Smart people don't believe in god...

[Darth Flatus]

is the topic: you are stupid if you believe in god!

 

(althought that may be a deliberately inflammatory interpretation of the topic )

[Cantousent]

is the topic: you are stupid if you believe in god!

 

(althought that may be a deliberately inflammatory interpretation of the topic )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If smart people don't believe in God, then you cannot believe in God and be smart. However, opposite side of that could probably give rise to a huge amount of text. Does that mean you are average if you believe in God? ...Or stupid? ...Or genius? ...Or crazy? Maybe it should read, "sane people don't believe in God." The thing is, folks put paid to the original proposition in the first few pages and since then we've been having a general discussion of religion.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"I laughed out loud. I doubt Ros is 12, but, dammit, it was still funny. Sorry Ros."

 

You, know, it is quite funny. . .

 

 

. . . considering that Number Man meant Nur Ab Sal with that comment of his.

 

Heh, heh.

[FaramirK]

is the topic: you are stupid if you believe in god!

 

(althought that may be a deliberately inflammatory interpretation of the topic )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was it originally, but it was just way too civil, so it kind of switched to gay marriage thing, and we've sort of hit a dead zone there, coming to the conclusion that since marriage is so casual now, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals...

 

The thread attracted no fanatical right-wingers, so the flaming was minimal.

[Cantousent]

Damned quotes. I'm easily confused! Hey, maybe smart people really don't believe in God.

 

I'm still waiting to throw out my extremist views. I just haven't had the opportunity. Soon, though. Very soon.

[Darth Flatus]

eldar you have extremist views? by all means throw them out there!!

 

 

*switches on flamethrower*

[WITHTEETH]

Evolution does exist! how did man kind defeat the black plauge during the the second dark age? how does the Aids virus keep evolving, how come penecilin is becoming less effective as more humans evolve to become immune to it. there is proof, you just have too look for it.

[metadigital]

I'd still be interested in hearing your opinion.  You are correct that we will probably never agree morally on Homosexuality, but as far as your opinion on the purpose of marriage/child raising in a modern free society, fire away.  I can't see any vaild reason for adoption of children by a married gay couple.  If you have some, please share.

 

My basic argument is this:

 

[1]Homosexual relationships should be protected from persecution in a free society.

 

[2]Homosexual and heterosexual relationships based on love/companionship etc are different from Family Building which is exclusively heterosexual, simply because thats how human reproduction functions.

 

Question out of real curiosity...

 

[3]Why does the gay rights movement want to synthetically copy heterosexual marriage?

 

[4]The Ancient Greeks and Romans were open to homosexuality, and they never confused marriage with homosexuality.

 

Thoughts?

 

Please don't flame, I am obviously not a homophobe...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Yes. Libertarianism is the best way to prevent open warfare between people in the same society, and indeed make the society more attractive than other, more restrictive ones.

2. No. That is just an arbitrary distinction, similar to "women have smaller brain mass therefore, on average, are not as intelligent".

3. It is not an artificial facsimile. For one thing, there are laws regarding state benefits (old age/surviving partner pensions) and the ownership of chattels (death duties vary depending on marital status) and real estate. If there was no pecuniary discrimination against gay couples' civic partnerships, then "marraige" would just be a label. This is not the case.

4. It was almost mandatory to be bisexual in classical times. Alexander the Great, Achilles just about every Roman Emperor, etc. They also kept slaves and had a democracy (where women and slaves couldn't vote); though slaves were a legitimate commercial artiface (boring history of slaves can be quoted if interested).

[metadigital]

I don't want people to be discriminated against at all, but disqualifying someone isn't always negative discrimination.  I again ask how well two gay men would relate to a little girl, but since there are so many singleparent families today, I think its a moot point if society already has such a casual view of marital fidelity.

 

2.i agree, but isn't that what the christians are doing in this matter? they believe homosexuality to be a sin and gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

 

I can't speak for every christian, but I don't mix my religion with my social agenda to support a free society. My questioning gay couples legally adopting children has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality. I only suggest that the children may be baised against heterosexual relationships, since the idea of a "gay" family unit is a synthetic invention, not a result of natural process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are allowing your personal biases to colour your reasoning; let me explain: you are assuming that two loving people (who just happen to be of the same gender) will not be as capable as two people (just because they are heterosexual).

 

I think you are placing an unwarranted emphasis on the gender of a parenting couple.

 

You are proceeding from a false premise: I had no idea how to relate to my partner's daughter when I met her (god knows ( ) I had never met a twelve year old girl before); now she and I are great friends (she is over eighteen now).

 

Gender is irrelevant to ability to be a good role model and citizen of society. Parents should be either an exemplar, or a strident warning.

[metadigital]

... switched to gay marriage ... coming to the conclusion that since marriage is so casual now, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals...

 

The thread attracted no fanatical right-wingers, so the flaming was minimal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that is a flame bait interpretation of the facts.

 

What is being argued is that gender is no basis to decide whether someone is fit to raise children. I'm sure you have encountered plenty of heterosexual couples who should have been sterilised, or at least had their breeding licence stamped "LATER". "

[FaramirK]

Gender is irrelevant to ability to be a good role model and citizen of society. Parents should be either an exemplar, or a strident warning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I thought about the whole single parent thing, and how single fathers have raised girls and single mothers have raised boys without a partner the same sex as their child, and already conceded that two of the same gender could raise children too, so thats the end of that discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[FaramirK]

... switched to gay marriage ... coming to the conclusion that since marriage is so casual now, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals...

 

Now that is a flame bait interpretation of the facts.

 

Hmm, didn't mean to flame at all, but with hind-sight my grammar choice can be interpreted as a horrible put-down to homosexuals. Consider the statement withdrawn. I merely ment to say that the general consenxux was to allow gay couples to adopt...

[metadigital]

So, I guess we have a consensus that the poster of this topic -- and those that share the point of view -- are in need of succour as their self-esteem is obviously lacking.

 

Intelligence does not have a strong correlation to the adoption of religious faith.

 

End of Thread.

[213374U]

End of Thread.

Not while I'm able to post!

 

One sentence was extremely stupid:

I know you hate to see yourself as a believer, but you are one. Science is your religion. But perhaps you should know your religion a little better before lunging forward like that

That's quite false. Science is built on evidences and logic while religion is built on superstitions and unproven speculations. Drakron isn't a believer - he only embraces facts.

Was that even directed at you, dumbass? Perhaps you should read the original post to which that reply was directed at, instead of cherry picking my posts, and twisting them out of their original context.

 

When people cling to evolutionism as the only true explanation for life as we know it, they are assuming that evolutionism is correct. Which we don't know for sure because evolutionism is a theory, and not a law. Therefore, evolutionism is another belief, plain and simple.

 

 

Allowed by whom?  Who has the right to deny this?  On what grounds?  For the state to justify denying gay couples the right to adopt, it would need to present fairly strong evidence that gay people are less able to raise children well then heterosexual people.  I doubt that such evidence exists.

Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems. However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children. I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not.

 

This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language. The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied. Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong.

[random evil guy]

Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems. However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children. I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not.

 

This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language. The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied. Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true, it must be switched around. the opponents must show why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children...

[213374U]

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems.  However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children.  I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not.

No. There's no assumption behind that approach. However, we don't know if a gay couple (be it male or female) can provide the same psychological imprints than a heterosexual one can (I have my doubts regarding sexual roles, but anyway). And since we don't know, I don't think it would be fair to the adoptee to just "try and see if it works" only to satisfy the adoptants.

 

Obviously, the ability to procreate has no direct relation to the ability to raise children, as is proven by the fact that many otherwise normal heterosexual couples are unable to conceive due to sterility issues. But, it is not less true that it is an unnatural (as in impossible by natural means) and anomalous situation for a child to have both parents of the same gender. So far, the possible repercussions of this are not fully known. But the state's duty is to protect the rights of the weakest, in this case, the child.

 

 

This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language.  The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied.  Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong.

No. Don't try to twist my words unless it's a flame war you're after. If it sounds reasonable and you find yourself unable to refute the arguments, then perhaps it not only sounds reasonable, but it is.

As I said, in an adoption case, the adoptee's welfare overrules any other concerns, including the would-be adoptants' right. And while I'm all for an equality legislation, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of putting that equality before all other considerations.

[WITHTEETH]

"If you dont like gay marriage, dont have one!"

[Cantousent]

My first extremist view I'll post: I agree with my numbered friend. I believe heterosexual couples should be preferred in cases of adoption. I also think it should be much harder for unmarried couple than married couples. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to married. I believe married homosexual couples should be preferred to single homosexuals for adoption.

[SteveThaiBinh]

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems.  However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children.  I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not.

No. There's no assumption behind that approach. However, we don't know if a gay couple (be it male or female) can provide the same psychological imprints than a heterosexual one can (I have my doubts regarding sexual roles, but anyway). And since we don't know, I don't think it would be fair to the adoptee to just "try and see if it works" only to satisfy the adoptants.

 

Obviously, the ability to procreate has no direct relation to the ability to raise children, as is proven by the fact that many otherwise normal heterosexual couples are unable to conceive due to sterility issues. But, it is not less true that it is an unnatural (as in impossible by natural means) and anomalous situation for a child to have both parents of the same gender. So far, the possible repercussions of this are not fully known. But the state's duty is to protect the rights of the weakest, in this case, the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a man or woman in a heterosexual couple are infertile, then it is also unnatural for them to have a child. There's no evidence that their infertility would make them bad parents, but there's probably no evidence to the contrary, either. So where does the burden of proof lie? Should they prove that they would be good parents? For adoption, the answer is yes. But gay people should have to prove themselves against exactly the same standards. Sexual orientation is not part of the equation.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'psychological imprints', because my knowledge of psychology is limited. What exactly is it that a heterosexual couple can provide that a gay couple perhaps cannot?

 

This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language.  The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied.  Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong.

No. Don't try to twist my words unless it's a flame war you're after. If it sounds reasonable and you find yourself unable to refute the arguments, then perhaps it not only sounds reasonable, but it is.

As I said, in an adoption case, the adoptee's welfare overrules any other concerns, including the would-be adoptants' right. And while I'm all for an equality legislation, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of puttiing that equality before all other considerations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war, or to twist your words, so I apologise if I offended you. But I do worry about equality and discrimination in society as a whole. It's not enough to have laws outlawing discrimination - we as a society need to understand, and to internalise, a way of thinking that values all members of society.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example. A state adoption system uses a points system to evaluate the suitability of parents who wish to adopt. The points system looks at things like income, personality etc., but not sexuality. Couple A are heterosexual, and score 80 points (higher is better). Couple B are gay and score 82 points. The adoption workers have as their primary duty to protect the welfare of the child. So therefore the best decision is to give the child to couple B. 'Playing it safe', because there may or may not be some problem with having gay parents, is not really in the interests of the child - the child's interest is to go with the better parents. The adoption workers are accountable for their decisions and have to base them on evidence, not on supposition.

[FaramirK]

Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems. However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children. I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not.

 

This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language. The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied. Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true, it must be switched around. the opponents must show why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough, but I would rather just defer that decision to the majority in a democracy. I am morally opposed to Homosexuality, but my morality should never be imposed on someone else, and giving the opposing view equal rights to say that I'm wrong keeps the society much more free than starting to say who is and isn't allowed to belief what.

[random evil guy]

now we're moving onto the very problem with democracy. shouldn't the minority in a society be protected from being targeted by the majority...? sometimes one must go against the majority...

[FaramirK]

now we're moving onto the very problem with democracy. shouldn't the minority in a society be protected from being targeted by the majority...? sometimes one must go against the majority...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the purpose of the democracy is to protect the right to freedom of thought and speech, then giving homosexuals the right to adopt children, while against my moral beliefs, is fine by me. As long as that rule is ingrained in the psyche of the populace, the minorities should be safe.

[Drakron]

Adoption is not a right, its a privilage.

 

No diferent that driving, you dont have the right to drive a car, you have the privilage of being allowed to drive a car.

 

Some people cannot have a privilage, a blind person cannot drive.

 

In adoption there is the fact the welfare of the child is of upmost importance.

[Cantousent]

Should the majority be forced to comly with the minority? I don't propose that homosexuals be persecuted. I propose that heterosexuals should, all things being equal, be preferred over homosexuals in regards to child adoption. I don't think that a more qualified homosexual couple should suffer, but homosexuality is a factor just like everything else. Heterosexuality is the norm in our society and I don't believe we should use children as a way to promote minority rights. The right to adoption is not only a question of prospective parents. It is also a question of the child's welfare. What is good for the homosexual (or heterosexual couple) is secondary to what is best for the child. In that case, yes, I do believe the burden is on the homosexual couple to prove that their household would be preferrable to a heterosexual household.

 

This is all in the context of the overall picture. Should heterosexual crack adicts be given the nod over a stable homosexual household? Of course not.

 

EDIT: So, Drakron, we agree on the welfare of the child being the primary concern. The question is, are homosexual couples the equivalent of heterosexual couples in our society. Will an adopted child face challenges as a result of going to a homosexual couple and at one point are those challenges outweighed by other factors?