JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : Biology, politics and social studies aren't sciences now? Politics isn't a science, and I'd argue about the 'social' sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :let's not argue What do you think this is, a debate forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Politics isn't a science, and I'd argue about the 'social' sciences. I know it's painful to admit this, but those student things who study politics and social sciences do use a lot fo the same principles as ecologists and what have you. :scrubscrubscrub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : I know it's painful to admit this, but those student things who study politics and social sciences do use a lot fo the same principles as ecologists and what have you. :scrubscrubscrub: Physics and stamp collecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I personally don't see the problem with gay marriages, and even if I was opposed myself to the 'gay lifestyle', as it were, I would still support them because it's an imbalance in legality. There is legally nothing wrong with a gay lifestyle, so why there is prejudice in some areas is another matter. Of course, religions may not allow gay marriages, but that's down to the religion in question. 'There's some parts of the bible I like, and some parts I don't like' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Mossoi: I don't see what's wrong with a gay marriage. I'm not so sure about adoption in such cases as it's affecting another party who may or may not be adversely affected by a different home lifestyle. As for anti-sodomy laws - well two consenting adults in the privacy of there own home - why stop them? It's not gonna upset anybody. [/b] Declaring who is or is not an unfit parent, or what lifestyle is or is not beneficial for a child is quite a step for anyone to make Abuse & neglect don't think there can be any argument. Get beyond that, consider the variety of social systems in place throughout the world and that somehow kids generally manage to grow up just dandy, as well as all the potential factors of a parent's situation/personality which may or may not adversely affect a kid, and think you've got quite a bit to demonstrate in suggesting, however qualified, homosexuals should be denied adoption/parenthood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MishMish said in post # :and think you've got quite a bit to demonstrate in suggesting, however qualified, homosexuals should be denied adoption/parenthood No you don't. It's all assumed. Who's to say that children to homosexuals are disadvantaged? Sure, adopting a child isn't like having a dog, or a hamster, but surely two doting parents can't be bad. Look how many grow up with only one parent, be it through divorce, illness or criminality. You in your post said that it was improper to declare lifestyles invalid, yet you, in the next paragraph, do just that with insufficient evidence. Furthermore, justifying it because of references to homophobia is a terrible argument. If something is wrong, it is not the problem of the gay couple who wish to adopt, it is society's problem, and society should not dump it's problems onto them because it is easier, because it causes less resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MrL, not sure I understand your criticism here I declared no lifestyle invalid, a priori, other than abuse/neglect. I was questioning singling out homosexuality as a factor which "may or may not" adversely affect kids, and pointing out that just about anything a parent does "may or may not" adversely afffect kids That was not an effort to deny parenthood to any or all on some assumed lifestyle but point out that singling out homosexuality as uniquely different is arbitrary. And would disagree on the need to demonstrate as well. If Mossoi can demonstrate that having homosexual parents uniquely adversely affects children (and Mossoi, realize you qualified your statement just think you need to rethink your doubts as well) then he will have a case to be listened to, would depend on his case, the nature and degree of harm whether or not should lead to denying homosexuals rights to parenthood, but I do not think he would even be able to make the case, and there are now enough kids raised by homosexual parents anyway to serve as counterexamples to the argument do not see the case could hold as uniquely causative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MrL, sorry for two posts in a row like this, perhaps is the expression "you've got quite a bit" threw you? Does not mean he has gone a long way towards making his case but that he has a long ways to go to make his case, that is: his argument is weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MishMish said in post # :MrL, sorry for two posts in a row like this, perhaps is the expression "you've got quite a bit" threw you? Does not mean he has gone a long way towards making his case but that he has a long ways to go to make his case, that is: his argument is weak Read it differently; read it as (quite a bit) to (demonstrate that) rather than quite (a bit to demonstrate) that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MrL, okay, took several tries before could read it as you interpreted it Not sure if the expression is a regionalism, or if I just developed a block of some other sort kept me from seeing could be read either direction At any rate, how you interpreted it was not as I intended it. Hopefully my clarifications in post #108 made that clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Get beyond that, consider the variety of social systems in place throughout the world and that somehow kids generally manage to grow up just dandy, as well as all the potential factors of a parent's situation/personality which may or may not adversely affect a kid, and think you've got quite a bit to demonstrate in suggesting, however qualified, homosexuals should be denied adoption/parenthood That one challenges even me for verbosity and comma-confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Oh hell There is no doubt I find myself involved in a number of miscommunication scenarios, and I likewise realize my grammar has deteriorated. Reason I take comments such as Iglak's and MrL's seriously But have recently made tracking down miscommunication errors a priority (have not made grammar a priority, am hoping that will rectify itself, and think it slowly is) and have found the two most common situations are that either the other has introduced an unstated (and invalid) assumption or a term or phrase used has alternate meanings and I choose one while others choose a different (slightly different from the example MrL cited as source of confusion) As for verbosity, as mentioned to Iglak I do have a penchant for being complete and accounting for possibilities when I can. As for comma confusion, do not buy it. The ones in the above were necessary. So basically, tough I am more than willing to take responsibility where due, but will not where I do not think it applies Might add, little if anything I post on the boards would pass muster if on paper. I may do a casual edit on posts, but do not go through the draft & revision process Final comment if I seem to be responding more hashly than you think warranted, I did notice the emoticon, but that is also new for me. I generally consider them little more than a distraction and does not register for me they should have meaning. After a few instances of misinterpretation for that reason, am paying a bit more attertion, but if I now "know" they are supposed to have meaning, would still say they do not properly register as having meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Was that "if you don't understand my 65-word unstructured sentence, it's not my fault"? I agree with you about smilies - I tend to filter them out (especially where they are overused). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Of course, what else could it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 lol, just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadote Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 As a little update to this thread, the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared today that gays are entitled to the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. Also, in Ohio, a bill is being sent to the governor's desk that would ban same-sex marriages. The governor is expected to sign it and it passed the house 77-22 in favor. It would also ban benefits to non-married partners of government employees. If the bill passes, Ohio would be the 38th state with a same-sex marriage ban. It seems this issue is far from resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 What's the reasoning behind banning same-sex marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Bush said so Now hear he has "threatened" that it may have to be tested in court. I'd be delighted, don't see how banning same sex marriages could possibly be upheld, but maybe am too naive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 He's the elected president, not the Pope. If teachers can be sacked for discussing god with students, why does he get to unilaterally enforce his religion's beliefs on the entire USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Perhaps you missed the part where he also thinks he was chosen by God... Real problem is a lot of the public does agree with him, same as with the creationism debates, same as with people's complacency re the Patriot Act, how irrelevant people consider those AWOL WMDs to be, list goes on Crazy country I live in Can only hope the courts will come through on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 "Perhaps you missed the part where he also thinks he was chosen by God..." Not really. I'm still in the bemused stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Unless he thinks 'Daddy' is God, the man is as mad as a bag of drunken frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadote Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 Bush's official response to the Massachusetts ruling: "Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 George W Bush said in post # :People with the gay deserve fewer rights than us real humans. Yes George, you do need to turn to the constitutional process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now