|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
|
#414
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Henry Spencer ) writes:
In article , Andre Lieven wrote: In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs* a *mother *and* a father. NO same sex couple can provide that... Only if you assume that a "mother" must be biologically female, and a "father" biologically male. It's the personalities, not the chromosomes, which interact with the kids. Actually, its both. This has been shown in studies where children raised by two women lived, and where those children still needed and wanted a proper, full time, man's rearing and education. This is an issue of millions of years of biology, and we mess with that at the children's peril. Surely, the record of the kids raised in the last thirty years is... dismal. Children raised by same-sex couples are probably better off than children raised by single parents. Since *both* are sub-optimal situations, all this is is moving around the casualties... Since we already have a whole bunch of the latter, I see no significant harm to society -- and perhaps some good -- if we officially condone the former. I would far prefer that we start to re-stigmatise the latter. Its also a large tragedy, and we don't do better by doing *more of the worse*... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#415
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes: But, you offer *no positive arguments* in favour of your claimed view. Case dismissed... And I think all arguments against gay state sanctioned marriage can be called religious beliefs, and people shouldn't try to impose their religous beliefs on others. I'm against gay " marriage ", and I'm an *atheist*. So, you're... wrong. Try again. Same thing. I'm FOR allowing gay "marriage" and I'm an atheist with Buddhist tendencies. Does it matter? It proves that you claim that " opposition to gay marriage=religious grounds, 100% of the time " was... *false*. If you wish to continue to defend what has already been proven as false, it stands to reason that logic would infer that other statements of yours are false... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote: Equating sexual preference, gender identity and other innate psychological traits with the desire for a car is a coarse analogy at best and extremely callow, at worst. What many committed gay couples want is the same rights and responsibilities afforded straight couples. Nothing more, nothing less. Without *earning* them, I do understand that. If one refuses to learn to drive a car, one has NO claim on a driver's license... What the heck are you trying to say, Andre? That gay folks should learn to screw straight people and learn to like it? Please elaborate. That their chosen failure to qualify, doesn't leave them with a " right " that they chose to not qualify for. Period. If it helps you to realize the utter absurdity of such a position, please realize that many gay people (my sister included) have a history of failed straight relationships, followed often by much longer-term, happier gay relationships. Once they realize that it really IS them, they find better (same-sex) partners. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT " citation'. " By your logic and reasoning, U.S. blacks in the 50's (hell, now!) shouldn't want the same treatment as whites because they don't have the "qualification" of white-ness. Ah, I was wondering if anyone was going to drag out the fallacious race card... It's not fallacious at all. And it doesn't have to be race: it could very well be gender, religious beleif or any other not-easily-changable personal characteristic. That's the usual determinant used by a Court to see if it's a suspect classification being used to make an otherwise-arbitrary distinction. Non sequitur. In democracies, the people DO get a say over how things will be. A tyranny of courts is not preferable to a tyranny of any other knd. Black families are still families, with a mother *and* a father. Not all of them. Non sequitur. Far more than gay relationships... which by *self definition* are *guaranteed* to be without either the mother or the father. Thus, they meet the qualification for marriage. No problem there, so your analogy fails. No, it doesn't. The issue is qualification for marriage only. You say a straight couple comprised on one male and one female are the only people who are allowed (I agree) or ought to be allowed (I disagree) to be married. However, many groups have historically been denied rights (and responsibilities) for many things in society, restrictions which today are seen as arbitrary and baseless, even if they seemed acceptable and perhaps even felt to be justified at the time. So ? " That something I say is like this was done, in other times, for other reasons, and over other issues " is NOT " proof " that this is the case *with this issue*. Again, you're begging the question, and trying to ride on the backs of other people, over other issues. The race (or gender or religion) aspect applies to other things besides marriage that have been historically restricted by many cultures to only those of a preferred group: the right to buy and hold land,the right to inherit property, the freedom to divorce, the right to vote, the right to hold office, the right to serve militarily, etc. Such freedoms have long been denied many people on the basis of similar irrational grounds. Ibid. PROVE that thats the case *with this issue*. I could as easily say " The Saturn V was a rocket. The Delta 5 is a rocket. Therefore, Delta 5s should carry three men to the Moon... " The same could apply to women until historically recently, or to Jews in a Christian country, Catholics in a Protestant one, etc. Or, to 10 years olds wanting to marry, or to 8 year olds wanting a driver's license... Study the development of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and you might see why minimum age restrictions pass Constitutional muster while other restrictions based upon membership in a suspect classification do not. Are you implying " Infallibility of SCOTUS " ? By this I mean gender, race, and religion. Sexual preference may be included as a subset of gender issues, it may end up standing on its own or it may fail entirely as a suspect classification; time and the Supreme Court will tell. I will point out, however, that even the Supreme Court gets it wrong - the Dred Scott decision being an obvious case in point. As do not a few recent cases... See Bush v/ Gore... g Bah. Indeed. Lets do away with all rules. Pi does equal 3... No, let's follow the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and do away with arbitrary distinctions which serve only to feed the smug moralism of the small-minded. Then, explain the Violence Against *Women* Acts... Seems its perfectly OK to discriminate... against the " right " groups... BTW, ad homs at views you don't share, only shows the lack of an actual positive argument of the ad hom-er... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes: So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public school. It's all a matter of definitions, isn't it? What do you mean by need? Beyond food and oxygen, what does anyone mean by " need " ? If you believe that fathers are dispensible with, then thats one view, albeit one that flies in the face of reams of evidence. If you believe that fathers are *not* dispensible, then claiming that they're unneeded is fallacious, and self-contradictory. You can call my claim absurd if you want. To me need means require. And, that definition fits. Study the evidence... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#418
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes: So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public school. And, my last g/f was a US high school teacher, so I have seen it on that level, as well. You are confusing "need" with "do better with". Or maybe we aren't talking the same language. In my language, need means require. Non sequitur. Some " needs " can be worked around, albeit at costs of complexity, lower efficiency, etc. Turned out that Apollo 13 didn't " need " a functioning Service Module, if the " win " was measured by " land safely and alive ". I would think that most parents want rather *more* for their kids. Can't tell that by the millions of " single-by-*choice* " women, though... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#419
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes: Chris Jones ) writes: (Andre Lieven) writes: The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein. If two people MS-statement. Its not " two people ", as if any two are OK. Its a *mother and a father*. Feel free to show me gay couples that can provide *a mother and a father*... are better than one when raising children, that's one reason for the state (if "it thinks" having better children is its business) to have marriage. It's not a reason for treating people differently on the basis of their sexual preferences. Wrong, when their demand is for a sexually based privilige. Don't qualify, don't get. Its that basic. Words, words, words. What they? What privilege? Marriage. Duh. Its clearly not a " right ". Rights aren't dependant on the filling of *qualifications*. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#420
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes: Are you seriously wishing to state that marriage has nothing to do with the creation and raising of children ? Especially, but not only, historically ? Feel free to back this claim up. I am not making this claim. LOL. You snipped out where you said as much. Why do you think I am (if you do)? Restore what you sniped out, and I'll show you. But, since you snipped it out, its up to you to correct what you did... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA begins moon return effort | Steve Dufour | Policy | 24 | August 13th 04 10:39 PM |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |