|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Horsemen Bree, I'd add the characterisation "useless verbage" also the setting up of a number of positions that aren't being argued for here.
I think most people posting recently here would accept the situation you describe is wrong. This is a debate thread, not a platform.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Horsemen Bree, I'd add the characterisation "useless verbage" also the setting up of a number of positions that aren't being argued for here.
I think most people posting recently here would accept the situation you describe is wrong. This is a debate thread, not a platform.
I didn't mean to suggest that material like Merlin's should be posted unchallenged, or that this thread should be a podium for the advancement of such material. But I do think this thread has a much wide use and application than just the debate about inequality and injustice within the church. Horseman Bree appears to be arguing that because Merlin is not speaking to that specific topic, he should shut up.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That is, leaving aside the observation that evidence that pre-natal stress is one possible cause homosexual expression in rats is no evidence at all that the same thing is the cause of all or most homosexual behaviour in humans. And morally speaking - I can't see that it matters a jot. If someone is attracted to men because his brain is wired that way, what difference does it make to how he should act, whether the wiring was done by a genetic pre-disposition, a pre-natal influence or a post-natal experience (or, indeed, any combination thereof)?
I sound conflicted, that's obvious. On the one hand we have the genetic claims for predisposition. On the other hand, environmental considerations go a long way toward creating our sexual expressions, if not creating our attractions. I do accept that both influences are at work on each of us as adults. So there will be conflict in, say a religious person's sexuality, when what they feel naturally (biologically) is at variance with the practices of their community, and their religious programing. Guilt with sex is a carryover from our ancestors and their take on sexuality vis-a-vis the scriptures and God's will. Only in private, if at all, could an individual whose sexual drives are forbidden, be enjoyed. On the outside, such an individual will appear as normal, heterosexual, and compliant as anyone else. Today, we see a rebellion at having to endure such a dual life.
I don't know, and nobody knows at this point, what degree the biological predisposition and social environment play into making up a person's sexuality. I tend toward the societal ("parent tapes") influence being dominant in how a person chooses to behave: but the biological imperatives are always there to offer conflicting emotions, if they don't agree with the societal/family demands on compliance. Religious people tend to deal with such conflicting emotions as manifestations of God-given weaknesses of the flesh, something to be fought against as sin.
Protagonists for sexual freedom are saying that having a "female brain" in a male body is as natural to that person as heterosexuality is to the majority of people. I am not arguing with the feeling being natural. But so are a lot of other feelings that society will never (in my world) accept as legitimate to act upon. They should be resisted. That makes for old-fashioned abstinence. Not a welcome stance for anyone who has to endure a lifetime of self-denial.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
quote:
It is therefore possible that while the body and organs of an animal can be a "male," the brain can coincidentally be "female." This extreme reaction to maternal stress even has a very logical and natural purpose. Sensing that a population is under the stress of crowding or poor living conditions, nature provides this hormonal mechanism as a means to limit population growth and thereby reduce the cause of the stress. Homosexual behavior results in less offspring than heterosexual behavior.
Seems there are some "out there" who disagree. As I said, this is still very mysterious stuff; a consensus is not in.
Finding someone whi shares the same errors as you is not the same as supportng the errors.
NB I'm not arguing against your idea that people default to a neutral or femal sexual role and environmental factors push them into an exclusivelyu ,ale one during development, I'm pointing out the baseless absurdity of the claim the course of male development can be pushed into a homosexual direction in order to reduce the birth rate. That is a nonsensical idea. If you think it makes sense than that is evidence that you really don't understand the issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Viewzone.com does not appear to be a site hosting reputable scientific research. I would characterise it as a tertiary source, akin to an encyclopedia, and written from a decidedly populist and sensationalist standpoint.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Quoting some headlines from viewzone:
quote:
[*]Was Quetzalcoatl a Hindu Priest?
[*]Did JESUS visit Tibet?:
[*]The Truth About Jonestown: Was this part of a CIA mind control program?
[*]Who Brought the Mayas to Mexico? An examination of ancient Turkish links to meso-America.
[*]Ancient Ant People of Orion
[*]The Working Celtic Cross - Evidence is presented that the Celtic Cross was once a powerful navigation and surveying instrument in ancient times.
[*]The Case for the Face on Mars
[*]OKLAHOMA COVER UP! Government agents bulldoze the Oklahoma site believed to be a Phoenician furnace. Similar stories from New Zealand and Australia - what are they trying to hide?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Admittedly, there is no direct mentioning of over-population being one of the stresses that the pregnant female rats were subjected to.
Exactly. It's rather a leap to go from what was probably quite an extreme form of stress in these experiments to over-population.
And also rather a leap to go from this second hand account to a proper report of the study in a journal.
I expect you would find that if you clicked on any of the results of your google search, you would find similar problems - no real hard scientific data at the bottom of it.
Surely, the problems are there. That's why there is a discussion! But you will note, that it is they, not I, who are making the "over-population may be a cause of increased homosexual behavior" hypothesis. I have simply been referring to that hypothesis, and saying that the data is there from the research. Take it how you will.
I am saying, that yes indeed the homosexual lobbyists have more than a leg to stand on: they have a growing body of science to back up their claims of being just as "natural" as heterosexuals. I am not arguing that they feel natural, or that they have demonstrable evidence for so-feeling.
But I have also presented my personal view, which is: that homosexuals should not give into their feelings of what is natural. They should be viewed as a trial, a temptation to sin, and not go there. Very unpopular position to have these days.
I have temptations that feel natural to me as well. If I use scientific data to legitimize my natural feelings, to give me the civil right to indulge them, then my wife will be hurt, probably leave me, and my family will break up.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But I have also presented my personal view, which is: that homosexuals should not give into their feelings of what is natural. They should be viewed as a trial, a temptation to sin, and not go there. Very unpopular position to have these days.
I have temptations that feel natural to me as well. If I use scientific data to legitimize my natural feelings, to give me the civil right to indulge them, then my wife will be hurt, probably leave me, and my family will break up.
#1. It's very easy to tell others to make sacrifices one is will not personally have to make. My mother called this the "Do as I say, not as I do" principle.
#2. Explain, exactly, how other people's sexual activities (straight or gay) can affect you, your wife, or your family.
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have simply been referring to that hypothesis, and saying that the data is there from the research. Take it how you will.
OK, well whether you are saying it or not, the data to back it up isn't there. The data that supposedly shows it is discredited, your link certainly doesn't show any data, and doesn't even argue anything regarding over-population.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lori
Shipmate
# 9456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have temptations that feel natural to me as well. If I use scientific data to legitimize my natural feelings, to give me the civil right to indulge them, then my wife will be hurt, probably leave me, and my family will break up.
Yes to what OliviaG said, and also:
I am female, and married in civil partnership to another woman. My natural feelings, yes, are to love her and to be committed to her. With all the breadth that that entails. And absolutely not purely about anything sexual. If she were brain damaged tomorrow ...... I would care for her and serve her to the end of her days. As, presumably, you would your wife.
I also, as a human being, have temptations that feel a natural part of my being, and, sure, if I indulged in them, it would be a bad thing for all (for me, for my partner, for other/s involved). But I know that. I can tell the difference between that which just makes my personal bits all focused (being polite here), and that which is all to do with a whole all-embracing way of love.
Are we so different?
Posts: 137 | From: Netherlands | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But I have also presented my personal view, which is: that homosexuals should not give into their feelings of what is natural. They should be viewed as a trial, a temptation to sin, and not go there. Very unpopular position to have these days.
I have temptations that feel natural to me as well. If I use scientific data to legitimize my natural feelings, to give me the civil right to indulge them, then my wife will be hurt, probably leave me, and my family will break up.
#1. It's very easy to tell others to make sacrifices one is will not personally have to make. My mother called this the "Do as I say, not as I do" principle.
#2. Explain, exactly, how other people's sexual activities (straight or gay) can affect you, your wife, or your family.
OliviaG
"Do as I say not as I do" is irrelevant to what I said. I admitted my possession of "natural" urges that I must resist. I expect eveyone to admit to themselves that they must do likewise. This now segues to #2.
We live together. That's called society, civilization, culture. Nothing about this is set in stone. It is always shifting with us and around us. Anyone who takes the facile defense of "what I do in private doesn't affect you at all", is being blind to the aggragate, UNSEEN effects of all those individual acts in private. Everything we do affects the total character, personality or face, of society. It may take years, but it does change it.
That's what lies at the heart of traditional religion's proscriptions of "immorality." Homosexuality has always been listed as a sexual "sin" by traditional Judeo-Christian morality. We are a Judeo-Christian society, going back thousands of years. You don't rise up in the face of that majority feeling with rhetorical denial that there's nothing wrong with what you do, and expect to overturn that majority feeling either soon or ever. It has never been overturned before. Only accepted as unavoidable. What you do with homosexuality is the question, not getting rid of it. (Because if the opponents had their way, the extreme element would do the "witch-hunt" thing and burn them out.) We are hopefully civilized enough to not go back to where our ancestors were over 200 years ago.
If I believe in my soul, that the long-term affects of homosexuality, and other sexual deviancy, is harmful to society's "fabric", then I cannot simply wait for it to happen.
How homosexuality is harmful:
It is easier than marrying to have and raise children. Humans are lazy and selfish by nature if they are not compelled by stronger forces to deny those traits.
Homosexuality could be viewed by the bisexually-inclinded portion of society as a tempting way to enjoy sex without the responsibilities of raising children (this is especially true of homosexual men, who out-number lesbians at least two to one).
I am sure, that, homosexuality being given complete licence and acceptance, our society would see an increase in those who marry without intending to have children at all. This attitude would contaminate heterosexual couples as well. Marriage, in fact, would become less popular, and casual coupling would increase.
The most insidious affect of granting that homosexuality is "natural", and shouldn't be resisted by those who have such sexual attractions, is, that the other sexual deviancies (far more immediately alarming and harmful) would automatically be given consideration as also legitimate urges to be allowed without condemnation.
A society which is not actively resisting its selfish impulses is weakening itself. The moral fiber which binds people together AS a society is built on caring about others as much as you care about yourself. (By this you can see the root cause of the ills that plague us as we are; and it can get much worse.) Homosexuality is essentially selfish, as is any focus on sexual satisfaction as the "cause" of protest.
I see nothing in the homosexual lobby agenda, which encourages me to believe that it is selfless protesting on the basis of mere civil equality. If that were the case, the sexuality nature of it would never have been part of the issue as popularized (pushed in our faces). Consider, that one of the main illustrations used are examples of prejudice "against homosexuals": e.g. "I was kept from the bedside of my significant other as she died, because the doctors said I was not family." In the rarest cases, this sort of prejudice has occurred: but these atypical cases are built up into a martydom to increase popularity for the cause of equal civil rights. But if this were handled on a case by case basis, the homosexuality aspect would never hold up in court: the prevention of a significant other from visiting, or from inheriting, or from having legal equality with heterosexually married couples, would be over-turned. Sexual preference would not enter into the question at all. So the fact that this IS a sexual preference issue at the root of it, is what convinces me that it is a push for the popularizing of selfishness, and not equal civil rights. Homosexuals want heterosexuals to admit that their attraction is natural and good; that is the prime achievement that will spell "victory." That is why they want the defintion of "marriage" to specifically mention them: it would make us all "the same".
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
My response to the above is here (okay, it's not a particularly erudite response and it doesn't cover most of the flaws in the reasoning of the above post, but I just had to say something).
[ 30. March 2007, 17:46: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Merlin, please answer my question:
quote:
quote:
#2. Explain, exactly, how other people's sexual activities (straight or gay) can affect you, your wife, or your family.
OliviaG
We live together. That's called society, civilization, culture. Nothing about this is set in stone. It is always shifting with us and around us. Anyone who takes the facile defense of "what I do in private doesn't affect you at all", is being blind to the aggragate, UNSEEN effects of all those individual acts in private.
So, how does this affect you, your wife and your family? Please be specific. A colleague of mine is marrying his partner on Saturday in Victoria. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) How can that possibly affect your marriage? (Considering you wouldn't even know about it if I hadn't told you). If they're unseen effects, you're going to have to tell us what they are, since we can't see them. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Sorry for the double-post, but I'm trying to be clear about what I am asking, in hopes of getting a clear answer. I am not asking for general societal predictions; I am asking specifically how you, Merlin, and your family are being personally affected right now by homosexual activity. (Other than spending a lot of time on the Ship.) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lori:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have temptations that feel natural to me as well. If I use scientific data to legitimize my natural feelings, to give me the civil right to indulge them, then my wife will be hurt, probably leave me, and my family will break up.
Yes to what OliviaG said, and also:
I am female, and married in civil partnership to another woman. My natural feelings, yes, are to love her and to be committed to her. With all the breadth that that entails. And absolutely not purely about anything sexual. If she were brain damaged tomorrow ...... I would care for her and serve her to the end of her days. As, presumably, you would your wife.
I also, as a human being, have temptations that feel a natural part of my being, and, sure, if I indulged in them, it would be a bad thing for all (for me, for my partner, for other/s involved). But I know that. I can tell the difference between that which just makes my personal bits all focused (being polite here), and that which is all to do with a whole all-embracing way of love.
Are we so different?
Not in that aspect, no, we are similar or even the same (as much the same as two individuals can be said to be).
So, why is the homosexual agenda all centered on the basis of sexual attraction then? Why do you identify with each other on that basis, if your committed love is "absolutely not purely about anything sexual"? Aren't you a rarity among homosexuals, if that is your honest stance?
Because I hear "homosexuals are being descriminated against" as the main platform for the lobbyists. They are before the courts and our government, crying out that homosexuals are being discriminated against. That homosexual civil rights are being denied, etc. Nothing at all to do about individual rights: all about homosexuals (a sexual preference) as a self-identifying group. That makes it into a sexual morality issue: when what is actually complained about as prejudice under the laws, is how those laws have been interpreted in some cases BY heterosexuals toward homosexuals. E.g. the hospitial death scene, where the significant other is kept away, simply because the doctor or head nurse says so: and both the significant other and the doc/nurse KNOW that the reason is s/he is not family, i.e. not married or related legally.
Let me illustrate how this applies to others who are decidely not sexually involved. Take a couple of spinster sisters. The older has been taking care of the younger since their mother died, when they were young teens. The younger is slightly challenged, and has depended on the elder sister her whole life for everything: the elder is educated and has a job as a professional worker. She is, in fact, the bread winner for their "family." The elder sister meets someone and falls in love and marries. She moves out on her younger, dependant sister, and leaves her destitute of providing for herself. The younger sister in desperation finds a lawyer to take her case, and sue the older sister for (effectively) alimony, and a fair division of their property. In other words, effectively, she "divorces" her sister, and goes through the very same process to get redress as an abandoned wife does to a husband who decamps with another lover. Now, is there anything reasonable that would prevent this younger sister from getting justice, just like a divorced/abandoned wife does every day in the courts?
Sex doesn't enter into it. It is irrelevant. Yet homosexuals have built their entire cause around their need to have their sexual preferences legally accepted through a revision of the civil laws: including "marriage" defined to specifically include them. It is all about sex, and nothing at all to do with justice, getting equality under the civil laws. All of that is just political rhetoric to make their cause seem legally unfair: arguing a straw man or non sequitur, they claim that they can't get equal civil rights simply because they are homosexuals, which isn't the reality at all. Individually, case by case, they can and ought, to show in civil court, that discrimination has been applied to them. If it can be proven to be centered around their known sexual preference, then if that is the deciding factor in finding prejudice, they will win (if the laws are justly applied). That is the push that should be made before the USA SC: not a resolution of redefining "marriage." That is too sweeping and involves too deep-seated feelings of the majority.
I don't care to know what you or anyone else does in private. Unless it involves violating someone's rights, then it becomes illegal, and I will find out about it in the news perhaps. Aside from that, if you and your significant other remain together for your natural lives, then I wish the both of you the most happiness. And to the survivor, upon the death of one or the other, I expect full recognition under the civil laws, of your rights to inherit what has previously been legally willed to you. This is an ongoing process, so don't expect it to happen without the bumpy bits or the battles with other's interests getting involved.
But to lobby for a sexual preference, as the identifying signature, is just plain wrong and a dead giveaway. It isn't about equal civil rights, it is all about getting accepted by heterosexual society: getting us to admit that we have been wrong, and we are "the same": natural, with no appreciable differences on our society because of our sexual preferences.
This, as I began to explain to OliviaG, I simply cannot agree with. We ARE different, and not just because we are attracted to different genders: homosexuality, by its nature, promotes selfishness and encourages sexual licence to avoid responsibility for family and raising children.
In those demonstrable cases (which are and will always remain rare) where homosexuals devotedly raise children, I concur that there seems to be little difference to society between heterosexuals and homosexuals. But all homosexuals, imho, should resist their impulses to couple. Unless they find that significant other that they are confident will be a life-long companion (my personal feelings being otherwise, yet I cannot deny the justice of another's feelings being as valid for them as my own are for myself). I expect no less from anyone. And until (unless) you do find such a soul mate, sexual gratification is simply selfishness and is poison to a society.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Do as I say not as I do" is irrelevant to what I said. I admitted my possession of "natural" urges that I must resist. I expect eveyone to admit to themselves that they must do likewise.
Apples and oranges. Frankly, I really, really don't want to know about your "natural urges", but it doesn't appear that resisting them involves remaining single and not having a family, which is what you are asking others to do. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Merlin,
I have tried to make the following points in your Hell thread, but I understand that you have chosen not to reply to that thread.
A lot of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that when people choose not to have children they are being selfish. I find this idea highly objectionable.
You also seem to think that if people choose not to procreate, this somehow threatens society and civilization. This seems to me to be a ludicrous assertion. We are already suffering from the effects of a massively overpopulated planet and these effects are likely to worsen. There are more than enough people alive today who are happy to raise children and who procreate at levels which more than maintain current population levels. Global population increased by an enormous and unprecedented amount during the 20th century. If global population were to drop by a few million over the next few decades, this would probably improve the situation for humankind. As it is, there is extremely little likelihood of a decrease in global population any time in the forseeable future. In fact, global overpopulation looks set to continue increasing. How on earth then, is a person's choice not to procreate, i.e. not to contribute to one of the most serious problems facing our planet and humankind (overpopulation), any kind of threat to society? How is it even a problem? Your argument does not make the slightest bit of sense.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lori
Shipmate
# 9456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, why is the homosexual agenda all centered on the basis of sexual attraction then? Why do you identify with each other on that basis, if your committed love is "absolutely not purely about anything sexual"? Aren't you a rarity among homosexuals, if that is your honest stance?
I may have misled you by my use of the word 'purely' - I tend to use it interchangably with 'solely'.
Because, of course, like I assume with you and your wife, one could take that sexual possibility away (now, or from the beginning of the relationship) and it would make no difference to the love or the commitment. And, no, I don't think I am a rarity in that.
I think maybe it might be helpful if you thought more in terms of 'relationships' and less about sexual acts. I have no more idea what other gay people do or do not do than you have.
I do not think that 'coming together' to talk about or work towards things we would like changed in society is 'centred on the basis of sexual attraction', but it is instead centred on the basis of obtaining dignity (and legal protection) for our relationships with someone of the same gender .... regardless of how strong our sexual desires are - or are not - for that one person alone, or maybe several different people of the same gender over a lifetime.
It is not even to do with 'identifying' with each other. We come from such vastly different backgrounds and have such different outlooks, religions, politics, priorities, hopes, dreams that we do not automatically 'identify' anymore than, say, my mother 'identifies' with all other heterosexual women. Regardless of their behaviour, their politics, their activities.
Neither she, nor I, however, enter a relationship for 'sexual gratification'. Wherever do you get that sort of idea from? Shall I base my view of heterosexuality on the prostitutes and the behaviour of young men and women in nightclubs? There are some crazily sex-pursuing people out there of all orientations. But please do not tar me with the same brush.
Posts: 137 | From: Netherlands | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
homosexuality, by its nature, promotes selfishness and encourages sexual licence to avoid responsibility for family and raising children.
MtM -- that is demonstrably the most utter bollocks. It does not even begin to relate to reality. I have to conclude that rather than considering the facts, you are content to repeat unquestioningly the caricatures and false stereotypes that (I presume) your religious and social leaders have taught you.
There is clearly no point in discussing this kind of issue with you. I shall make a point of not responding to you on any post dealing with homosexuality. If it were my place to do so, I would recommend the same policy to others.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
A reminder to people that while it's OK to attack someone's arguments, it's not OK to take that any further into personal accusations: 'you are content to repeat unquestioningly etc.', that way lie commandment 3 and 4 violations. So no further on that line.
Thank you all.
L
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
A reminder to people that while it's OK to attack someone's arguments, it's not OK to take that any further into personal accusations: 'you are content to repeat unquestioningly etc.', that way lie commandment 3 and 4 violations. So no further on that line.
Thank you all.
L
hosting off
Point taken.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
frick
Apprentice
# 11423
|
Posted
i am very new to this but here goes
the ONLY difference is that gay persons fancy their own sex
a not that previous bishop of southwark filled his cathedral to overflowing and was nearly sacked as a result. but he was brave enough to realise that practiceing gays are against bible teaching, but neverthe less are here and have equal rights to us straight people so what ever your views just remember this is 2007 and the problem aint going away
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin,
I have tried to make the following points in your Hell thread, but I understand that you have chosen not to reply to that thread.
A lot of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that when people choose not to have children they are being selfish. I find this idea highly objectionable.
You also seem to think that if people choose not to procreate, this somehow threatens society and civilization. This seems to me to be a ludicrous assertion. We are already suffering from the effects of a massively overpopulated planet and these effects are likely to worsen. There are more than enough people alive today who are happy to raise children and who procreate at levels which more than maintain current population levels. Global population increased by an enormous and unprecedented amount during the 20th century. If global population were to drop by a few million over the next few decades, this would probably improve the situation for humankind. As it is, there is extremely little likelihood of a decrease in global population any time in the forseeable future. In fact, global overpopulation looks set to continue increasing. How on earth then, is a person's choice not to procreate, i.e. not to contribute to one of the most serious problems facing our planet and humankind (overpopulation), any kind of threat to society? How is it even a problem? Your argument does not make the slightest bit of sense.
You are reading your own bias into what I have been saying. Nowhere did I say that infertile, or childless marriages (deliberately so or otherwise) are selfish. I am talking about deliberate self-gratification on an increasing scale in society: which I believe, by its very nature, homosexuality promotes. It certainly doesn't encourage families!
I have a cousin who married, and because, in his and his wife's view, the world already has more than enough children who aren't being taken care of, they decided not to have any biological children of their own and adopted instead. They then eventually had a couple of biological children to add to the three or so that they adopted.
I do not consider a deliberate decision to not have children to automatically mean a person is poisoning society with their sexual enjoyment in a long-lasting marriage (or otherwise, committed relationship).
None of this has anything to do with population. Yet I knew that someone would more or less say, "Well, if we wind up with fewer children, that is a good thing, since we have too many people anyway right now." The number of people is irrelevant to whether or not a society is thriving or sick. And an increase in selfishness is making society sick. My contention is that homosexuality is showing an example of an easier way to live together, than the trouble of rasing children. And that spells trouble for society in the future if such a mentality toward sex increases rather than diminishes.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Merlin, you are contradicting yourself:
quote:
You are reading your own bias into what I have been saying. Nowhere did I say that infertile, or childless marriages (deliberately so or otherwise) are selfish.
quote:
How homosexuality is harmful:
It is easier than marrying to have and raise children. Humans are lazy and selfish by nature if they are not compelled by stronger forces to deny those traits.
Homosexuality could be viewed by the bisexually-inclinded portion of society as a tempting way to enjoy sex without the responsibilities of raising children (this is especially true of homosexual men, who out-number lesbians at least two to one).
I am sure, that, homosexuality being given complete licence and acceptance, our society would see an increase in those who marry without intending to have children at all. This attitude would contaminate heterosexual couples as well.
You think that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation in order to engage in a lazy, selfish lifestyle and to avoid the responsibility of bringing up children, and you think that this attitude may spread and "contaminate" heterosexual couples, but you don't think that married heterosexuals who choose not to have children are selfish? You are contradicting yourself.
By the way, you say that homosexuality doesn't encourage families. In the UK (I don't know about elsewhere) homosexuals can and do adopt children. (Note - if you wish to discuss whether this should be allowed there is a different Dead Horses thread which you should use. I mention it in passing here as part of our wider argument.) In the UK, there are always literally thousands of children waiting for adoption and many of them are considered 'hard to place'. Infertile heterosexual couples often want white, non-disabled, healthy babies; very few of these are available for adoption (I believe about 100 a year in England). There are many, many children who are older, who may need to be placed with their siblings, who may have disabilities, who may be emotionally disturbed due to their troubled past, or who may have more than one of these things making them an 'unattractive prospect' for many adopters. When gay individuals and gay couples in long-term, committed, loving relationships adopt these children they give them a permanent, secure and loving home. The alternative for the children would often be long-term insecurity and numerous moves between foster carers and institutions. Could you explain to me where gay adopters who form loving adoptive families fit in to your assertion that homosexuality does not encourage family? As far as I can see, whether somebody wants to raise children or not has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post, but re-reading Merlin's most recent post, I was struck by another part of it.
quote:
And an increase in selfishness is making society sick. My contention is that homosexuality is showing an example of an easier way to live together, than the trouble of rasing children.
What were you saying about you not judging childfree* people to be selfish, Merlin?
(* Childfree here = shorthand meaning 'people who deliberately choose not to have children'. Used because my sentence was getting unwieldy enough already.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lori:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So, why is the homosexual agenda all centered on the basis of sexual attraction then? Why do you identify with each other on that basis, if your committed love is "absolutely not purely about anything sexual"? Aren't you a rarity among homosexuals, if that is your honest stance?
I may have misled you by my use of the word 'purely' - I tend to use it interchangably with 'solely'.
I took your meaning to be "solely".
quote:
Because, of course, like I assume with you and your wife, one could take that sexual possibility away (now, or from the beginning of the relationship) and it would make no difference to the love or the commitment. And, no, I don't think I am a rarity in that.
I must accept your personal view that you don't think that your attitude toward same-sex friendship is based on sexual attraction; that the removal of any sexual relating would not end the relationship. This is actually rare, as far as I can tell, even in heterosexual marriages. Most would be seriously stressed by the removal of a sexuality which had always been there. And most marriages fail on the three pronged dilemas of money, extended family interference, and sexual incompatibility. So yes, you are rare.
quote:
I think maybe it might be helpful if you thought more in terms of 'relationships' and less about sexual acts. I have no more idea what other gay people do or do not do than you have.
I would find that accomplishment easier, if the "gay lobby" wasn't, in fact, the GAY lobby at all. If it had never come forward as-such, I doubt we would even be talking about any of this. But the fact is, that gays have a lobby, pushing for new laws to recognize them as if they were a biological phenomenon, like belonging to a racial group.
Instead of gays fighting each case of prejudice individually, this lobby offers a quick-fix opportunity for the whole demographic of homosexuals/bisexuals, to be recognized like a special biological group: ergo, they will never have to worry about prejudice again, at least not from a legal standpoint.
Actually, what the gay lobby has created is opposition from the much more numerous biological demographic of heterosexuals: whose civil rights as a majority mean something to them too. So by claiming biologically special status, homosexuals have created the opposite "cause", where one did not even exist before.
Therefore, any "special" laws enacted by and for homosexuals, will be met with "special" clarifications and caveats enacted by the majority of heterosexuals.
quote:
I do not think that 'coming together' to talk about or work towards things we would like changed in society is 'centred on the basis of sexual attraction', but it is instead centred on the basis of obtaining dignity (and legal protection) for our relationships with someone of the same gender .... regardless of how strong our sexual desires are - or are not - for that one person alone, or maybe several different people of the same gender over a lifetime.
Why do you, as a "special" group, need to be protected? Championed, supported in civil courts, yes. But demanding "special" laws, where homosexuality is specifically defined as a legally protected biological demographic, is pushing too far for too much. It will cause the backlash that I mentioned already. And a massively dominant heterosexual majority is equally, biologically "special". You can't win any permanent victories in civil cases this way. The sexuality has to be taken out of it, otherwise heterosexuals have at least as potent a political weapons as you do, with majority feeling on their side, permanently.
If the prejudice against homosexuals had remained handled on a case by case basis, then the ACLU, et al, could champion each case on its own merits, and win in civil court where blatant prejudice is proven to the court's satisfaction. This would then reinforce the power of the civil courts in adjudicating prejudice cases: which, I have to say, is possible to achieve under the current laws almost anywhere in the USA, without changing or adding a single law (except in cases where precedents are met, which always happens: thus increasing the depth of the code "book").
quote:
It is not even to do with 'identifying' with each other. We come from such vastly different backgrounds and have such different outlooks, religions, politics, priorities, hopes, dreams that we do not automatically 'identify' anymore than, say, my mother 'identifies' with all other heterosexual women. Regardless of their behaviour, their politics, their activities.
Neither she, nor I, however, enter a relationship for 'sexual gratification'.
As far as I can tell, that is typical of most women.
quote:
Wherever do you get that sort of idea from? Shall I base my view of heterosexuality on the prostitutes and the behaviour of young men and women in nightclubs? There are some crazily sex-pursuing people out there of all orientations. But please do not tar me with the same brush.
Wouldn't dream of it. I am talking about the character (face) of the gay lobby. It has made the mistake of identifying "itself" as a biological group that needs "special" laws for protection. I have heard comparisons to the Black civil rights movement of the 60's. So the arena was defined from the getgo by the gay lobbyists (protagonists).
Heterosexuals identify together AS heterosexuals, only because homosexuality is being pushed in our faces, and we are told that changes are coming whether we like it or not.
As I have said enough already, one of the changes is a backlash of popular sentiment, which will have the same legal legs to support itself on as the gay lobby is using: only in far greater strength of numbers. This can only have one outcome this way, and it won't help you have a better life living amongst that majority.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
homosexuality, by its nature, promotes selfishness and encourages sexual licence to avoid responsibility for family and raising children.
MtM -- that is demonstrably the most utter bollocks. It does not even begin to relate to reality. I have to conclude that rather than considering the facts, you are content to repeat unquestioningly the caricatures and false stereotypes that (I presume) your religious and social leaders have taught you.
I am not sterotyping anyone. I am addressing the very nature of the sexuality comparisons. Heterosexuality typically results in children, commitment to them and because of that, a potentially deeper commitment to each other.
Sexual enjoyment is utterly removed from any other considerations. It seems to not relate directly to procreation at all, as some here have observed. We feel an urge toward sexual activity, and we satisfy it how we can or choose to.
Homosexuals are mostly men. Men do not typically consider family when a choice is offered to do something more "fun." You may disagree, because you know of circumstantial opposites to the typical statements I make. But that disagreement cannot be based on anything but atypical examples.
Homosexuality does not promote family life. You can inject family life into it, more or less, but it is not natural to homosexual behavior.
quote:
There is clearly no point in discussing this kind of issue with you. I shall make a point of not responding to you on any post dealing with homosexuality. If it were my place to do so, I would recommend the same policy to others.
John
I expect others will read on. I accept your decision to no longer respond to my commentary.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin, you are contradicting yourself:
quote:
You are reading your own bias into what I have been saying. Nowhere did I say that infertile, or childless marriages (deliberately so or otherwise) are selfish.
quote:
How homosexuality is harmful:
It is easier than marrying to have and raise children. Humans are lazy and selfish by nature if they are not compelled by stronger forces to deny those traits.
Homosexuality could be viewed by the bisexually-inclinded portion of society as a tempting way to enjoy sex without the responsibilities of raising children (this is especially true of homosexual men, who out-number lesbians at least two to one).
I am sure, that, homosexuality being given complete licence and acceptance, our society would see an increase in those who marry without intending to have children at all. This attitude would contaminate heterosexual couples as well.
You think that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation in order to engage in a lazy, selfish lifestyle and to avoid the responsibility of bringing up children, and you think that this attitude may spread and "contaminate" heterosexual couples, but you don't think that married heterosexuals who choose not to have children are selfish? You are contradicting yourself.
Not at all. I am allowing for both selfish and nonselfish reasons for not having children. As in the case of my cousin that I illustrated this with. But a popularly accepted "new" way of enjoying sex, which by its very nature is perfect birth control, is going to encourage some people away from having families. I don't see how you can disagree with this. We can disagree on the portion of society which will be enticed by the example of easier living that homosexual behavior "out in the open" will offer: I think it will be enough to threaten society, and you might think it is an insignificant number. And I would hope that you are right!
quote:
By the way, you say that homosexuality doesn't encourage families. In the UK (I don't know about elsewhere) homosexuals can and do adopt children. (Note - if you wish to discuss whether this should be allowed there is a different Dead Horses thread which you should use. I mention it in passing here as part of our wider argument.)
I have made a passing comment on this before. Homosexuals are "individuals" in the USA; and individuals can adopt. So homosexual couples can adopt. (I disagree with singles adopting; but this is a situation where allowing it seems expedient; so I only disagree on the basis of my personal values, not on any expectation of this ever changing.)
quote:
In the UK, ... When gay individuals and gay couples in long-term, committed, loving relationships adopt these children they give them a permanent, secure and loving home. The alternative for the children would often be long-term insecurity and numerous moves between foster carers and institutions. Could you explain to me where gay adopters who form loving adoptive families fit in to your assertion that homosexuality does not encourage family? As far as I can see, whether somebody wants to raise children or not has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
Speaking of typical and atypical, yes, sexual orientation does affect whether or not they want to raise children.
Taken as a group, male and female homosexuals, females are less than half. So we are talking about a very small segment of society at large (no more than 2% -Kinsey). Homosexual men, being as typical of males as any other demographic, are not enticed by the possibility of children when they form sexual friendships with other men. They are archetypal playboys. Exceptions, of course, exist; there always are. But typically they are not interested in adoption.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Apologies for the double post, but re-reading Merlin's most recent post, I was struck by another part of it.
quote:
And an increase in selfishness is making society sick. My contention is that homosexuality is showing an example of an easier way to live together, than the trouble of rasing children.
What were you saying about you not judging childfree* people to be selfish, Merlin?
(* Childfree here = shorthand meaning 'people who deliberately choose not to have children'. Used because my sentence was getting unwieldy enough already.)
If a couple deliberately refuses to have children, so that they can party, get ahead professionally, acquire material wealth and not have to worry about children: yes, that is selfishness. I won't point fingers at any particular couple. But if anyone reading that could say, "Wow, that shoe fits ME!" Then you can judge yourself.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Merlin, how many people do you think procreate because they believe it's their duty to society to raise children? Most people who raise children talk about 'wanting' to have children, liking children, enjoying parenting, etc. In the modern age of contraception and abortion (FWIW, I think contraception is an extremely good thing, I lean towards the view that abortion is not a good thing), how many people give birth to children they don't want to give birth to? I would guess some, but not so many. Many people want to have children, because they think raising children will be an enjoyable + worthwhile experience for themselves. That's just as selfish a motivation as deciding that you don't think you'd make a particularly good parent and that you'd rather have time to engage in your community in other ways.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Sorry people, I'm double-posting again - bad snow-tiger!
Merlin, consider the following conundrum. A man and a woman get married. Neither have any great desire to raise children. Both are highly skilled and well-qualified doctors, who also engage in medical research. They don't have any kids and spend their entire working lives as invaluable assets to the National Health Service (yes, I'm in the UK), as well as producing some important research papers. They've contributed a fair bit to society, no? But by the time they retire, they are both consultants. They are high-earners who command a lot of respect and they have thoroughly enjoyed their working lives.
Are they in the selfish group or the unselfish group?
I just find it all a lot more confusing than you seem to. What if the married couple both work for the UN (again, contributing to society, but also getting career fulfilment, high pay and prestige)? What about if they're human rights lawyers?
You seem to think that a married person who thorouhly enjoys bringing up their children is somehow more moral and worthy than a married person who decides not to have children but who might enjoy their life less than the happy parent.
Why this huge privileging of parenthood? Yes, parenting is a hugely important task. It's also a huge priviledge. Plus parenting is by no means the only important task in our world, and it is by no means the only task which benefits society.
Why do you have such a negative attitude towards people who choose not to have children (for *whatever* reasons)?
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(snip)...a popularly accepted "new" way of enjoying sex, which by its very nature is perfect birth control, is going to encourage some people away from having families. I don't see how you can disagree with this. We can disagree on the portion of society which will be enticed by the example of easier living that homosexual behavior "out in the open" will offer: I think it will be enough to threaten society, and you might think it is an insignificant number.
Ah yes, the lure of the carefree homosexual lifestyle . Funny, it didn't seem easier for most queer folks I know. Nor, for that matter, for many of these guys..
quote:
I have made a passing comment on this before. Homosexuals are "individuals" in the USA; and individuals can adopt. So homosexual couples can adopt. (I disagree with singles adopting; but this is a situation where allowing it seems expedient; so I only disagree on the basis of my personal values, not on any expectation of this ever changing.)
Merlin, your own state specifically excludes cohabiting, non-married adults (e.g. queer couples) from adoption. Many other countries also either restrict international adoption to married couples or ban gay adoption. Please look into what you're saying before you say it--almost everything you've argued can be debunked by the most casual skeptic.
quote:
Speaking of typical and atypical, yes, sexual orientation does affect whether or not they want to raise children.... Homosexual men, being as typical of males as any other demographic, are not enticed by the possibility of children when they form sexual friendships with other men. They are archetypal playboys. Exceptions, of course, exist; there always are. But typically they are not interested in adoption.
Back that up, please. You are fully entitled to form your own opinion; you are not entitled to have your own set of "facts".
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lori
Shipmate
# 9456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I must accept your personal view that .... the removal of any sexual relating would not end the relationship. This is actually rare, as far as I can tell, even in heterosexual marriages. Most would be seriously stressed by the removal of a sexuality which had always been there.
Maybe I have just met nicer people than you have? I know a lot of disabled people, including those who became disabled through accidents or medical conditions, and were no longer able to continue a sexual relationship. But I have known of no relationships that broke up as a result. People's love and commmitment tends to be stronger than that in my observation. It can be seen in any hospital or hospice.
quote:
Why do you, as a "special" group, need to be protected?
It is not as a 'special group', but the same as any people. Protection in employment, in housing, in receiving services, in life. And, for couples, protection for the surviving partner after the death of the other, and, of course, protection for their children.
It seems to me it would rather silly to have a 'case by case' scenario when a simple inclusive law can secure this for all.
And, sometimes, there is not time for an individual case to be considered. Until I entered civil partnership with my partner, her nearest living relative was her next-of-kin, and therefore the only person entitled to visit her in hospital if she was dying. Not me.
Now I am her next-of-kin and can be with her and support her to the end. Without having to set a court date first ..... while she dies without me in the meantime.
Posts: 137 | From: Netherlands | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We can disagree on the portion of society which will be enticed by the example of easier living that homosexual behavior "out in the open" will offer: I think it will be enough to threaten society, and you might think it is an insignificant number. And I would hope that you are right!
Merlin, are you seriously suggesting that some heterosexuals will choose to become homosexual in order to have an excuse to not have children? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Homosexual men, being as typical of males as any other demographic, are not enticed by the possibility of children when they form sexual friendships with other men.
This is 'men' according to FHM right? What a sad misanthropic world you inhabit.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Merlin, are you seriously suggesting that some heterosexuals will choose to become homosexual in order to have an excuse to not have children? OliviaG
You're a little behind the times, OliviaG. Merlin has been following this line of argument for at least two or three days. And apparently whether anybody (heterosexual or homosexual) chooses to have kids is a telling reflection on their morality.
Merlin - I've thought of some more people I'm confused about. When wealthy people have kids, and then entrust their kids to childcare providers and boarding schools - so that the children are hardly being raised by the parents themselves - now are those people selfish or unselfish? I think in your scheme they count as unselfish. But while nanny or boarding school are raising the kids, the parents could be gadding about doing whatever they darn well please.
This 'having kids generally = unselfish, not having kids generally = selfish' equation just keeps getting more and more muddled and confusing for me.
[ 02. April 2007, 16:46: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Ah, but you've made that special effort, haven't you leo?
Merlin hasn't been around the past couple of days, so I'm awaiting clarification about how he sees the situation. But my current understanding is that his equation looks a lot like this:
having kids = well done, by having kids you have done your bit for society and you are deemed to be an unselfish person
not having kids = you've got some explaining to do, my friend; you might not be a selfish person, but you'll need to prove you're not selfish; you better be contributing an awful lot to society, because not having kids takes some making up for (graciously, Merlin allows that you don't need to explain yourself to him - just to God / your conscience / that type of thing)
Mulling over this topic, as I have been for the past couple of days, I've worked out a reasonably succint expression of my own view (DH Hosts breathe sigh of relief and wonder why I couldn't have spared them my past 3 or 4 posts):
There are lots of ways a person can behave selfishly and lots of ways a person can behave unselfishly. Nowadays people in the developed world rarely decide whether or not to have kids on any basis of 'duty' to society. In the developed world, whether or not an individual procreates seems to me to be largely a matter of personal preference. It is possible to describe selfish and unselfish lifestyles followed by those who don't have children. It is possible to describe selfish and unselfish lifestyles followed by those who do have children. People can choose to have kids for selfish reasons. People can choose not to have kids for unselfish reasons. Using the question of whether an individual has children or not as any kind of measure as to whether that individual is a selfish or unselfish person is simply nonsensical.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<children and selfishness>
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
In the developed world, whether or not an individual procreates seems to me to be largely a matter of personal preference.
And in some parts of the less-developed world, children are the only pension plan available. I wonder if Merlin would consider that selfishness. OliviaG
</c & s>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Olivia, mts, Lori, etc. You all are making very cogent, logical arguments. But I doubt it makes any difference. Bless you for persevering.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin, consider the following conundrum. A man and a woman get married. Neither have any great desire to raise children. Both are highly skilled and well-qualified doctors, who also engage in medical research. They don't have any kids and spend their entire working lives as invaluable assets to the National Health Service (yes, I'm in the UK), as well as producing some important research papers. They've contributed a fair bit to society, no? But by the time they retire, they are both consultants. They are high-earners who command a lot of respect and they have thoroughly enjoyed their working lives.
Are they in the selfish group or the unselfish group?
For sure, in the unselfish group, imho. I hope, that when they reach middle age, that they don't have serious misgivings about the course they took in life together, and wish that they had taken time to raise some children too.
For what it's worth, I believe that there is no more direct way to feel worthwhile and rewarded by life than through children. But there are some who are confident in their assertion that child rearing is not for them. If they make the world better by living in it, then selfishness is not really an issue.
quote:
...
Why do you have such a negative attitude towards people who choose not to have children (for *whatever* reasons)?
I don't. Any negative attitude I feel toward people who pursue other things besides family life, is reserved solely for those that in my judgment are hedonists. I do not have any respect for mindless pleasure seeking.
Most men, without the lure of sex, would not bother to marry at all: and most would wind up unhappy, that's the irony, but also the nature, of most men. Easy sex means shallow commitment, again, to most men. Sex with children envelopes most men in another role: that of provider and protector: very strong emotions shared by males everywhere (and arguably the strongest "evolved" emotional bond between males and their children and wives). Homosexual males rarely exhibit these traits, but rather the playboy attitude. That is specifically the lure that I feel would increase with an increased acceptance of homosexuality in society: drawing off many bisexually disposed men to the easier lifestyle.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Merlin, your own state specifically excludes cohabiting, non-married adults (e.g. queer couples) from adoption. Many other countries also either restrict international adoption to married couples or ban gay adoption. Please look into what you're saying before you say it--almost everything you've argued can be debunked by the most casual skeptic.
Really. What have you debunked? A single can adopt, then move in with someone. It happens all the time. I know that also in Utah, cohabiting for six years then becomes a common law "marriage." If homosexual couples are together that long, and we include them in civil unions, or common law, then they will be eligible to adopt.
quote:
MerlingtheMad: Speaking of typical and atypical, yes, sexual orientation does affect whether or not they want to raise children.... Homosexual men, being as typical of males as any other demographic, are not enticed by the possibility of children when they form sexual friendships with other men. They are archetypal playboys. Exceptions, of course, exist; there always are. But typically they are not interested in adoption.
quote:
Back that up, please. You are fully entitled to form your own opinion; you are not entitled to have your own set of "facts".
What would satisfy you? Some study? YMMV applies here. I wasn't aware that I am some self-appointed expert on the demographics of humanity in the world. But after half a century of observation, I stand by the statements I have made regarding typical and atypical male behavior, toward sex and family life.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We can disagree on the portion of society which will be enticed by the example of easier living that homosexual behavior "out in the open" will offer: I think it will be enough to threaten society, and you might think it is an insignificant number. And I would hope that you are right!
Merlin, are you seriously suggesting that some heterosexuals will choose to become homosexual in order to have an excuse to not have children? OliviaG
Madam, I am not. The example of childless sex is not going to strengthen society. It will tempt others to emulate that lack of commitment in their own lives. And, it will entice bisexuals into relationships that they would otherwise not entertain. Again, to what degree, what proportion of society, this would affect, we cannot know beforehand.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Homosexual men, being as typical of males as any other demographic, are not enticed by the possibility of children when they form sexual friendships with other men.
This is 'men' according to FHM right? What a sad misanthropic world you inhabit.
FHM = "For Him Magazine"? Misanthropic: supposedly I hate mankind?
Out of all the male homosexuals you know, how many adopt and raise children? Curious minds want to know....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Merlin - I've thought of some more people I'm confused about. When wealthy people have kids, and then entrust their kids to childcare providers and boarding schools - so that the children are hardly being raised by the parents themselves - now are those people selfish or unselfish? I think in your scheme they count as unselfish. But while nanny or boarding school are raising the kids, the parents could be gadding about doing whatever they darn well please.
This 'having kids generally = unselfish, not having kids generally = selfish' equation just keeps getting more and more muddled and confusing for me.
Having children is only the beginning. By itself it means nothing. What about the man who goes about impregnating women carelessly? Having children is meaningless without a lifelong commitment to them. So there is no "generally" about it.
Fobbing off your children on society to take care of, no matter how ritzy the institution, or expensive the nanny, so you can play more, is of course selfish. How can that be muddled or confusing?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not having kids selfish?
Not having kids freed me to devote 70 hours per week to teaching (and preparing and marking) other people's kids and a further number of hours preaching, taking Holy Communion to the housebound etc.
Read everything I've said. You are making the world better. That is your joy. Nothing is selfish about that. Not everyone can do the family thing, for a meriad of reasons. Selfishness isn't the joy that comes from making the world better. Selfishness consumes joy. Giving yourself to others increases joy. We can only judge ourselves: nobody can tell you how to be happy.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sex with children envelopes most men in another role: that of provider and protector:
Whoa there Merlin! That doesn't sound good.
I just noticed how that looks. Let me rephrase that:
Sex that brings children envelopes most men in the role of protector and provider.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I just noticed how that looks. Let me rephrase that:
Sex that brings children envelopes most men in the role of protector and provider.
Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but this doesn't seem to make sense. 'Sex that brings children envelopes'? What?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Having children is only the beginning. By itself it means nothing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
We seem to have finally reached agreement on this point. An individual's choice about whether or not to procreate is a fairly worthless measure of whether or not that individual is a selfish or unselfish person. Now, can we please contine the conversation about homosexuality without reference to your ridiculous assertion that having kids automatically gives somebody a higher moral standing?
On the subject of whether, if they didn't have any desire for sex, men would still want marriage and/or children:- It is quite possible for men to have sex without getting married. Is Utah a state full of playboys who then get tamed by their marriages to dour, straight-laced women? Plenty of straight men among my acquaintances seem desirous of long-term, committed relationships. I'm 25. I can immediately think of 2 male friends at Uni who were really cut up when 'dumped' by their girlfriends. These were both young, attractive men at Uni and surrounded by young women. They could easily have gone and found sex with some other woman. They were upset by the loss of the particular girlfriend. They had been in a committed relationship. It wasn't just about sex. In one case, I'm pretty sure the couple weren't having sex when they were together anyway.
Men don't want children? I have never heard any of my male friends state straight out that they don't want to have kids. I have heard two men state straight out that they very much do want to have kids. The first time I heard a bloke tell me this, I was only 18 and I said to him, 'It's a bit unusual for a bloke to be desperate to settle down + have kids, isn't it?' His response was that he didn't think it is so unusual, but that there is something of a cultural perception that men are less enthusiastic than women about long-term relationships + kids, hence, accross society as a whole, men are probably more reluctant than women to come out and admit that they really, really want marriage and kids. Your own male friends must surely be very unhappy people, if they have allowed themselves to be tied down to wives and kids just because they wanted a steady supply of nookie. My impression is that if you asked a random group of men for their genuine feelings, and if those men were able to put aside the societal expectation that all they should want is sex, you would actually find out that a fair few of them wanted long-term commitment to a single partner they adore and that a fair few of them would love to have kids.
Btw. Civil partnerships for gay couples were introduced last year in the UK. A huge number of gay couples have entered civil partnerships since then - far, far more than the government had predicted would do so. If homosexual men are selfish and just want sex without any responsibility, why are so many of them so eager to publicly declare their love for and commitment to one other person - and to place on themselves legal and financial binds towards their parnter at the same time?
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but this doesn't seem to make sense. 'Sex that brings children envelopes'? What?
T.
Envelope as a verb. As in, to wrap someone up in.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I think the confusion is that when it's a verb it's spelled "envelop" -- not that it matters. I still find the assertion confusing.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
