Discussion on Morals

[~Di]

Yeah, I personally was quite a bit confused by the last page.  Must be my reading skills.  Anyhow, my post was actually directed at you, Di.

 

However, in reading your post and our numbered friend's post, I see that I got some of the wording mixed up between the two.

 

Indeed. I was confused myself. I think I should have more appropriately written, "...or about how very young, immature females who experiment with sex and find themselves pregnant should be forced to reap the physical, emotional and permanent consequence of their deed ( OR the "childbirth is God's punishment for slutty women" defense)...", which would have more appropriately conveyed what I was trying to say without making anyone who was against abortion defensive.

 

I'm not really sure of your stance concerning abortion, Di.  You write:

 

"No matter what one's personal views on the matter happen to be, please have some respect for women, and do not deliberately distort and dismiss the reproductive process simply to bolster your own personal beliefs."

 

I actually didn't give my stance regarding abortion. My primary reason for that initial post was to correct misinformation offered as fact in the post I quoted, and to request that folks not fall into the trap of believing that pregnancy and childbirth is nothing more than an inconvenience. People can believe what they wish about the abortion issue; however, passing along distortions and misinformation, or denigrating women in their zeal to support their position (on either side, mind you) is not okay with me.

 

...But are abortions an "easier" decision?  I don't believe most women want an abortion.  ...Or at least I've only heard one woman say that she was glad to have an abortion and she immediately burst into tears thereafter.  (I found that quite suspicious)  I've known some women whom I've known truly felt they had no choice.  In one particular case, I was just happy I didn't have to make the decision myself.  It's an ugly decision to be forced to make.

 

Dear God no, abortion must be one of the cruelest decisions on earth for the female and her family to make. So many issues must be taken into consideration. The very notion that abortion would routinely be used in lieu of contraception is ludicrous to me. Abortion is a serious, painful (both emotionally and physically) medical procedure. Not as serious and painful as childbirth to be sure, particularly for females with certain medical conditions like diabetes, etc. But it is NOT a pleasant process. It hurts my heart to see so many abortion discussions (not this one yet, knock wood) turn to disrespecting females in general by insisting that legal abortions will cause them to ignore birth control methods and gleefully head to the abortionist instead. I mean, good grief.

 

I'm dead set against casual abortions.  If that makes me judgemental, then I'll bear the charge gladly.

 

We are all judgmental! Making judgements is what humans do to sort out their own personal moral compass, after all. I find "casual abortions" distasteful too. Thing is, for all the reasons I've outlined already, I seriously doubt many females beyond the rare and sad case exception would ever, and I mean EVER, consider an abortion to be "casual." My problem is when exaggerations, distortions, utter fabrications, and blatant disrespect of females as a whole get mixed up in the discussion brew. As far as I know, you have not exhibited any of these tendencies, and those are the kinds of posts to which I was taking exception!

[~Di]

@metadigital: ... Seriously, in your zeal to be clever I think your message got lost.  I presume, however, that you are not in favor of stem cell research.  Certainly you have a right to that opinion, if my presumption is correct.  And I have a right to respectfully disagree!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all, I am all in favour of scientific research. Morals are definitely required to temper the implementation of our discoveries into our societies, but they play no part in scientific research.

 

(I was just playing a little Devil's advocado )

 

And you played it much too well, I fear! Confused heck outta me. Not the first time I've been confused, mind you. I am blonde, after all! :D

 

Thanks for the clarification!

[Cantousent]

Metadigital, you yutz, I was already confused before I read your post!

 

...And you have confused Di now, as I can see, and so we're all confused. I was getting ready to write a long Iraq war post, but I'm simply going to go take two asperin and get in bed. You've confounded me! :D

[metadigital]

Metadigital, you yutz, I was already confused before I read your post!

 

...And you have confused Di now, as I can see, and so we're all confused.  I was getting ready to write a long Iraq war post, but I'm simply going to go take two asperin and get in bed.  You've confounded me!  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hooray! I win by default.

 

Now, let's solve world hunger. ...

[FaramirK]

Now, let's solve world hunger. ... 

 

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them.

 

How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide).

[metadigital]

Now, let's solve world hunger. ... 

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them.

 

How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a tough call.

 

Generally local communities loath interference from any outsiders, and will actively oppose them in spite of the local political situation -- except in rare, extreme cases, when most of them would probably be more involved dealing with the more pressing issue of staying alive, such as Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge dictatorship, from the revolution in 1975, till he fled the Vietnamese in 1979.

 

The thorny issue is who decides when to intervene? When does a government become an unwelcome / unrepresented / indefensible organisation?

 

The UN decides? With the existing Security Council vetoes? China is particularly wary of any interventionist actions (can you say "Tibet", boys and girls?) and specifically blocks all such debate: the only reason they are onboard with the North Korean disarmament talks is because they share a border with these poor people with the nutters still running the asylum.

 

The only security action ever passed before the first Gulf War, to push the Iraq forces out of Kuwait, was the Korean "police action", and that was passed when Moscow had temporarily boycotted the UN. The Balkan crisis of 1999 was not sanctioned by the UN; it was a NATO conflict operating outside UN durisdiction.

 

So there you have the dilemma defined: try sorting out Northern Island or Somalia by wading in with a peace-keeping force, or preventing China from annexing territory it belives to be sovereign without starting WWIII.

[FaramirK]

Now, let's solve world hunger. ... 

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them.

 

How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a tough call.

 

Generally local communities loath interference from any outsiders, and will actively oppose them in spite of the local political situation -- except in rare, extreme cases, when most of them would probably be more involved dealing with the more pressing issue of staying alive, such as Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge dictatorship, from the revolution in 1975, till he fled the Vietnamese in 1979.

 

The thorny issue is who decides when to intervene? When does a government become an unwelcome / unrepresented / indefensible organisation?

 

The UN decides? With the existing Security Council vetoes? China is particularly wary of any interventionist actions (can you say "Tibet", boys and girls?) and specifically blocks all such debate: the only reason they are onboard with the North Korean disarmament talks is because they share a border with these poor people with the nutters still running the asylum.

 

The only security action ever passed before the first Gulf War, to push the Iraq forces out of Kuwait, was the Korean "police action", and that was passed when Moscow had temporarily boycotted the UN. The Balkan crisis of 1999 was not sanctioned by the UN; it was a NATO conflict operating outside UN durisdiction.

 

So there you have the dilemma defined: try sorting out Northern Island or Somalia by wading in with a peace-keeping force, or preventing China from annexing territory it belives to be sovereign without starting WWIII.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All excellent points...I guess the best option would be to create as free a society as possible and then find a way to allow mass immigration of Assylam seekers without overcrowding the job/housing market. To be honest, with Russia's vast land and resources and falling population, I don't see why we couldn't pull it off if our leaders would stop living in a vodka induced stupor...that way oppressed people could find refuge, our hypothetical "bastion of liberty" would grow stronger and stronger, and we wouldn't have to wade into blood-baths on the other side of the world, and try to create minatures of ourselves.

 

Thoughts?

[metadigital]

All excellent points...I guess the best option would be to create as free a society as possible and then find a way to allow mass immigration of Assylam seekers without overcrowding the job/housing market.  To be honest, with Russia's vast land and resources and falling population, I don't see why we couldn't pull it off if our leaders would stop living in a vodka induced stupor...that way oppressed people could find refuge, our hypothetical "bastion of liberty" would grow stronger and stronger, and we wouldn't have to wade into blood-baths on the other side of the world, and try to create minatures of ourselves.

 

Thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm all for it, except that it gets really cold in Russia in Winter, and I kinda like warmer weather. :D

 

But, build it and they will come! We just have to convince the errant rulers of your hypothetical utopia to vacate power in some sort of "velvet revolution" ... nuts, I think it's easier to stop genocide ...

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Can't argue with the fact that the rich got even richer, but it's true too that the world is a safer place now without the menace of MAD hovering over our heads, so all in all I'd say it was a fair exchange.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The world's a safer place? It doesn't feel that way to me. In fact, I'd wager there are more people dead today than there would have been without the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not just in Chechnya, but the Balkans too. With the USSR to concentrate on as an enemy, the US likely wouldn't have slaughtered thousands in Iraq.

I'm not saying saying I was a fan of the USSR, far from. And there would have been more people alive today if Stalin never got into power. But the Soviets did stop committing genocide, and if the the USSR never collapsed, at least not as suddenly as it did with such a void left, more people would be alive today.

No, the world isn't a safer place today. Those of us in the West just feel safer. Or felt safter until September 11. Terrorism is a bigger threat to our lives than MAD ever was, because if there was one thing the Soviets weren't, they weren't martyrs.

[213374U]

Terrorism is a bigger threat to our lives than MAD ever was, because if there was one thing the Soviets weren't, they weren't martyrs.

You, my dear, are either truly paranoid or completely ignorant of what the concept of MAD entails. Or perhaps you just underestimate the chances of nuclear war happening during the Cold War. You say that the soviets weren't martyrs but you are quite wrong. They were willing to retaliate to a nuclear attack with one of their own even knowing that such action would only mean to die killing. Isn't that what a martyr does?

 

We have seen what terrorism is capable of at its worst. It can't be much worse than 9/11. It has been argued that the next step is an attack using a small nuke or a biological weapon. Not even that would come close to what a large scale nuclear war would have caused. It is likely that mankind itself would not survive such a thing. So, by all standards, we are safer today than we were back in the '60s.

[Kalfear]

Now, let's solve world hunger. ... 

 

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them.

 

How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would I support my country? NOPE! (course im canadain and we dont declare war anyways on our own!).

 

I would however support COUNTRIES removing governments that didnt have their peoples best interests at stake.

 

I think to many real objections and concerns about motives can be brought up when ONE country attacks anouther under the disguise of "Its for their overall best".

 

Right now we see this happening regarding The United states and Iraq (even though Bush did get UK and few other smaller countries to join in). Some very REAL points regarding the attack being about Iraqs oil rather then attacks being whats best for Iraq can be made and validated.

 

And for the record I was in favor of removing Sadam and the war in general. Just with out it being a TRUE colition of countries, the intentions can be questioned and analazed and the results do raise more questions.

 

Today in the news there was yet anouther terrorist attack that killed 10 more people in Bagdad <sp?>. Yet the areas with oil contain more troops and are guarded more closely then major cities with populations. No matter what side of the war issue you were on, the aftermath has to be questioned.

 

Thats why I think any wars should require a minimim of 10 medium to super powered countries to agree and form togather. And those countries can NOT profit from the war from said country reasources. Only then can the claim "its best for the people" be made. How does having all american oil barons running the oil from Iraq now help Iraq? Prior to the war Iraq managed to control and sell their oil with out american involvement. How does this NOW help them with american controling Iraqs oil? Its a contradiction.

 

As I said, I supported the war, Sadam had to go. I think the world of the american men and women over there that are really trying to help the Iraq people. But to much else is happening for the claim "its best for the people" to be real now. Its like one dictator was replaced by a country(meaning government involvement) of dictators.

 

heh, after all that though, if I was american I still wouldnt have voted for Kerry either!

[Kalfear]

Gay Rights

 

Well, again, morality and liberty diverge...there is evidence to suggest that biology and choice plays a part in homosexual tendences.  I don't believe that the state has the right to dictate or even comment on personal sexual preference between consenting adults.  I personally disagree with the idea of "gay marriage" and gay couples adopting children.

 

Wow! Im surprised someone brought this up (adoption issue).

 

Its an issue close to me heart.

 

Before I continue Im going to tell abit of background so people understand where Im coming from.

 

I was adopted. Because of the laws in Canada in 1970, I was undable to find out any family medical history since the laws protected the parents and not the child. So (as I stated in other post) I wasnt aware of a hereditary disease that was in family and was diagnosed to late into its progression (no cure but is some stuff I could have done to slow it down when it was early in its progression, now to late).

 

During 1980-1990 I was also a male model (straight btw, always have been 100% of the time, never tried any alternative life style so were clear on topic) so I did form freindships with a number of gay people. And to be honest had far more experience in the gay community then many other hetrosexual people ever do. Also had a uncle that died from AIDs in 1997 who was gay. His partner remains part of our family and is as much an uncle as my real uncle was.

 

Thats far more information about myself then I wished to share on the internet but wanted to say that so people know my opinions on this topic is not formed on some homophobic ideal or uneducated/unexperienced veiw.

 

I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY against gays being allowed to adopt children.

 

My veiw point comes from the eyes of the CHILD and not from the parents.

 

Im sure some (not all) gay people could be good parents, just like some (not all) hetrosexual people can be good parents. But frankly that has ZERO to do with my stance on this issue.

 

Children can be the cruelest people you have ever met, they dont mean to many times but lack the knowledge of what is teasing and what is going over the line. Growing up adopted is NOT an easy life in the most perfect situation. When children find out you are adopted you will be harrassed with hurtful words like you were thrown away, you were not wanted, ect ect ect from other children. As a teen ager or older you understand these words mean nothing (for the most part) and can defend yourself. As a child though these words carry great weight and impact you greatly. Its NOT an easy thing to just brush off and ignore in your early years.

 

So the LAST thing an adopted child needs is to have a family make up that will be ridiculed and insulted. Having gay parents WILL cause you to be ostrasized and make for a easy target by other children. No matter how politically correct the area you live in is, no matter how loving your adopted parents may or may not be, just the fact they are gay will make you and easy target for badgering and torment.

 

I think gay people that adopt children are some of the MOST selfish and arrogent people on the face of the planet. They willingly place the child into harms way so they can feel BETTER about themselves. Only a idiot would assume their life style would not be open fodder to those looking to hurt or embaress the child that was adopted.

 

You can say the child is special because they were choosen a million times every day, it doesnt carry much weight when others intentionally target you for harrassment. Many ADULT gay people stay in the closet because of said harressment, as adults that is their choice, but what gives them the right to intentionally place a child in the line of fire? Its selfish and ignorant.

 

Now people can talk about family values, people can talk about learned life styles, they both good topics that do carry some weight, but in the end, when all is said and done. Any choice about a child being adopted should come down to whats best for the CHILD, whats good for the parents shouldnt come into the equation what so ever. ONLY WHATS BEST FOR THE CHILD! Being raised in a homosexual family puts undue and unneeded stress on the child and puts them in harms way regardless of intentions.

[metadigital]

I suppose Gay men should just do what they've always done, get married and have children in the marriage (with their wife) and carry on staying out late at "the club" on weekday nights ... "

[Cantousent]

It is imperative that a child know who his biological parents are, even if the parent in question is a physically abusive alcoholic who beats the mother and children daily. Still, I don't think that the accident of conception should make one man more worthy than another. It's the actions that make for a good man and father, not the blood.

[Echoes]

may as well give this a go

 

Abortion - for it. Don't want to get dragged into a huge debate, but I'm for it up to the point where the fetus is aware it exists. Before that it really is just a clump of replicating cells. Obviously, that'll coincide with some level of brain activity consistent with what's viewed as consciousness. Obviously for it in cases of rape or ectopic pregnancy.

 

Gay Rights - all for all them, marriage, adoption, the works. I would've hoped we'd worked out all our civil rights issues by now, constitutionally we in the US worked them out in 1868.

 

UN - for it, be nice if it could do more but I doubt any country is going to surrender any more power to it anytime soon.

 

Iraq - against it before we went and against it now. Especially considering the price tag.

 

Blair - Not a big fan of his.

 

Energy - As long as we're not screwing up the environment.

[metadigital]

Wow! Im surprised someone brought this up (adoption issue).

 

Its an issue close to me heart.

 

...

I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY against gays being allowed to adopt children.

...

Children can be the cruelest people you have ever met, they dont mean to many times but lack the knowledge of what is teasing and what is going over the line. Growing up adopted is NOT an easy life in the most perfect situation. When children find out you are adopted you will be harrassed with hurtful words like you were thrown away, you were not wanted, ect ect ect from other children. As a teen ager or older you understand these words mean nothing (for the most part) and can defend yourself. As a child though these words carry great weight and impact you greatly. Its NOT an easy thing to just brush off and ignore in your early years.

 

So the LAST thing an adopted child needs is to have a family make up that will be ridiculed and insulted. Having gay parents WILL cause you to be ostrasized and make for a easy target by other children. No matter how politically correct the area you live in is, no matter how loving your adopted parents may or may not be, just the fact they are gay will make you and easy target for badgering and torment.

 

I think gay people that adopt children are some of the MOST selfish and arrogent people on the face of the planet. They willingly place the child into harms way so they can feel BETTER about themselves. Only a idiot would assume their life style would not be open fodder to those looking to hurt or embaress the child that was adopted.

 

You can say the child is special because they were choosen a million times every day, it doesnt carry much weight when others intentionally target you for harrassment. Many ADULT gay people stay in the closet because of said harressment, as adults that is their choice, but what gives them the right to intentionally place a child in  the line of fire? Its selfish and ignorant.

 

Now people can talk about family values, people can talk about learned life styles, they both good topics that do carry some weight, but in the end, when all is said and done. Any choice about a child being adopted should come down to whats best for the CHILD, whats good for the parents shouldnt come into the equation what so ever. ONLY WHATS BEST FOR THE CHILD! Being raised in a homosexual family puts undue and unneeded stress on the child and puts them in harms way regardless of intentions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You speak from the heart, your intentions are good, but still your logic is wrong.

 

To paraphrase your argument, you are stating that gay people should not be permited to adopt children because of the endemic bigotry shown by children in our societies. In other words, you are condoning the flaws in society, and advocating that we should not fix society, but rather minimize the damage that these flaws produce.

 

Shouldn't we try to fix the society, to prevent children (and therefore, hopefully when they grow up, adults) from having retarded world views? Instead on enshrining the sexist / homophobic / racist values, we should challenge them and defeat them. Surely, even from a strictly socio-political viewpoint (religion aside) we want the society to be fairer to all, not more unfair.

 

I know you didn't mean this, but let's just take your argument to an extreme: let's look at racism. Would you advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children of a different race?

 

No, I disagree. We need to do more to fix the society. And yes, I am aware it is easy for someone who has already grown up and will never face the truly ghastly scenarios personally, but still I see this as a way -- the only way -- to reach a better society. We let young innocent men die for their country in war; well bigotry is a war, too. When this war is over, think of the young children and their society giving thanks to the pioneers for creating a fairer world.

[Kalfear]

You speak from the heart, your intentions are good, but still your logic is wrong.

 

To paraphrase your argument, you are stating that gay people should not be permited to adopt children because of the endemic bigotry shown by children in our societies. In other words, you are condoning the flaws in society, and advocating that we should not fix society, but rather minimize the damage that these flaws produce.

 

Shouldn't we try to fix the society, to prevent children (and therefore, hopefully  when they grow up, adults) from having retarded world views? Instead on enshrining the sexist / homophobic / racist values, we should challenge them and defeat them. Surely, even from a strictly socio-political viewpoint (religion aside) we want the society to be fairer to all, not more unfair.

 

I know you didn't mean this, but let's just take your argument to an extreme: let's look at racism. Would you advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children of a different race?

 

No, I disagree. We need to do more to fix the society. And yes, I am aware it is easy for someone who has already grown up and will never face the truly ghastly scenarios personally, but still I see this as a way -- the only way -- to reach a better society. We let young innocent men die for their country in war; well bigotry is a war, too. When this war is over, think of the young children and their society giving thanks to the pioneers for creating a fairer world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not condoning societies bigotry Meta. In a perfect world this wouldnt be a issue what so ever. BUT its not a perfect world and until it is we need to side on the side of whats best for the child.

 

Sure its not fair that many (cant say all as some gays, like some of other minorities do bring it upon themselves) homosexuals are not treated fairly. In almost any topic Ill side on the side of equal rights and common sence, but this specific topic involves a 3rd party. IMO that 3rd party takes precidence over everyone else. Whats fair, whats decent, whats common sence only applies to the 3rd party IMO as thats the only party not able to have a say in the preceedings.

 

Its like back in the 50s and the racial thing. Was racism good? Of course not. Should Black have had to live through racism? Of course not. BUT if a black person went into a all white diner they knew what the responce would be. The difference in this topic is rather then the adult going into the diner of his/her own free will, they are instead placing a newborn in the diner rather then themselves. Obviously the newborn cant defend itself, doesnt understand the situation or why its on the recieving end of unreasonable hatred, but it is all the same.

 

Sure when someone adopts a child everyone should react decently and compassionately. BUT we already know thats NOT going to be the case. So until society is fixed the children shouldnt be the ones placed on the front lines of the battle.

 

Yes society is messed up when it hates something or someone because they are different, Ill never argue that point as its the most basic common sence. But its even more basic common sence that you dont place children in harms way because of the intolerence out there. And thats really whats happening when homosexuals adopt children at this point in time. Fix the problem FIRST then adopt so the child doesnt come to harm because of the problem.

 

Maybe some day society will reach that point. I suspect the topic will get alot uglier before it gets better though to be honest. Children shouldnt have to pay for situations they had nothing what so ever to do with and no say in though.

 

As I said in original post, on this topic ONLY the child matters. Not society, not homosexuals, not anything other then the child. As they are the only one truely innocent (bad word but stresses the point im trying to make) regarding the topic.

 

Opps PS: You ask would I disagree with people of a different race being allowed to adopt a child.

 

No I wouldnt. But you must understand that comes from the current situation of todays world and the climate I live in. Racism is far less likely to happen in Canada today compared to biogtry towards homosexuals.

 

If you asked me during the 2nd World war if Japaneese Canadians should be allowed to adopt children I would have said NO because at that time and place the climate was far different (japanesse Canadians were imprisoned after the attack on Pearl Habor in Canada). If you asked me if a Black family in the United states should have been allowed to adopt in the 1950s I would have said NO. Again because of the climate of the times.

 

Whats best for the child takes precidence over everything else. Its not a relection of whats right or wrong, its a refection of the times and whats best for the child. Nothing else matters.

[metadigital]

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that a child should be placed in an exposed situation.

 

What I would expect to be the next step is to make society prevent the vulnerable / different from persecution.

 

But still, according to your "lawful good" absolute moral stance (which I'm not disagreeing with, just playing Devil's Advocate), when would we know that the children in the society wouldn't victimize a child of "different" parents?

 

At some point someone has to be the first to test the bridge by stepping on it ...

 

[Kalfear]

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that a child should be placed in an exposed situation.

 

What I would expect to be the next step is to make society prevent the vulnerable / different from persecution.

 

But still, according to your "lawful good" absolute moral stance (which I'm not disagreeing with, just playing Devil's Advocate), when would we know that the children in the society wouldn't victimize a child of "different" parents?

 

At some point someone has to be the first to test the bridge by stepping on it ...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When would we know?

 

I cant give a hard answer on that, all I can say really is its not now.

 

Obviously the chances are the situation will never be 100% predictable, but when society reaches a point were we can reasonably assume the safety of the child is when we allow it.

 

Only real example I can give is now (2005) when know a child being raised in a mixed racial family would probably not be ostrasized to any great extent (doubt we ever hit 100%).

 

But the veiws of society towards homosexuals is not at the same level as it is towards other races. Id say today homosexuals looked at more like blacks were in the 1960s. Its going to take time to change that veiw and erase the hatered or fear towards them. Im sure it will happen, but todays society is not yet at that point.

 

Thats really about the best I can explain it.

 

As I said above, I think the Gay movement will get alot bumpier before it gets better though to be honest. People tend to resist change and others try to force change, those two sides are going to clash yet, and when they do, do you really want children on the front lines of the fight? I sure dont. Fix the over all problem and then start adding in the extras rights over time. To much to fast will always cause confrontation and situations.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If you live in a place where gays are discriminated against and not tolerated by society, perhaps being adopted by a gay couple would lead to the child being harmed. But we can't assume that everywhere is like that. This is an argument not for banning adoption by gays, but for allowing it (and also asking adoption officials to consider this factor in judging the suitability of gay couples).

 

But nevertheless, we need to balance the potential for unhappiness caused by bullies, against the very real happiness that comes from having loving parents. And remember that real progress can be made in overcoming intolerance and discrimination if the issue is brought out into the open.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Terrorism is a bigger threat to our lives than MAD ever was, because if there was one thing the Soviets weren't, they weren't martyrs.

You, my dear, are either truly paranoid or completely ignorant of what the concept of MAD entails. Or perhaps you just underestimate the chances of nuclear war happening during the Cold War. You say that the soviets weren't martyrs but you are quite wrong. They were willing to retaliate to a nuclear attack with one of their own even knowing that such action would only mean to die killing. Isn't that what a martyr does?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Key word in your post: "Retaliate" We saw during WW2 that Russians are willing to die by the millions to protect their country. But to attack another nation with nuclear weapons only to be assured their own destruction... not so much. What good is having power if you're too dead to enjoy it?

I'm neither paranoid (I have no fear of terrorist attacks, because I don't live near a good target) and I know exactly what MAD entails. The Soviets weren't stupid enough to blow themselves up and were driven more by power than by ideology.

 

My dear.

[draakh_kimera]

Am I wrong when I say that the Cuba crisis could have led to nuclear war? Sure, the Soviet wasn't quite as much a threat as Cuba, but they were supplying the goods. I may be mistaken but wasn't the US pretty close to launching bombs? Cause that would've meant MAD.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Am I wrong when I say that the Cuba crisis could have led to nuclear war?  Sure, the Soviet wasn't quite as much a threat as Cuba, but they were supplying the goods.  I may be mistaken but wasn't the US pretty close to launching bombs?  Cause that would've meant MAD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was close to war, but nuclear? Who knows. Again, it was the US that was close to launching, and it's actually a great example of what I'm talking about because the USSR backed down.

[WITHTEETH]

Am I wrong when I say that the Cuba crisis could have led to nuclear war?  Sure, the Soviet wasn't quite as much a threat as Cuba, but they were supplying the goods.  I may be mistaken but wasn't the US pretty close to launching bombs?  Cause that would've meant MAD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was close to war, but nuclear? Who knows. Again, it was the US that was close to launching, and it's actually a great example of what I'm talking about because the USSR backed down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel both sides didn't go further then they had too, neither backed down. Smart how JFK called the it a quarentine when the US Gov. was stopping everyship that was near the Americas.

[Cantousent]

Actually, it was a bit of a compromise, but history claims the USSR backed down. Of course, I think that it's great that the USSR "backed-down." That's far better than the United States backing down.

 

You fear terrorism? So do I. The best way to embolden terrorists is to "back down" to their demands.

 

The Soviet Union was a sick empire. It required continued conquests in order to maintain itself. That, more than anything, led to its destruction. It labored under a deficient economic model. The people lacked even the freedom of expression.

 

Now, we could say that Ronald Reagan helped usher the fall of the Soviet Union, and I would be quite glad to say and, moreover, proud. ...But don't be fooled into thinking that the Soviet Union was brought down by one man. It could never have happened without the willing, even gleeful, compliance of so many Soviet leaders.

 

Terrorism would not be the scourge it is today without the Soviet Union? Perhaps you forget one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell apart: the ill advised attempt to annex Afghanistan. Hmm, the Soviet Union held back terrorists? How about creating the wonderful environment in which the Taliban could flourish.