 and susequent decisions.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 20, 2010, 04:25:39 PM
But, perhaps I am overestimating people, and the large majority of them would have enforced by law anything they deem 'right and wrong'...
For evidence that this is the case, I direct you to the Gay Marriage debate, and the results of propostion 8 and susequent decisions.
Obvious truth is obvious....
:oops:
I just realized that with the election of our new Republican senator, the MA marriage laws are in a bit more peril than before. Not through his direct action, but through "public outcry".
Quote from: LMNO on January 20, 2010, 04:55:59 PM
I just realized that with the election of our new Republican senator, the MA marriage laws are in a bit more peril than before. Not through his direct action, but through "public outcry".
Fact. The Teabaggers have the momentum now, and they think their day has come.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 20, 2010, 04:55:59 PM
I just realized that with the election of our new Republican senator, the MA marriage laws are in a bit more peril than before. Not through his direct action, but through "public outcry".
Fact. The Teabaggers have the momentum now, and they think their day has come.
Yep... and if the Democrats don't start acting like smart monkeys the teabaggers might just be right :horrormirth:
I wanted to throw something else in the bundle of joy.
What are your thoughts about surrogacy?